.svg)
Before we dig in, a programming note: This is the last regular issue before I duck out on a much-needed vacation. We’re dialing down, not out: expect the odd scoop or the occasional deep-read in my absence. I’ll be back in early August. May your July be quiet, calm and drama-free.
Q+A — Steve Paikin isn’t going anywhere.
Though the veteran broadcaster will close The Agenda for the last time tonight, don’t call it a retirement. “I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late,” Paikin said in a 40-minute Zoom interview earlier this month.
Instead, he’s “rewiring.” Though he’s still sketching out what that’ll look like, Paikin says he’s sticking with the kind of work that’s kept him going for more than four decades. And on that work, he’s got plenty to tell: on what’s changed about journalism, why moderating debates should never be about the moderator and why Doug Ford has been a no-show on his program.
Before we dig in, a programming note: This is the last regular issue before I duck out on a much-needed vacation. We’re dialing down, not out: expect the odd scoop or the occasional deep-read in my absence. I’ll be back in early August. May your July be quiet, calm and drama-free.
Q+A — Steve Paikin isn’t going anywhere.
Though the veteran broadcaster will close The Agenda for the last time tonight, don’t call it a retirement. “I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late,” Paikin said in a 40-minute Zoom interview earlier this month.
Instead, he’s “rewiring.” Though he’s still sketching out what that’ll look like, Paikin says he’s sticking with the kind of work that’s kept him going for more than four decades. And on that work, he’s got plenty to tell: on what’s changed about journalism, why moderating debates should never be about the moderator and why Doug Ford has been a no-show on his program.
Before we dig in, a programming note: This is the last regular issue before I duck out on a much-needed vacation. We’re dialing down, not out: expect the odd scoop or the occasional deep-read in my absence. I’ll be back in early August. May your July be quiet, calm and drama-free.
Q+A — Steve Paikin isn’t going anywhere.
Though the veteran broadcaster will close The Agenda for the last time tonight, don’t call it a retirement. “I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late,” Paikin said in a 40-minute Zoom interview earlier this month.
Instead, he’s “rewiring.” Though he’s still sketching out what that’ll look like, Paikin says he’s sticking with the kind of work that’s kept him going for more than four decades. And on that work, he’s got plenty to tell: on what’s changed about journalism, why moderating debates should never be about the moderator and why Doug Ford has been a no-show on his program.
We caught up with him to chat about the end of The Agenda — and why his work isn’t over.
Here’s our conversation, edited for length and clarity:
How are you feeling?
“I feel great about all of it. If you had told me when I signed my first contract to do The Agenda 19 years ago that I’d get to host the show for this long, I’d have said you were crazy — it’ll never last that long. So the fact that it has is a great joy. But you can’t overstay your welcome with these things, and I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late. That’s why, three years ago, I decided this would be my last contract. We’ll see what comes next.”
What was the moment when you thought, “This is it — I don’t want to renew again, I want to step aside”? What made you feel that way?
“I can’t say that there was a moment. Well, you’re actually getting me today on my 65th birthday. I remember thinking when I was 62, signing this, ’Okay, this contract will take me to 65.’ And, you know, if I’m ever going to have a chance to do some of the other things in my so-called career that I want to do, I’m running out of runway. So I thought three years ago, ’This probably ought to be the last contract.’ And they were very good about it. They said, ’We can re-up if you want.’ But I thought, ’No, this feels right. Let’s go out while things are still, I think, reasonably good,’ and see what’s next.”
Take me back to the beginning. What drew you into journalism?
“I knew the moment I wanted to be a broadcaster. It was actually before my first classes had even started at the University of Toronto, back in 1978. I went to Hart House during Clubs Night, which I think was still in the last week of August. Classes hadn’t started yet. I walked in and saw all these tables — the chess club, the debate club, the archery club, the photography club. And then I saw a table that said U of T Radio. And I’m telling you, it was like a eureka light went off above my head. I walked over and asked, ’Do you guys have anybody who does the play-by-play for the Varsity Blues hockey or football teams?’ And they said, ’No.’ I said, ’Well, could I do it?’ And they said, ’Sure.’ And that was it. That was my first gig in radio — doing sportscasting and play-by-play, the voice of the Varsity Blues hockey and football teams. It just kind of grew from there. I eventually became the sports editor at the student paper — not The Varsity, but The Newspaper. And it really took off from there."
Now, on your way out —
“Well, I’m not on my way out of journalism — I’m staying in journalism. That’s the first thing. Let me clarify that I’m stepping away from The Agenda, but I’m continuing with a number of other projects. I’ll still be hosting the #onpoli podcast and writing a weekly column for TVO. I’m also going to keep doing our monthly town hall show, TVO Today Live. And I’ll continue with the short five-minute YouTube segments we do called Ontario Chronicles, which focus on political history. So, yes, I’m reducing my time at TVO, but I’m not leaving TVO. Over the last six months, I’ve been in the process of figuring out what to do with the time I’ve spent on The Agenda, and that’s starting to become clearer — though I’m not quite there yet.”
But how do you think journalism has changed since you first got into it?
“Well, I mean — massively, catastrophically, amazingly — take your pick. Use any adverb you want. It’s just so different. So, so different.
My first full-time job in journalism was in 1982, so obviously, things have changed dramatically since then. Technically speaking, I remember going out to do interviews with a cassette tape recorder, bringing them back to the newsroom, transferring them to reel-to-reel, then voicing my reports. We’d literally take a razor blade and cut the tape to edit the audio — that’s how prehistoric it was when I started. Of course, none of that happens anymore. The technical capabilities we have now are extraordinary — but I sometimes wonder if our brains have been able to keep up with all these advancements.
Back then, working in legacy media came with a certain gatekeeping function. You had editors. People read your work before it was published. When I was at CBC, I did over a thousand TV news pieces, and every single script I wrote was reviewed by two editors before I even got to the editing booth. Then someone else watched the final piece before it went to air. That was called quality control. We don’t really have that anymore — or at least, we have far less of it. Some of the quality control that does exist isn’t even in the same building anymore — sometimes it’s in a different country. So the standards in legacy media aren’t what they used to be.
On top of that, anyone with an iPhone now considers themselves a journalist. And in some ways, they are — but in many ways, they’re not. And all of this stuff is concerning to me.”
Do you ever worry that journalism, as an industry, is fading away — or even dying?
“I don’t think so. It’s just changing — cataclysmically. People still want to know stuff. The way they’re learning about stuff is very different, and that’s okay. And, you know, those of us who are in this game have to figure out how to move with the times. I hope, in our stampede toward whatever comes next — or whatever the latest fad is — we’re not going to lose some of the basic things that I think we still ought to care about: accuracy, neutrality, fairness, balance. I still think those are important things. And there seems to be a lot less worshiping at the altar of those things nowadays, because anybody with a cell phone and an opinion thinks they’re on the same plane as a columnist for The New York Times who’s been at it for 25 years. I’m sorry if it sounds snooty — but they’re not. I think experience counts for something in journalism. Quality control matters. Editing matters. Fact-checking matters. People still ought to care about all those things.”
When you set out to create The Agenda, what was the original mission or vision for the show?
“We called the show The Agenda because we were presumptuous enough to think, not that we had an agenda, but that the issues we felt were important to be engaged on at the dawn of the 21st century — which was when the show debuted, in 2006 — we thought we could make a contribution to the public’s understanding of the issues and engage them on it.
We wanted to do it in a way that was, we hoped, distinctive from what everything else on the dial was doing. I noticed that there are all-news channels on this continent, and they’re great — they give us a window into the world, 24/7 — but I also noticed that they’ve fallen into the formula of basically not allowing any interviews to go longer than six minutes, or any panel discussions to go longer than 20 minutes. And yes, there are some exceptions, but not too many. We very much wanted to plant our flag firmly for long-form journalism — for longer one-on-ones and longer panel discussions. And if it meant we were only going to cover two or three issues per program instead of seven or eight, then okay.”
Do you think that the kind of long-form journalism you really tried to push — especially at a time when it wasn’t widely practiced — had an impact? And to what extent do you feel it had a measurable impact on the public’s understanding of policy?
“I don’t think they leave you on the air for 19 years if the people who make the decisions at TVO aren’t satisfied that you’re having some kind of impact. I couldn’t begin to know how to measure that — but let’s just say, there isn’t a day that goes by when someone doesn’t stop me on the subway, or on the street, or somewhere, to talk about something they saw on The Agenda. So, yeah — I’m happy about that.”
Was there ever a topic you felt strongly about covering, even if others were hesitant? Maybe one that really stands out — something you personally cared about?
“I’m sure there was. Now, if you put me on the spot and ask me what it is, I have a hard time telling you… Well, all right — I’ll give you something that’s happening right now. I happen to believe that the most important election of my lifetime took place in 1985, 40 years ago this month, in fact. And I went to the executive producer last month and said, ’The 40th anniversary of the election that ended a 42-year-long Progressive Conservative dynasty is coming up in June 2025, and we should do a show on it.’” And I don’t know that anybody else — I saw David Herle just did a show on it — but I don’t think too many others will. That’s something I pitched, and happily, it was accepted.”
Your toughest interview?
Oh, that predates The Agenda. My most difficult interview was on a show I used to do called Studio 2 and it was with Mordecai Richler. I got him on a bad day. He just didn’t want to be there. I still have nightmares about how badly that interview went.
Go on.
“I tried to engage him — he’d written a book, he was on a book tour. I don’t know if he didn’t like the book, didn’t like me, or just didn’t want to be there. But all of his answers were two- or three-word replies. I just couldn’t get anything out of him. And the format of that show — Studio 2 — was that after the interview ended, the director would cut to a wide shot, they’d kill the mics, and we’d just sit there and chat casually for five seconds before fading to black. But in that interview, when they cut to the wide shot, what you saw was Mordecai ripping off his microphone and walking off the set. He couldn’t wait five more seconds to get out of there. It was fascinating — and honestly, I don’t know what went wrong. I was a friend of his son, who actually used to host a show at TVO. We even talked about that during the interview — but it didn’t help. He was just a very uncooperative interviewee that day.”
There aren’t many journalists who’ve moderated as many federal and provincial leaders’ debates as you have. From some experience, moderating a debate is one of the most daunting challenges a journalist can face. I’m curious, from your perspective, what is the role of the moderator supposed to be? Particularly now, when journalists and moderators are under intense scrutiny, how do you look at the job?
“First and foremost, the role of a moderator is to make sure you don’t get mentioned in the papers the next day. That basically means being scrupulously fair — making sure everybody gets roughly the same amount of time, and making sure all the leaders come away from the experience feeling like they were treated fairly.
I don’t believe the moderator’s job is to fact-check. I think you get into trouble when you do that. If the leaders want to fact-check each other, that’s fine, but I don’t see that as my role. I do see it as my job to make sure they’re not all yelling over each other. That contributes nothing to a civilized debate, and the viewing public gets nothing out of that.
At the end of the day, you have to remind yourself what this is all about. It’s about giving the leaders a chance to respond to neutral, lean, open-ended questions — not about showing off how tough you can be or peacocking in front of the cameras. It’s about them. It’s about giving them a chance, under a clear set of rules, to engage with each other and convince Canadians why they’re the best option for their vote.”
Any interesting anecdotes?
“I remember reading the introduction on debate night [in 2006], and the teleprompter went dead just as I was starting. I remember thinking to myself, ’Someone upstairs has a pretty funny sense of humor — first they pull my name out of a hat [to moderate the debate], and now this.’ But whatever — I got through it. And I guess I didn’t do a horrible job, because they asked me eight more times.”
You’ve written about Premier Ford not coming on The Agenda. You’re known for being a tough interviewer — always balanced, but tough. Beyond Mr. Ford, have you run into that kind of resistance from other politicians over the years?
“The short answer is no. I think most people are very happy to come on The Agenda because, first, they know I’ll be fair. Second, I don’t force people to speak in 10-second clips — it’s a show where you’re allowed to speak in paragraphs. And third, we almost never edit. Occasionally we’ll have to make small edits for time, but guests know that what they say on set is what’s going to air that night. So, most people are quite happy to be on the program because they actually get a chance to express themselves in some depth. There are a few notable exceptions — people who’ve chosen not to come on — and I think that’s a shame. But that’s their choice. There’s no law that says anyone has to come on The Agenda.”
But he’d talk to American reporters. Does that irk you?
“I’ve always thought it was a little strange that his people wouldn’t make him available to TVO, given that he technically owns TVO. It’s the one media outlet in all of North America that he actually owns. So yeah, I always found that kind of funny. But let me hasten to add — and this is the truth — he and I have a very good professional relationship. A solid one. He’s been on TVO before: he came on for a leadership debate, he came on when his book came out and he came on once when he was running for mayor. He just hasn’t appeared in the seven years he’s been Premier. It’s not that he doesn’t like me. I think we like each other just fine. But for whatever reason, his people stopped returning my emails months and months ago. I don’t know why. They just refuse to even consider the request. And even when they did respond, the answer was always the same: ’The Premier is unavailable.’ That was it. So, I don’t know the reason. No one’s ever told me. But clearly, there is a reason — because we’ve never managed to get him.”
How do you manage having close family involved in politics while your job is to maintain neutrality and objectivity as a journalist? How do you find that balance?
“I don’t think you can ever say to journalists, ’If any member of your family has an interest in an issue you’re covering, then you can’t be seen as an honest broker and therefore you shouldn’t cover it.’ I just think that’s ridiculous. The reality is, anyone who’s engaged in public life — as I am, and as my broader family has been — is going to encounter appearances of conflict. All you can do is acknowledge them.
So, when we cover health care issues, I disclose that my wife is a health policy consultant. Years ago, my mother was chair of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and when we did stories on nuclear power — this was before The Agenda — I would disclose that too. My brother is a home builder in southern Ontario, so whenever we do housing issues, I say that on air.
The notion that I should somehow avoid covering health care, energy, or housing — just because I have relatives involved in those areas — is absurd. And those are only three people. I have other relatives with stakes in other fields. What am I supposed to do — avoid covering half of public policy? We don’t live in a world where everyone around you is completely disengaged. That’s just not realistic. So all you can do is be transparent: disclose what you know, acknowledge the potential appearance of conflict, and let the audience make up their own minds about whether you’re being fair.”
How hard was it for you to leave work at work? As a journalist, you’re always on your phone, people are always talking to you. How hard was it to make that balance?
“The word isn’t hard — the word is impossible. I never could. It was always a struggle for me not to reach for my iPhone during dinner. Back in the day, when I was doing Studio 2 and the early years of The Agenda, we were live at 8 p.m. I lived two blocks from the studio, so I’d race home for a quick dinner. But even when I was home, I wasn’t what you’d call fully present. It was an hour, maybe an hour and a half before airtime, and I had to stay in touch with the home office to see what was going on. That’s kind of the way I’ve always lived — whenever I’m doing something or talking to someone, part of me is always thinking: ’Is this a story? Is this something for the show? Could I write a column about this?’ That’s just my innate curiosity, which I’ve never lost.”
OK, I’m curious: what are Steve Paikin’s side hobbies?
“I play hockey once or twice a week, which I still love to do. And every year, I take a baseball road trip — I love doing that. I might do a couple this year, actually.
You’ve got more time now, right?
[Laughs].
“Not really. I don’t actually have more time — I’m working to set up my post-Agenda life. So no, I’m not retiring. I’m rewiring.”
What do you want that rewired life to look like?
“I don’t know yet — I’m still figuring it out. But I can tell you this: it won’t be a job. What I want is a mix of different things — different buckets. That’s one of the things I’ve loved most about working at TVO: I’ve been able to do a lot of different things under one roof. I could host a nightly TV show, but also write a column, host a monthly town hall, do YouTube segments like Nerds on Politics or Ontario Chronicle, and even attend events and live-tweet them like a reporter. That variety really worked for me. And whatever I do next, I want it to be just as varied.”
— The House is out for the summer.
— Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy is taking Bill 9 on the road.
Haven’t weighed in yet? You still can — in writing. Want to have your say elsewhere? Make a submission.
— The New Leaf Liberals are set to host two summer stops — one in Toronto on July 10, one in Ottawa on July 17.
To rewind: The group is calling for a full-scale overhaul of the party — and new leadership to lead it. They blame Bonnie Crombie for her “inability to undertake the necessary steps to rebuild our party," and say that if she’s unable to lock in two-thirds support in September, she should quit.
— A giant new flag just went up over the front doors of Queen’s Park.
Recall: Canada Day at the Park — a 10 to 5 p.m. event — will feature live performances, midway rides, family-friendly games, roaming entertainers, self-guided tours of the building and more. Yes, there’ll be food. More.
The Board of Internal Economy had green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s party.se
— Farewell: Sol Mamakwa’s wife, Pearl, has died. “She was a devoted wife, a loving mother and a proud grandmother,” he wrote. “Pearl’s strength, kindness, and unconditional love were the foundation of our family, and her absence leaves a void that can never be filled.”
The tributes:
Viewing will be held today at St. Mary’s Anglican Church from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., followed by the funeral from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. Burial will take place at 2:00 p.m. at Northway Cemetery, with a reception to follow. More.
— “You never know.” Asked if he’s eyeing Pierre Poilievre’s job, that was Doug Ford’s answer.
— One NDP MPP says forcing a non-disclosure agreement on labour leaders is “not appropriate.”
— Renderings are out for the 5-storey parking garage at Ontario Place. No decision yet on where the temporary Science Centre will go.
— Don’t ask Doug. Ford says the project’s financing isn’t his problem.
— The Ford government’s goal of 1.5 million homes by 2031 might not cut it, with internal projections suggesting as many as 2.1 million may be needed.
— Meanwhile, Ontario is not on pace to hit a key climate change target with less than 5 years to go.
— Metrolinx has a new CEO. So too does Infrastructure Ontario.
— A new hospital in Mississauga will be the first to specialize in care for women and children.
— One councillor is calling for a pause on automated speed enforcement in Toronto, arguing they’re more trap than deterrent.
— Complaints against lawyers and paralegals — including for sexual harassment — are being kept secret.
— The provincial ombudsman says crammed provincial jails are undermining the justice system.
— Wildfire personnel are getting a raise and a new title.
— In Liberal land, some are blaming Crombie’s co-campaign directors for how February played out.
— Between mid-December and mid-February, $38 million was spent on cross-border ads. Most of it landed on Fox News.
— John Michael McGrath is asking if the Ford government’s move to kill Toronto’s green standard for construction could land in court. Steve Paikin was in the room on a night that paid tribute to the Peterson-era. More from Martin Regg Cohn. Meanwhile, he says it’s time for Doug Ford to admit Bill 5 was a mistake. On whether Ford is thinking federally, Gerry Nicholls has some summer speculation.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Got a tip, a story idea or an annoying boss? I’m all ears — and I don’t name names. I’ll be back in your inbox in early August — don’t miss me too much.
Before we dig in, a programming note: This is the last regular issue before I duck out on a much-needed vacation. We’re dialing down, not out: expect the odd scoop or the occasional deep-read in my absence. I’ll be back in early August. May your July be quiet, calm and drama-free.
Q+A — Steve Paikin isn’t going anywhere.
Though the veteran broadcaster will close The Agenda for the last time tonight, don’t call it a retirement. “I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late,” Paikin said in a 40-minute Zoom interview earlier this month.
Instead, he’s “rewiring.” Though he’s still sketching out what that’ll look like, Paikin says he’s sticking with the kind of work that’s kept him going for more than four decades. And on that work, he’s got plenty to tell: on what’s changed about journalism, why moderating debates should never be about the moderator and why Doug Ford has been a no-show on his program.
We caught up with him to chat about the end of The Agenda — and why his work isn’t over.
Here’s our conversation, edited for length and clarity:
How are you feeling?
“I feel great about all of it. If you had told me when I signed my first contract to do The Agenda 19 years ago that I’d get to host the show for this long, I’d have said you were crazy — it’ll never last that long. So the fact that it has is a great joy. But you can’t overstay your welcome with these things, and I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late. That’s why, three years ago, I decided this would be my last contract. We’ll see what comes next.”
What was the moment when you thought, “This is it — I don’t want to renew again, I want to step aside”? What made you feel that way?
“I can’t say that there was a moment. Well, you’re actually getting me today on my 65th birthday. I remember thinking when I was 62, signing this, ’Okay, this contract will take me to 65.’ And, you know, if I’m ever going to have a chance to do some of the other things in my so-called career that I want to do, I’m running out of runway. So I thought three years ago, ’This probably ought to be the last contract.’ And they were very good about it. They said, ’We can re-up if you want.’ But I thought, ’No, this feels right. Let’s go out while things are still, I think, reasonably good,’ and see what’s next.”
Take me back to the beginning. What drew you into journalism?
“I knew the moment I wanted to be a broadcaster. It was actually before my first classes had even started at the University of Toronto, back in 1978. I went to Hart House during Clubs Night, which I think was still in the last week of August. Classes hadn’t started yet. I walked in and saw all these tables — the chess club, the debate club, the archery club, the photography club. And then I saw a table that said U of T Radio. And I’m telling you, it was like a eureka light went off above my head. I walked over and asked, ’Do you guys have anybody who does the play-by-play for the Varsity Blues hockey or football teams?’ And they said, ’No.’ I said, ’Well, could I do it?’ And they said, ’Sure.’ And that was it. That was my first gig in radio — doing sportscasting and play-by-play, the voice of the Varsity Blues hockey and football teams. It just kind of grew from there. I eventually became the sports editor at the student paper — not The Varsity, but The Newspaper. And it really took off from there."
Now, on your way out —
“Well, I’m not on my way out of journalism — I’m staying in journalism. That’s the first thing. Let me clarify that I’m stepping away from The Agenda, but I’m continuing with a number of other projects. I’ll still be hosting the #onpoli podcast and writing a weekly column for TVO. I’m also going to keep doing our monthly town hall show, TVO Today Live. And I’ll continue with the short five-minute YouTube segments we do called Ontario Chronicles, which focus on political history. So, yes, I’m reducing my time at TVO, but I’m not leaving TVO. Over the last six months, I’ve been in the process of figuring out what to do with the time I’ve spent on The Agenda, and that’s starting to become clearer — though I’m not quite there yet.”
But how do you think journalism has changed since you first got into it?
“Well, I mean — massively, catastrophically, amazingly — take your pick. Use any adverb you want. It’s just so different. So, so different.
My first full-time job in journalism was in 1982, so obviously, things have changed dramatically since then. Technically speaking, I remember going out to do interviews with a cassette tape recorder, bringing them back to the newsroom, transferring them to reel-to-reel, then voicing my reports. We’d literally take a razor blade and cut the tape to edit the audio — that’s how prehistoric it was when I started. Of course, none of that happens anymore. The technical capabilities we have now are extraordinary — but I sometimes wonder if our brains have been able to keep up with all these advancements.
Back then, working in legacy media came with a certain gatekeeping function. You had editors. People read your work before it was published. When I was at CBC, I did over a thousand TV news pieces, and every single script I wrote was reviewed by two editors before I even got to the editing booth. Then someone else watched the final piece before it went to air. That was called quality control. We don’t really have that anymore — or at least, we have far less of it. Some of the quality control that does exist isn’t even in the same building anymore — sometimes it’s in a different country. So the standards in legacy media aren’t what they used to be.
On top of that, anyone with an iPhone now considers themselves a journalist. And in some ways, they are — but in many ways, they’re not. And all of this stuff is concerning to me.”
Do you ever worry that journalism, as an industry, is fading away — or even dying?
“I don’t think so. It’s just changing — cataclysmically. People still want to know stuff. The way they’re learning about stuff is very different, and that’s okay. And, you know, those of us who are in this game have to figure out how to move with the times. I hope, in our stampede toward whatever comes next — or whatever the latest fad is — we’re not going to lose some of the basic things that I think we still ought to care about: accuracy, neutrality, fairness, balance. I still think those are important things. And there seems to be a lot less worshiping at the altar of those things nowadays, because anybody with a cell phone and an opinion thinks they’re on the same plane as a columnist for The New York Times who’s been at it for 25 years. I’m sorry if it sounds snooty — but they’re not. I think experience counts for something in journalism. Quality control matters. Editing matters. Fact-checking matters. People still ought to care about all those things.”
When you set out to create The Agenda, what was the original mission or vision for the show?
“We called the show The Agenda because we were presumptuous enough to think, not that we had an agenda, but that the issues we felt were important to be engaged on at the dawn of the 21st century — which was when the show debuted, in 2006 — we thought we could make a contribution to the public’s understanding of the issues and engage them on it.
We wanted to do it in a way that was, we hoped, distinctive from what everything else on the dial was doing. I noticed that there are all-news channels on this continent, and they’re great — they give us a window into the world, 24/7 — but I also noticed that they’ve fallen into the formula of basically not allowing any interviews to go longer than six minutes, or any panel discussions to go longer than 20 minutes. And yes, there are some exceptions, but not too many. We very much wanted to plant our flag firmly for long-form journalism — for longer one-on-ones and longer panel discussions. And if it meant we were only going to cover two or three issues per program instead of seven or eight, then okay.”
Do you think that the kind of long-form journalism you really tried to push — especially at a time when it wasn’t widely practiced — had an impact? And to what extent do you feel it had a measurable impact on the public’s understanding of policy?
“I don’t think they leave you on the air for 19 years if the people who make the decisions at TVO aren’t satisfied that you’re having some kind of impact. I couldn’t begin to know how to measure that — but let’s just say, there isn’t a day that goes by when someone doesn’t stop me on the subway, or on the street, or somewhere, to talk about something they saw on The Agenda. So, yeah — I’m happy about that.”
Was there ever a topic you felt strongly about covering, even if others were hesitant? Maybe one that really stands out — something you personally cared about?
“I’m sure there was. Now, if you put me on the spot and ask me what it is, I have a hard time telling you… Well, all right — I’ll give you something that’s happening right now. I happen to believe that the most important election of my lifetime took place in 1985, 40 years ago this month, in fact. And I went to the executive producer last month and said, ’The 40th anniversary of the election that ended a 42-year-long Progressive Conservative dynasty is coming up in June 2025, and we should do a show on it.’” And I don’t know that anybody else — I saw David Herle just did a show on it — but I don’t think too many others will. That’s something I pitched, and happily, it was accepted.”
Your toughest interview?
Oh, that predates The Agenda. My most difficult interview was on a show I used to do called Studio 2 and it was with Mordecai Richler. I got him on a bad day. He just didn’t want to be there. I still have nightmares about how badly that interview went.
Go on.
“I tried to engage him — he’d written a book, he was on a book tour. I don’t know if he didn’t like the book, didn’t like me, or just didn’t want to be there. But all of his answers were two- or three-word replies. I just couldn’t get anything out of him. And the format of that show — Studio 2 — was that after the interview ended, the director would cut to a wide shot, they’d kill the mics, and we’d just sit there and chat casually for five seconds before fading to black. But in that interview, when they cut to the wide shot, what you saw was Mordecai ripping off his microphone and walking off the set. He couldn’t wait five more seconds to get out of there. It was fascinating — and honestly, I don’t know what went wrong. I was a friend of his son, who actually used to host a show at TVO. We even talked about that during the interview — but it didn’t help. He was just a very uncooperative interviewee that day.”
There aren’t many journalists who’ve moderated as many federal and provincial leaders’ debates as you have. From some experience, moderating a debate is one of the most daunting challenges a journalist can face. I’m curious, from your perspective, what is the role of the moderator supposed to be? Particularly now, when journalists and moderators are under intense scrutiny, how do you look at the job?
“First and foremost, the role of a moderator is to make sure you don’t get mentioned in the papers the next day. That basically means being scrupulously fair — making sure everybody gets roughly the same amount of time, and making sure all the leaders come away from the experience feeling like they were treated fairly.
I don’t believe the moderator’s job is to fact-check. I think you get into trouble when you do that. If the leaders want to fact-check each other, that’s fine, but I don’t see that as my role. I do see it as my job to make sure they’re not all yelling over each other. That contributes nothing to a civilized debate, and the viewing public gets nothing out of that.
At the end of the day, you have to remind yourself what this is all about. It’s about giving the leaders a chance to respond to neutral, lean, open-ended questions — not about showing off how tough you can be or peacocking in front of the cameras. It’s about them. It’s about giving them a chance, under a clear set of rules, to engage with each other and convince Canadians why they’re the best option for their vote.”
Any interesting anecdotes?
“I remember reading the introduction on debate night [in 2006], and the teleprompter went dead just as I was starting. I remember thinking to myself, ’Someone upstairs has a pretty funny sense of humor — first they pull my name out of a hat [to moderate the debate], and now this.’ But whatever — I got through it. And I guess I didn’t do a horrible job, because they asked me eight more times.”
You’ve written about Premier Ford not coming on The Agenda. You’re known for being a tough interviewer — always balanced, but tough. Beyond Mr. Ford, have you run into that kind of resistance from other politicians over the years?
“The short answer is no. I think most people are very happy to come on The Agenda because, first, they know I’ll be fair. Second, I don’t force people to speak in 10-second clips — it’s a show where you’re allowed to speak in paragraphs. And third, we almost never edit. Occasionally we’ll have to make small edits for time, but guests know that what they say on set is what’s going to air that night. So, most people are quite happy to be on the program because they actually get a chance to express themselves in some depth. There are a few notable exceptions — people who’ve chosen not to come on — and I think that’s a shame. But that’s their choice. There’s no law that says anyone has to come on The Agenda.”
But he’d talk to American reporters. Does that irk you?
“I’ve always thought it was a little strange that his people wouldn’t make him available to TVO, given that he technically owns TVO. It’s the one media outlet in all of North America that he actually owns. So yeah, I always found that kind of funny. But let me hasten to add — and this is the truth — he and I have a very good professional relationship. A solid one. He’s been on TVO before: he came on for a leadership debate, he came on when his book came out and he came on once when he was running for mayor. He just hasn’t appeared in the seven years he’s been Premier. It’s not that he doesn’t like me. I think we like each other just fine. But for whatever reason, his people stopped returning my emails months and months ago. I don’t know why. They just refuse to even consider the request. And even when they did respond, the answer was always the same: ’The Premier is unavailable.’ That was it. So, I don’t know the reason. No one’s ever told me. But clearly, there is a reason — because we’ve never managed to get him.”
How do you manage having close family involved in politics while your job is to maintain neutrality and objectivity as a journalist? How do you find that balance?
“I don’t think you can ever say to journalists, ’If any member of your family has an interest in an issue you’re covering, then you can’t be seen as an honest broker and therefore you shouldn’t cover it.’ I just think that’s ridiculous. The reality is, anyone who’s engaged in public life — as I am, and as my broader family has been — is going to encounter appearances of conflict. All you can do is acknowledge them.
So, when we cover health care issues, I disclose that my wife is a health policy consultant. Years ago, my mother was chair of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and when we did stories on nuclear power — this was before The Agenda — I would disclose that too. My brother is a home builder in southern Ontario, so whenever we do housing issues, I say that on air.
The notion that I should somehow avoid covering health care, energy, or housing — just because I have relatives involved in those areas — is absurd. And those are only three people. I have other relatives with stakes in other fields. What am I supposed to do — avoid covering half of public policy? We don’t live in a world where everyone around you is completely disengaged. That’s just not realistic. So all you can do is be transparent: disclose what you know, acknowledge the potential appearance of conflict, and let the audience make up their own minds about whether you’re being fair.”
How hard was it for you to leave work at work? As a journalist, you’re always on your phone, people are always talking to you. How hard was it to make that balance?
“The word isn’t hard — the word is impossible. I never could. It was always a struggle for me not to reach for my iPhone during dinner. Back in the day, when I was doing Studio 2 and the early years of The Agenda, we were live at 8 p.m. I lived two blocks from the studio, so I’d race home for a quick dinner. But even when I was home, I wasn’t what you’d call fully present. It was an hour, maybe an hour and a half before airtime, and I had to stay in touch with the home office to see what was going on. That’s kind of the way I’ve always lived — whenever I’m doing something or talking to someone, part of me is always thinking: ’Is this a story? Is this something for the show? Could I write a column about this?’ That’s just my innate curiosity, which I’ve never lost.”
OK, I’m curious: what are Steve Paikin’s side hobbies?
“I play hockey once or twice a week, which I still love to do. And every year, I take a baseball road trip — I love doing that. I might do a couple this year, actually.
You’ve got more time now, right?
[Laughs].
“Not really. I don’t actually have more time — I’m working to set up my post-Agenda life. So no, I’m not retiring. I’m rewiring.”
What do you want that rewired life to look like?
“I don’t know yet — I’m still figuring it out. But I can tell you this: it won’t be a job. What I want is a mix of different things — different buckets. That’s one of the things I’ve loved most about working at TVO: I’ve been able to do a lot of different things under one roof. I could host a nightly TV show, but also write a column, host a monthly town hall, do YouTube segments like Nerds on Politics or Ontario Chronicle, and even attend events and live-tweet them like a reporter. That variety really worked for me. And whatever I do next, I want it to be just as varied.”
— The House is out for the summer.
— Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy is taking Bill 9 on the road.
Haven’t weighed in yet? You still can — in writing. Want to have your say elsewhere? Make a submission.
— The New Leaf Liberals are set to host two summer stops — one in Toronto on July 10, one in Ottawa on July 17.
To rewind: The group is calling for a full-scale overhaul of the party — and new leadership to lead it. They blame Bonnie Crombie for her “inability to undertake the necessary steps to rebuild our party," and say that if she’s unable to lock in two-thirds support in September, she should quit.
— A giant new flag just went up over the front doors of Queen’s Park.
Recall: Canada Day at the Park — a 10 to 5 p.m. event — will feature live performances, midway rides, family-friendly games, roaming entertainers, self-guided tours of the building and more. Yes, there’ll be food. More.
The Board of Internal Economy had green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s party.se
— Farewell: Sol Mamakwa’s wife, Pearl, has died. “She was a devoted wife, a loving mother and a proud grandmother,” he wrote. “Pearl’s strength, kindness, and unconditional love were the foundation of our family, and her absence leaves a void that can never be filled.”
The tributes:
Viewing will be held today at St. Mary’s Anglican Church from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., followed by the funeral from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. Burial will take place at 2:00 p.m. at Northway Cemetery, with a reception to follow. More.
— “You never know.” Asked if he’s eyeing Pierre Poilievre’s job, that was Doug Ford’s answer.
— One NDP MPP says forcing a non-disclosure agreement on labour leaders is “not appropriate.”
— Renderings are out for the 5-storey parking garage at Ontario Place. No decision yet on where the temporary Science Centre will go.
— Don’t ask Doug. Ford says the project’s financing isn’t his problem.
— The Ford government’s goal of 1.5 million homes by 2031 might not cut it, with internal projections suggesting as many as 2.1 million may be needed.
— Meanwhile, Ontario is not on pace to hit a key climate change target with less than 5 years to go.
— Metrolinx has a new CEO. So too does Infrastructure Ontario.
— A new hospital in Mississauga will be the first to specialize in care for women and children.
— One councillor is calling for a pause on automated speed enforcement in Toronto, arguing they’re more trap than deterrent.
— Complaints against lawyers and paralegals — including for sexual harassment — are being kept secret.
— The provincial ombudsman says crammed provincial jails are undermining the justice system.
— Wildfire personnel are getting a raise and a new title.
— In Liberal land, some are blaming Crombie’s co-campaign directors for how February played out.
— Between mid-December and mid-February, $38 million was spent on cross-border ads. Most of it landed on Fox News.
— John Michael McGrath is asking if the Ford government’s move to kill Toronto’s green standard for construction could land in court. Steve Paikin was in the room on a night that paid tribute to the Peterson-era. More from Martin Regg Cohn. Meanwhile, he says it’s time for Doug Ford to admit Bill 5 was a mistake. On whether Ford is thinking federally, Gerry Nicholls has some summer speculation.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Got a tip, a story idea or an annoying boss? I’m all ears — and I don’t name names. I’ll be back in your inbox in early August — don’t miss me too much.
Before we dig in, a programming note: This is the last regular issue before I duck out on a much-needed vacation. We’re dialing down, not out: expect the odd scoop or the occasional deep-read in my absence. I’ll be back in early August. May your July be quiet, calm and drama-free.
Q+A — Steve Paikin isn’t going anywhere.
Though the veteran broadcaster will close The Agenda for the last time tonight, don’t call it a retirement. “I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late,” Paikin said in a 40-minute Zoom interview earlier this month.
Instead, he’s “rewiring.” Though he’s still sketching out what that’ll look like, Paikin says he’s sticking with the kind of work that’s kept him going for more than four decades. And on that work, he’s got plenty to tell: on what’s changed about journalism, why moderating debates should never be about the moderator and why Doug Ford has been a no-show on his program.
We caught up with him to chat about the end of The Agenda — and why his work isn’t over.
Here’s our conversation, edited for length and clarity:
How are you feeling?
“I feel great about all of it. If you had told me when I signed my first contract to do The Agenda 19 years ago that I’d get to host the show for this long, I’d have said you were crazy — it’ll never last that long. So the fact that it has is a great joy. But you can’t overstay your welcome with these things, and I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late. That’s why, three years ago, I decided this would be my last contract. We’ll see what comes next.”
What was the moment when you thought, “This is it — I don’t want to renew again, I want to step aside”? What made you feel that way?
“I can’t say that there was a moment. Well, you’re actually getting me today on my 65th birthday. I remember thinking when I was 62, signing this, ’Okay, this contract will take me to 65.’ And, you know, if I’m ever going to have a chance to do some of the other things in my so-called career that I want to do, I’m running out of runway. So I thought three years ago, ’This probably ought to be the last contract.’ And they were very good about it. They said, ’We can re-up if you want.’ But I thought, ’No, this feels right. Let’s go out while things are still, I think, reasonably good,’ and see what’s next.”
Take me back to the beginning. What drew you into journalism?
“I knew the moment I wanted to be a broadcaster. It was actually before my first classes had even started at the University of Toronto, back in 1978. I went to Hart House during Clubs Night, which I think was still in the last week of August. Classes hadn’t started yet. I walked in and saw all these tables — the chess club, the debate club, the archery club, the photography club. And then I saw a table that said U of T Radio. And I’m telling you, it was like a eureka light went off above my head. I walked over and asked, ’Do you guys have anybody who does the play-by-play for the Varsity Blues hockey or football teams?’ And they said, ’No.’ I said, ’Well, could I do it?’ And they said, ’Sure.’ And that was it. That was my first gig in radio — doing sportscasting and play-by-play, the voice of the Varsity Blues hockey and football teams. It just kind of grew from there. I eventually became the sports editor at the student paper — not The Varsity, but The Newspaper. And it really took off from there."
Now, on your way out —
“Well, I’m not on my way out of journalism — I’m staying in journalism. That’s the first thing. Let me clarify that I’m stepping away from The Agenda, but I’m continuing with a number of other projects. I’ll still be hosting the #onpoli podcast and writing a weekly column for TVO. I’m also going to keep doing our monthly town hall show, TVO Today Live. And I’ll continue with the short five-minute YouTube segments we do called Ontario Chronicles, which focus on political history. So, yes, I’m reducing my time at TVO, but I’m not leaving TVO. Over the last six months, I’ve been in the process of figuring out what to do with the time I’ve spent on The Agenda, and that’s starting to become clearer — though I’m not quite there yet.”
But how do you think journalism has changed since you first got into it?
“Well, I mean — massively, catastrophically, amazingly — take your pick. Use any adverb you want. It’s just so different. So, so different.
My first full-time job in journalism was in 1982, so obviously, things have changed dramatically since then. Technically speaking, I remember going out to do interviews with a cassette tape recorder, bringing them back to the newsroom, transferring them to reel-to-reel, then voicing my reports. We’d literally take a razor blade and cut the tape to edit the audio — that’s how prehistoric it was when I started. Of course, none of that happens anymore. The technical capabilities we have now are extraordinary — but I sometimes wonder if our brains have been able to keep up with all these advancements.
Back then, working in legacy media came with a certain gatekeeping function. You had editors. People read your work before it was published. When I was at CBC, I did over a thousand TV news pieces, and every single script I wrote was reviewed by two editors before I even got to the editing booth. Then someone else watched the final piece before it went to air. That was called quality control. We don’t really have that anymore — or at least, we have far less of it. Some of the quality control that does exist isn’t even in the same building anymore — sometimes it’s in a different country. So the standards in legacy media aren’t what they used to be.
On top of that, anyone with an iPhone now considers themselves a journalist. And in some ways, they are — but in many ways, they’re not. And all of this stuff is concerning to me.”
Do you ever worry that journalism, as an industry, is fading away — or even dying?
“I don’t think so. It’s just changing — cataclysmically. People still want to know stuff. The way they’re learning about stuff is very different, and that’s okay. And, you know, those of us who are in this game have to figure out how to move with the times. I hope, in our stampede toward whatever comes next — or whatever the latest fad is — we’re not going to lose some of the basic things that I think we still ought to care about: accuracy, neutrality, fairness, balance. I still think those are important things. And there seems to be a lot less worshiping at the altar of those things nowadays, because anybody with a cell phone and an opinion thinks they’re on the same plane as a columnist for The New York Times who’s been at it for 25 years. I’m sorry if it sounds snooty — but they’re not. I think experience counts for something in journalism. Quality control matters. Editing matters. Fact-checking matters. People still ought to care about all those things.”
When you set out to create The Agenda, what was the original mission or vision for the show?
“We called the show The Agenda because we were presumptuous enough to think, not that we had an agenda, but that the issues we felt were important to be engaged on at the dawn of the 21st century — which was when the show debuted, in 2006 — we thought we could make a contribution to the public’s understanding of the issues and engage them on it.
We wanted to do it in a way that was, we hoped, distinctive from what everything else on the dial was doing. I noticed that there are all-news channels on this continent, and they’re great — they give us a window into the world, 24/7 — but I also noticed that they’ve fallen into the formula of basically not allowing any interviews to go longer than six minutes, or any panel discussions to go longer than 20 minutes. And yes, there are some exceptions, but not too many. We very much wanted to plant our flag firmly for long-form journalism — for longer one-on-ones and longer panel discussions. And if it meant we were only going to cover two or three issues per program instead of seven or eight, then okay.”
Do you think that the kind of long-form journalism you really tried to push — especially at a time when it wasn’t widely practiced — had an impact? And to what extent do you feel it had a measurable impact on the public’s understanding of policy?
“I don’t think they leave you on the air for 19 years if the people who make the decisions at TVO aren’t satisfied that you’re having some kind of impact. I couldn’t begin to know how to measure that — but let’s just say, there isn’t a day that goes by when someone doesn’t stop me on the subway, or on the street, or somewhere, to talk about something they saw on The Agenda. So, yeah — I’m happy about that.”
Was there ever a topic you felt strongly about covering, even if others were hesitant? Maybe one that really stands out — something you personally cared about?
“I’m sure there was. Now, if you put me on the spot and ask me what it is, I have a hard time telling you… Well, all right — I’ll give you something that’s happening right now. I happen to believe that the most important election of my lifetime took place in 1985, 40 years ago this month, in fact. And I went to the executive producer last month and said, ’The 40th anniversary of the election that ended a 42-year-long Progressive Conservative dynasty is coming up in June 2025, and we should do a show on it.’” And I don’t know that anybody else — I saw David Herle just did a show on it — but I don’t think too many others will. That’s something I pitched, and happily, it was accepted.”
Your toughest interview?
Oh, that predates The Agenda. My most difficult interview was on a show I used to do called Studio 2 and it was with Mordecai Richler. I got him on a bad day. He just didn’t want to be there. I still have nightmares about how badly that interview went.
Go on.
“I tried to engage him — he’d written a book, he was on a book tour. I don’t know if he didn’t like the book, didn’t like me, or just didn’t want to be there. But all of his answers were two- or three-word replies. I just couldn’t get anything out of him. And the format of that show — Studio 2 — was that after the interview ended, the director would cut to a wide shot, they’d kill the mics, and we’d just sit there and chat casually for five seconds before fading to black. But in that interview, when they cut to the wide shot, what you saw was Mordecai ripping off his microphone and walking off the set. He couldn’t wait five more seconds to get out of there. It was fascinating — and honestly, I don’t know what went wrong. I was a friend of his son, who actually used to host a show at TVO. We even talked about that during the interview — but it didn’t help. He was just a very uncooperative interviewee that day.”
There aren’t many journalists who’ve moderated as many federal and provincial leaders’ debates as you have. From some experience, moderating a debate is one of the most daunting challenges a journalist can face. I’m curious, from your perspective, what is the role of the moderator supposed to be? Particularly now, when journalists and moderators are under intense scrutiny, how do you look at the job?
“First and foremost, the role of a moderator is to make sure you don’t get mentioned in the papers the next day. That basically means being scrupulously fair — making sure everybody gets roughly the same amount of time, and making sure all the leaders come away from the experience feeling like they were treated fairly.
I don’t believe the moderator’s job is to fact-check. I think you get into trouble when you do that. If the leaders want to fact-check each other, that’s fine, but I don’t see that as my role. I do see it as my job to make sure they’re not all yelling over each other. That contributes nothing to a civilized debate, and the viewing public gets nothing out of that.
At the end of the day, you have to remind yourself what this is all about. It’s about giving the leaders a chance to respond to neutral, lean, open-ended questions — not about showing off how tough you can be or peacocking in front of the cameras. It’s about them. It’s about giving them a chance, under a clear set of rules, to engage with each other and convince Canadians why they’re the best option for their vote.”
Any interesting anecdotes?
“I remember reading the introduction on debate night [in 2006], and the teleprompter went dead just as I was starting. I remember thinking to myself, ’Someone upstairs has a pretty funny sense of humor — first they pull my name out of a hat [to moderate the debate], and now this.’ But whatever — I got through it. And I guess I didn’t do a horrible job, because they asked me eight more times.”
You’ve written about Premier Ford not coming on The Agenda. You’re known for being a tough interviewer — always balanced, but tough. Beyond Mr. Ford, have you run into that kind of resistance from other politicians over the years?
“The short answer is no. I think most people are very happy to come on The Agenda because, first, they know I’ll be fair. Second, I don’t force people to speak in 10-second clips — it’s a show where you’re allowed to speak in paragraphs. And third, we almost never edit. Occasionally we’ll have to make small edits for time, but guests know that what they say on set is what’s going to air that night. So, most people are quite happy to be on the program because they actually get a chance to express themselves in some depth. There are a few notable exceptions — people who’ve chosen not to come on — and I think that’s a shame. But that’s their choice. There’s no law that says anyone has to come on The Agenda.”
But he’d talk to American reporters. Does that irk you?
“I’ve always thought it was a little strange that his people wouldn’t make him available to TVO, given that he technically owns TVO. It’s the one media outlet in all of North America that he actually owns. So yeah, I always found that kind of funny. But let me hasten to add — and this is the truth — he and I have a very good professional relationship. A solid one. He’s been on TVO before: he came on for a leadership debate, he came on when his book came out and he came on once when he was running for mayor. He just hasn’t appeared in the seven years he’s been Premier. It’s not that he doesn’t like me. I think we like each other just fine. But for whatever reason, his people stopped returning my emails months and months ago. I don’t know why. They just refuse to even consider the request. And even when they did respond, the answer was always the same: ’The Premier is unavailable.’ That was it. So, I don’t know the reason. No one’s ever told me. But clearly, there is a reason — because we’ve never managed to get him.”
How do you manage having close family involved in politics while your job is to maintain neutrality and objectivity as a journalist? How do you find that balance?
“I don’t think you can ever say to journalists, ’If any member of your family has an interest in an issue you’re covering, then you can’t be seen as an honest broker and therefore you shouldn’t cover it.’ I just think that’s ridiculous. The reality is, anyone who’s engaged in public life — as I am, and as my broader family has been — is going to encounter appearances of conflict. All you can do is acknowledge them.
So, when we cover health care issues, I disclose that my wife is a health policy consultant. Years ago, my mother was chair of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and when we did stories on nuclear power — this was before The Agenda — I would disclose that too. My brother is a home builder in southern Ontario, so whenever we do housing issues, I say that on air.
The notion that I should somehow avoid covering health care, energy, or housing — just because I have relatives involved in those areas — is absurd. And those are only three people. I have other relatives with stakes in other fields. What am I supposed to do — avoid covering half of public policy? We don’t live in a world where everyone around you is completely disengaged. That’s just not realistic. So all you can do is be transparent: disclose what you know, acknowledge the potential appearance of conflict, and let the audience make up their own minds about whether you’re being fair.”
How hard was it for you to leave work at work? As a journalist, you’re always on your phone, people are always talking to you. How hard was it to make that balance?
“The word isn’t hard — the word is impossible. I never could. It was always a struggle for me not to reach for my iPhone during dinner. Back in the day, when I was doing Studio 2 and the early years of The Agenda, we were live at 8 p.m. I lived two blocks from the studio, so I’d race home for a quick dinner. But even when I was home, I wasn’t what you’d call fully present. It was an hour, maybe an hour and a half before airtime, and I had to stay in touch with the home office to see what was going on. That’s kind of the way I’ve always lived — whenever I’m doing something or talking to someone, part of me is always thinking: ’Is this a story? Is this something for the show? Could I write a column about this?’ That’s just my innate curiosity, which I’ve never lost.”
OK, I’m curious: what are Steve Paikin’s side hobbies?
“I play hockey once or twice a week, which I still love to do. And every year, I take a baseball road trip — I love doing that. I might do a couple this year, actually.
You’ve got more time now, right?
[Laughs].
“Not really. I don’t actually have more time — I’m working to set up my post-Agenda life. So no, I’m not retiring. I’m rewiring.”
What do you want that rewired life to look like?
“I don’t know yet — I’m still figuring it out. But I can tell you this: it won’t be a job. What I want is a mix of different things — different buckets. That’s one of the things I’ve loved most about working at TVO: I’ve been able to do a lot of different things under one roof. I could host a nightly TV show, but also write a column, host a monthly town hall, do YouTube segments like Nerds on Politics or Ontario Chronicle, and even attend events and live-tweet them like a reporter. That variety really worked for me. And whatever I do next, I want it to be just as varied.”
— The House is out for the summer.
— Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy is taking Bill 9 on the road.
Haven’t weighed in yet? You still can — in writing. Want to have your say elsewhere? Make a submission.
— The New Leaf Liberals are set to host two summer stops — one in Toronto on July 10, one in Ottawa on July 17.
To rewind: The group is calling for a full-scale overhaul of the party — and new leadership to lead it. They blame Bonnie Crombie for her “inability to undertake the necessary steps to rebuild our party," and say that if she’s unable to lock in two-thirds support in September, she should quit.
— A giant new flag just went up over the front doors of Queen’s Park.
Recall: Canada Day at the Park — a 10 to 5 p.m. event — will feature live performances, midway rides, family-friendly games, roaming entertainers, self-guided tours of the building and more. Yes, there’ll be food. More.
The Board of Internal Economy had green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s party.se
— Farewell: Sol Mamakwa’s wife, Pearl, has died. “She was a devoted wife, a loving mother and a proud grandmother,” he wrote. “Pearl’s strength, kindness, and unconditional love were the foundation of our family, and her absence leaves a void that can never be filled.”
The tributes:
Viewing will be held today at St. Mary’s Anglican Church from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., followed by the funeral from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. Burial will take place at 2:00 p.m. at Northway Cemetery, with a reception to follow. More.
— “You never know.” Asked if he’s eyeing Pierre Poilievre’s job, that was Doug Ford’s answer.
— One NDP MPP says forcing a non-disclosure agreement on labour leaders is “not appropriate.”
— Renderings are out for the 5-storey parking garage at Ontario Place. No decision yet on where the temporary Science Centre will go.
— Don’t ask Doug. Ford says the project’s financing isn’t his problem.
— The Ford government’s goal of 1.5 million homes by 2031 might not cut it, with internal projections suggesting as many as 2.1 million may be needed.
— Meanwhile, Ontario is not on pace to hit a key climate change target with less than 5 years to go.
— Metrolinx has a new CEO. So too does Infrastructure Ontario.
— A new hospital in Mississauga will be the first to specialize in care for women and children.
— One councillor is calling for a pause on automated speed enforcement in Toronto, arguing they’re more trap than deterrent.
— Complaints against lawyers and paralegals — including for sexual harassment — are being kept secret.
— The provincial ombudsman says crammed provincial jails are undermining the justice system.
— Wildfire personnel are getting a raise and a new title.
— In Liberal land, some are blaming Crombie’s co-campaign directors for how February played out.
— Between mid-December and mid-February, $38 million was spent on cross-border ads. Most of it landed on Fox News.
— John Michael McGrath is asking if the Ford government’s move to kill Toronto’s green standard for construction could land in court. Steve Paikin was in the room on a night that paid tribute to the Peterson-era. More from Martin Regg Cohn. Meanwhile, he says it’s time for Doug Ford to admit Bill 5 was a mistake. On whether Ford is thinking federally, Gerry Nicholls has some summer speculation.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Got a tip, a story idea or an annoying boss? I’m all ears — and I don’t name names. I’ll be back in your inbox in early August — don’t miss me too much.
Before we dig in, a programming note: This is the last regular issue before I duck out on a much-needed vacation. We’re dialing down, not out: expect the odd scoop or the occasional deep-read in my absence. I’ll be back in early August. May your July be quiet, calm and drama-free.
Q+A — Steve Paikin isn’t going anywhere.
Though the veteran broadcaster will close The Agenda for the last time tonight, don’t call it a retirement. “I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late,” Paikin said in a 40-minute Zoom interview earlier this month.
Instead, he’s “rewiring.” Though he’s still sketching out what that’ll look like, Paikin says he’s sticking with the kind of work that’s kept him going for more than four decades. And on that work, he’s got plenty to tell: on what’s changed about journalism, why moderating debates should never be about the moderator and why Doug Ford has been a no-show on his program.
We caught up with him to chat about the end of The Agenda — and why his work isn’t over.
Here’s our conversation, edited for length and clarity:
How are you feeling?
“I feel great about all of it. If you had told me when I signed my first contract to do The Agenda 19 years ago that I’d get to host the show for this long, I’d have said you were crazy — it’ll never last that long. So the fact that it has is a great joy. But you can’t overstay your welcome with these things, and I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late. That’s why, three years ago, I decided this would be my last contract. We’ll see what comes next.”
What was the moment when you thought, “This is it — I don’t want to renew again, I want to step aside”? What made you feel that way?
“I can’t say that there was a moment. Well, you’re actually getting me today on my 65th birthday. I remember thinking when I was 62, signing this, ’Okay, this contract will take me to 65.’ And, you know, if I’m ever going to have a chance to do some of the other things in my so-called career that I want to do, I’m running out of runway. So I thought three years ago, ’This probably ought to be the last contract.’ And they were very good about it. They said, ’We can re-up if you want.’ But I thought, ’No, this feels right. Let’s go out while things are still, I think, reasonably good,’ and see what’s next.”
Take me back to the beginning. What drew you into journalism?
“I knew the moment I wanted to be a broadcaster. It was actually before my first classes had even started at the University of Toronto, back in 1978. I went to Hart House during Clubs Night, which I think was still in the last week of August. Classes hadn’t started yet. I walked in and saw all these tables — the chess club, the debate club, the archery club, the photography club. And then I saw a table that said U of T Radio. And I’m telling you, it was like a eureka light went off above my head. I walked over and asked, ’Do you guys have anybody who does the play-by-play for the Varsity Blues hockey or football teams?’ And they said, ’No.’ I said, ’Well, could I do it?’ And they said, ’Sure.’ And that was it. That was my first gig in radio — doing sportscasting and play-by-play, the voice of the Varsity Blues hockey and football teams. It just kind of grew from there. I eventually became the sports editor at the student paper — not The Varsity, but The Newspaper. And it really took off from there."
Now, on your way out —
“Well, I’m not on my way out of journalism — I’m staying in journalism. That’s the first thing. Let me clarify that I’m stepping away from The Agenda, but I’m continuing with a number of other projects. I’ll still be hosting the #onpoli podcast and writing a weekly column for TVO. I’m also going to keep doing our monthly town hall show, TVO Today Live. And I’ll continue with the short five-minute YouTube segments we do called Ontario Chronicles, which focus on political history. So, yes, I’m reducing my time at TVO, but I’m not leaving TVO. Over the last six months, I’ve been in the process of figuring out what to do with the time I’ve spent on The Agenda, and that’s starting to become clearer — though I’m not quite there yet.”
But how do you think journalism has changed since you first got into it?
“Well, I mean — massively, catastrophically, amazingly — take your pick. Use any adverb you want. It’s just so different. So, so different.
My first full-time job in journalism was in 1982, so obviously, things have changed dramatically since then. Technically speaking, I remember going out to do interviews with a cassette tape recorder, bringing them back to the newsroom, transferring them to reel-to-reel, then voicing my reports. We’d literally take a razor blade and cut the tape to edit the audio — that’s how prehistoric it was when I started. Of course, none of that happens anymore. The technical capabilities we have now are extraordinary — but I sometimes wonder if our brains have been able to keep up with all these advancements.
Back then, working in legacy media came with a certain gatekeeping function. You had editors. People read your work before it was published. When I was at CBC, I did over a thousand TV news pieces, and every single script I wrote was reviewed by two editors before I even got to the editing booth. Then someone else watched the final piece before it went to air. That was called quality control. We don’t really have that anymore — or at least, we have far less of it. Some of the quality control that does exist isn’t even in the same building anymore — sometimes it’s in a different country. So the standards in legacy media aren’t what they used to be.
On top of that, anyone with an iPhone now considers themselves a journalist. And in some ways, they are — but in many ways, they’re not. And all of this stuff is concerning to me.”
Do you ever worry that journalism, as an industry, is fading away — or even dying?
“I don’t think so. It’s just changing — cataclysmically. People still want to know stuff. The way they’re learning about stuff is very different, and that’s okay. And, you know, those of us who are in this game have to figure out how to move with the times. I hope, in our stampede toward whatever comes next — or whatever the latest fad is — we’re not going to lose some of the basic things that I think we still ought to care about: accuracy, neutrality, fairness, balance. I still think those are important things. And there seems to be a lot less worshiping at the altar of those things nowadays, because anybody with a cell phone and an opinion thinks they’re on the same plane as a columnist for The New York Times who’s been at it for 25 years. I’m sorry if it sounds snooty — but they’re not. I think experience counts for something in journalism. Quality control matters. Editing matters. Fact-checking matters. People still ought to care about all those things.”
When you set out to create The Agenda, what was the original mission or vision for the show?
“We called the show The Agenda because we were presumptuous enough to think, not that we had an agenda, but that the issues we felt were important to be engaged on at the dawn of the 21st century — which was when the show debuted, in 2006 — we thought we could make a contribution to the public’s understanding of the issues and engage them on it.
We wanted to do it in a way that was, we hoped, distinctive from what everything else on the dial was doing. I noticed that there are all-news channels on this continent, and they’re great — they give us a window into the world, 24/7 — but I also noticed that they’ve fallen into the formula of basically not allowing any interviews to go longer than six minutes, or any panel discussions to go longer than 20 minutes. And yes, there are some exceptions, but not too many. We very much wanted to plant our flag firmly for long-form journalism — for longer one-on-ones and longer panel discussions. And if it meant we were only going to cover two or three issues per program instead of seven or eight, then okay.”
Do you think that the kind of long-form journalism you really tried to push — especially at a time when it wasn’t widely practiced — had an impact? And to what extent do you feel it had a measurable impact on the public’s understanding of policy?
“I don’t think they leave you on the air for 19 years if the people who make the decisions at TVO aren’t satisfied that you’re having some kind of impact. I couldn’t begin to know how to measure that — but let’s just say, there isn’t a day that goes by when someone doesn’t stop me on the subway, or on the street, or somewhere, to talk about something they saw on The Agenda. So, yeah — I’m happy about that.”
Was there ever a topic you felt strongly about covering, even if others were hesitant? Maybe one that really stands out — something you personally cared about?
“I’m sure there was. Now, if you put me on the spot and ask me what it is, I have a hard time telling you… Well, all right — I’ll give you something that’s happening right now. I happen to believe that the most important election of my lifetime took place in 1985, 40 years ago this month, in fact. And I went to the executive producer last month and said, ’The 40th anniversary of the election that ended a 42-year-long Progressive Conservative dynasty is coming up in June 2025, and we should do a show on it.’” And I don’t know that anybody else — I saw David Herle just did a show on it — but I don’t think too many others will. That’s something I pitched, and happily, it was accepted.”
Your toughest interview?
Oh, that predates The Agenda. My most difficult interview was on a show I used to do called Studio 2 and it was with Mordecai Richler. I got him on a bad day. He just didn’t want to be there. I still have nightmares about how badly that interview went.
Go on.
“I tried to engage him — he’d written a book, he was on a book tour. I don’t know if he didn’t like the book, didn’t like me, or just didn’t want to be there. But all of his answers were two- or three-word replies. I just couldn’t get anything out of him. And the format of that show — Studio 2 — was that after the interview ended, the director would cut to a wide shot, they’d kill the mics, and we’d just sit there and chat casually for five seconds before fading to black. But in that interview, when they cut to the wide shot, what you saw was Mordecai ripping off his microphone and walking off the set. He couldn’t wait five more seconds to get out of there. It was fascinating — and honestly, I don’t know what went wrong. I was a friend of his son, who actually used to host a show at TVO. We even talked about that during the interview — but it didn’t help. He was just a very uncooperative interviewee that day.”
There aren’t many journalists who’ve moderated as many federal and provincial leaders’ debates as you have. From some experience, moderating a debate is one of the most daunting challenges a journalist can face. I’m curious, from your perspective, what is the role of the moderator supposed to be? Particularly now, when journalists and moderators are under intense scrutiny, how do you look at the job?
“First and foremost, the role of a moderator is to make sure you don’t get mentioned in the papers the next day. That basically means being scrupulously fair — making sure everybody gets roughly the same amount of time, and making sure all the leaders come away from the experience feeling like they were treated fairly.
I don’t believe the moderator’s job is to fact-check. I think you get into trouble when you do that. If the leaders want to fact-check each other, that’s fine, but I don’t see that as my role. I do see it as my job to make sure they’re not all yelling over each other. That contributes nothing to a civilized debate, and the viewing public gets nothing out of that.
At the end of the day, you have to remind yourself what this is all about. It’s about giving the leaders a chance to respond to neutral, lean, open-ended questions — not about showing off how tough you can be or peacocking in front of the cameras. It’s about them. It’s about giving them a chance, under a clear set of rules, to engage with each other and convince Canadians why they’re the best option for their vote.”
Any interesting anecdotes?
“I remember reading the introduction on debate night [in 2006], and the teleprompter went dead just as I was starting. I remember thinking to myself, ’Someone upstairs has a pretty funny sense of humor — first they pull my name out of a hat [to moderate the debate], and now this.’ But whatever — I got through it. And I guess I didn’t do a horrible job, because they asked me eight more times.”
You’ve written about Premier Ford not coming on The Agenda. You’re known for being a tough interviewer — always balanced, but tough. Beyond Mr. Ford, have you run into that kind of resistance from other politicians over the years?
“The short answer is no. I think most people are very happy to come on The Agenda because, first, they know I’ll be fair. Second, I don’t force people to speak in 10-second clips — it’s a show where you’re allowed to speak in paragraphs. And third, we almost never edit. Occasionally we’ll have to make small edits for time, but guests know that what they say on set is what’s going to air that night. So, most people are quite happy to be on the program because they actually get a chance to express themselves in some depth. There are a few notable exceptions — people who’ve chosen not to come on — and I think that’s a shame. But that’s their choice. There’s no law that says anyone has to come on The Agenda.”
But he’d talk to American reporters. Does that irk you?
“I’ve always thought it was a little strange that his people wouldn’t make him available to TVO, given that he technically owns TVO. It’s the one media outlet in all of North America that he actually owns. So yeah, I always found that kind of funny. But let me hasten to add — and this is the truth — he and I have a very good professional relationship. A solid one. He’s been on TVO before: he came on for a leadership debate, he came on when his book came out and he came on once when he was running for mayor. He just hasn’t appeared in the seven years he’s been Premier. It’s not that he doesn’t like me. I think we like each other just fine. But for whatever reason, his people stopped returning my emails months and months ago. I don’t know why. They just refuse to even consider the request. And even when they did respond, the answer was always the same: ’The Premier is unavailable.’ That was it. So, I don’t know the reason. No one’s ever told me. But clearly, there is a reason — because we’ve never managed to get him.”
How do you manage having close family involved in politics while your job is to maintain neutrality and objectivity as a journalist? How do you find that balance?
“I don’t think you can ever say to journalists, ’If any member of your family has an interest in an issue you’re covering, then you can’t be seen as an honest broker and therefore you shouldn’t cover it.’ I just think that’s ridiculous. The reality is, anyone who’s engaged in public life — as I am, and as my broader family has been — is going to encounter appearances of conflict. All you can do is acknowledge them.
So, when we cover health care issues, I disclose that my wife is a health policy consultant. Years ago, my mother was chair of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and when we did stories on nuclear power — this was before The Agenda — I would disclose that too. My brother is a home builder in southern Ontario, so whenever we do housing issues, I say that on air.
The notion that I should somehow avoid covering health care, energy, or housing — just because I have relatives involved in those areas — is absurd. And those are only three people. I have other relatives with stakes in other fields. What am I supposed to do — avoid covering half of public policy? We don’t live in a world where everyone around you is completely disengaged. That’s just not realistic. So all you can do is be transparent: disclose what you know, acknowledge the potential appearance of conflict, and let the audience make up their own minds about whether you’re being fair.”
How hard was it for you to leave work at work? As a journalist, you’re always on your phone, people are always talking to you. How hard was it to make that balance?
“The word isn’t hard — the word is impossible. I never could. It was always a struggle for me not to reach for my iPhone during dinner. Back in the day, when I was doing Studio 2 and the early years of The Agenda, we were live at 8 p.m. I lived two blocks from the studio, so I’d race home for a quick dinner. But even when I was home, I wasn’t what you’d call fully present. It was an hour, maybe an hour and a half before airtime, and I had to stay in touch with the home office to see what was going on. That’s kind of the way I’ve always lived — whenever I’m doing something or talking to someone, part of me is always thinking: ’Is this a story? Is this something for the show? Could I write a column about this?’ That’s just my innate curiosity, which I’ve never lost.”
OK, I’m curious: what are Steve Paikin’s side hobbies?
“I play hockey once or twice a week, which I still love to do. And every year, I take a baseball road trip — I love doing that. I might do a couple this year, actually.
You’ve got more time now, right?
[Laughs].
“Not really. I don’t actually have more time — I’m working to set up my post-Agenda life. So no, I’m not retiring. I’m rewiring.”
What do you want that rewired life to look like?
“I don’t know yet — I’m still figuring it out. But I can tell you this: it won’t be a job. What I want is a mix of different things — different buckets. That’s one of the things I’ve loved most about working at TVO: I’ve been able to do a lot of different things under one roof. I could host a nightly TV show, but also write a column, host a monthly town hall, do YouTube segments like Nerds on Politics or Ontario Chronicle, and even attend events and live-tweet them like a reporter. That variety really worked for me. And whatever I do next, I want it to be just as varied.”
— The House is out for the summer.
— Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy is taking Bill 9 on the road.
Haven’t weighed in yet? You still can — in writing. Want to have your say elsewhere? Make a submission.
— The New Leaf Liberals are set to host two summer stops — one in Toronto on July 10, one in Ottawa on July 17.
To rewind: The group is calling for a full-scale overhaul of the party — and new leadership to lead it. They blame Bonnie Crombie for her “inability to undertake the necessary steps to rebuild our party," and say that if she’s unable to lock in two-thirds support in September, she should quit.
— A giant new flag just went up over the front doors of Queen’s Park.
Recall: Canada Day at the Park — a 10 to 5 p.m. event — will feature live performances, midway rides, family-friendly games, roaming entertainers, self-guided tours of the building and more. Yes, there’ll be food. More.
The Board of Internal Economy had green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s party.se
— Farewell: Sol Mamakwa’s wife, Pearl, has died. “She was a devoted wife, a loving mother and a proud grandmother,” he wrote. “Pearl’s strength, kindness, and unconditional love were the foundation of our family, and her absence leaves a void that can never be filled.”
The tributes:
Viewing will be held today at St. Mary’s Anglican Church from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., followed by the funeral from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. Burial will take place at 2:00 p.m. at Northway Cemetery, with a reception to follow. More.
— “You never know.” Asked if he’s eyeing Pierre Poilievre’s job, that was Doug Ford’s answer.
— One NDP MPP says forcing a non-disclosure agreement on labour leaders is “not appropriate.”
— Renderings are out for the 5-storey parking garage at Ontario Place. No decision yet on where the temporary Science Centre will go.
— Don’t ask Doug. Ford says the project’s financing isn’t his problem.
— The Ford government’s goal of 1.5 million homes by 2031 might not cut it, with internal projections suggesting as many as 2.1 million may be needed.
— Meanwhile, Ontario is not on pace to hit a key climate change target with less than 5 years to go.
— Metrolinx has a new CEO. So too does Infrastructure Ontario.
— A new hospital in Mississauga will be the first to specialize in care for women and children.
— One councillor is calling for a pause on automated speed enforcement in Toronto, arguing they’re more trap than deterrent.
— Complaints against lawyers and paralegals — including for sexual harassment — are being kept secret.
— The provincial ombudsman says crammed provincial jails are undermining the justice system.
— Wildfire personnel are getting a raise and a new title.
— In Liberal land, some are blaming Crombie’s co-campaign directors for how February played out.
— Between mid-December and mid-February, $38 million was spent on cross-border ads. Most of it landed on Fox News.
— John Michael McGrath is asking if the Ford government’s move to kill Toronto’s green standard for construction could land in court. Steve Paikin was in the room on a night that paid tribute to the Peterson-era. More from Martin Regg Cohn. Meanwhile, he says it’s time for Doug Ford to admit Bill 5 was a mistake. On whether Ford is thinking federally, Gerry Nicholls has some summer speculation.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Got a tip, a story idea or an annoying boss? I’m all ears — and I don’t name names. I’ll be back in your inbox in early August — don’t miss me too much.
Before we dig in, a programming note: This is the last regular issue before I duck out on a much-needed vacation. We’re dialing down, not out: expect the odd scoop or the occasional deep-read in my absence. I’ll be back in early August. May your July be quiet, calm and drama-free.
Q+A — Steve Paikin isn’t going anywhere.
Though the veteran broadcaster will close The Agenda for the last time tonight, don’t call it a retirement. “I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late,” Paikin said in a 40-minute Zoom interview earlier this month.
Instead, he’s “rewiring.” Though he’s still sketching out what that’ll look like, Paikin says he’s sticking with the kind of work that’s kept him going for more than four decades. And on that work, he’s got plenty to tell: on what’s changed about journalism, why moderating debates should never be about the moderator and why Doug Ford has been a no-show on his program.
We caught up with him to chat about the end of The Agenda — and why his work isn’t over.
Here’s our conversation, edited for length and clarity:
How are you feeling?
“I feel great about all of it. If you had told me when I signed my first contract to do The Agenda 19 years ago that I’d get to host the show for this long, I’d have said you were crazy — it’ll never last that long. So the fact that it has is a great joy. But you can’t overstay your welcome with these things, and I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late. That’s why, three years ago, I decided this would be my last contract. We’ll see what comes next.”
What was the moment when you thought, “This is it — I don’t want to renew again, I want to step aside”? What made you feel that way?
“I can’t say that there was a moment. Well, you’re actually getting me today on my 65th birthday. I remember thinking when I was 62, signing this, ’Okay, this contract will take me to 65.’ And, you know, if I’m ever going to have a chance to do some of the other things in my so-called career that I want to do, I’m running out of runway. So I thought three years ago, ’This probably ought to be the last contract.’ And they were very good about it. They said, ’We can re-up if you want.’ But I thought, ’No, this feels right. Let’s go out while things are still, I think, reasonably good,’ and see what’s next.”
Take me back to the beginning. What drew you into journalism?
“I knew the moment I wanted to be a broadcaster. It was actually before my first classes had even started at the University of Toronto, back in 1978. I went to Hart House during Clubs Night, which I think was still in the last week of August. Classes hadn’t started yet. I walked in and saw all these tables — the chess club, the debate club, the archery club, the photography club. And then I saw a table that said U of T Radio. And I’m telling you, it was like a eureka light went off above my head. I walked over and asked, ’Do you guys have anybody who does the play-by-play for the Varsity Blues hockey or football teams?’ And they said, ’No.’ I said, ’Well, could I do it?’ And they said, ’Sure.’ And that was it. That was my first gig in radio — doing sportscasting and play-by-play, the voice of the Varsity Blues hockey and football teams. It just kind of grew from there. I eventually became the sports editor at the student paper — not The Varsity, but The Newspaper. And it really took off from there."
Now, on your way out —
“Well, I’m not on my way out of journalism — I’m staying in journalism. That’s the first thing. Let me clarify that I’m stepping away from The Agenda, but I’m continuing with a number of other projects. I’ll still be hosting the #onpoli podcast and writing a weekly column for TVO. I’m also going to keep doing our monthly town hall show, TVO Today Live. And I’ll continue with the short five-minute YouTube segments we do called Ontario Chronicles, which focus on political history. So, yes, I’m reducing my time at TVO, but I’m not leaving TVO. Over the last six months, I’ve been in the process of figuring out what to do with the time I’ve spent on The Agenda, and that’s starting to become clearer — though I’m not quite there yet.”
But how do you think journalism has changed since you first got into it?
“Well, I mean — massively, catastrophically, amazingly — take your pick. Use any adverb you want. It’s just so different. So, so different.
My first full-time job in journalism was in 1982, so obviously, things have changed dramatically since then. Technically speaking, I remember going out to do interviews with a cassette tape recorder, bringing them back to the newsroom, transferring them to reel-to-reel, then voicing my reports. We’d literally take a razor blade and cut the tape to edit the audio — that’s how prehistoric it was when I started. Of course, none of that happens anymore. The technical capabilities we have now are extraordinary — but I sometimes wonder if our brains have been able to keep up with all these advancements.
Back then, working in legacy media came with a certain gatekeeping function. You had editors. People read your work before it was published. When I was at CBC, I did over a thousand TV news pieces, and every single script I wrote was reviewed by two editors before I even got to the editing booth. Then someone else watched the final piece before it went to air. That was called quality control. We don’t really have that anymore — or at least, we have far less of it. Some of the quality control that does exist isn’t even in the same building anymore — sometimes it’s in a different country. So the standards in legacy media aren’t what they used to be.
On top of that, anyone with an iPhone now considers themselves a journalist. And in some ways, they are — but in many ways, they’re not. And all of this stuff is concerning to me.”
Do you ever worry that journalism, as an industry, is fading away — or even dying?
“I don’t think so. It’s just changing — cataclysmically. People still want to know stuff. The way they’re learning about stuff is very different, and that’s okay. And, you know, those of us who are in this game have to figure out how to move with the times. I hope, in our stampede toward whatever comes next — or whatever the latest fad is — we’re not going to lose some of the basic things that I think we still ought to care about: accuracy, neutrality, fairness, balance. I still think those are important things. And there seems to be a lot less worshiping at the altar of those things nowadays, because anybody with a cell phone and an opinion thinks they’re on the same plane as a columnist for The New York Times who’s been at it for 25 years. I’m sorry if it sounds snooty — but they’re not. I think experience counts for something in journalism. Quality control matters. Editing matters. Fact-checking matters. People still ought to care about all those things.”
When you set out to create The Agenda, what was the original mission or vision for the show?
“We called the show The Agenda because we were presumptuous enough to think, not that we had an agenda, but that the issues we felt were important to be engaged on at the dawn of the 21st century — which was when the show debuted, in 2006 — we thought we could make a contribution to the public’s understanding of the issues and engage them on it.
We wanted to do it in a way that was, we hoped, distinctive from what everything else on the dial was doing. I noticed that there are all-news channels on this continent, and they’re great — they give us a window into the world, 24/7 — but I also noticed that they’ve fallen into the formula of basically not allowing any interviews to go longer than six minutes, or any panel discussions to go longer than 20 minutes. And yes, there are some exceptions, but not too many. We very much wanted to plant our flag firmly for long-form journalism — for longer one-on-ones and longer panel discussions. And if it meant we were only going to cover two or three issues per program instead of seven or eight, then okay.”
Do you think that the kind of long-form journalism you really tried to push — especially at a time when it wasn’t widely practiced — had an impact? And to what extent do you feel it had a measurable impact on the public’s understanding of policy?
“I don’t think they leave you on the air for 19 years if the people who make the decisions at TVO aren’t satisfied that you’re having some kind of impact. I couldn’t begin to know how to measure that — but let’s just say, there isn’t a day that goes by when someone doesn’t stop me on the subway, or on the street, or somewhere, to talk about something they saw on The Agenda. So, yeah — I’m happy about that.”
Was there ever a topic you felt strongly about covering, even if others were hesitant? Maybe one that really stands out — something you personally cared about?
“I’m sure there was. Now, if you put me on the spot and ask me what it is, I have a hard time telling you… Well, all right — I’ll give you something that’s happening right now. I happen to believe that the most important election of my lifetime took place in 1985, 40 years ago this month, in fact. And I went to the executive producer last month and said, ’The 40th anniversary of the election that ended a 42-year-long Progressive Conservative dynasty is coming up in June 2025, and we should do a show on it.’” And I don’t know that anybody else — I saw David Herle just did a show on it — but I don’t think too many others will. That’s something I pitched, and happily, it was accepted.”
Your toughest interview?
Oh, that predates The Agenda. My most difficult interview was on a show I used to do called Studio 2 and it was with Mordecai Richler. I got him on a bad day. He just didn’t want to be there. I still have nightmares about how badly that interview went.
Go on.
“I tried to engage him — he’d written a book, he was on a book tour. I don’t know if he didn’t like the book, didn’t like me, or just didn’t want to be there. But all of his answers were two- or three-word replies. I just couldn’t get anything out of him. And the format of that show — Studio 2 — was that after the interview ended, the director would cut to a wide shot, they’d kill the mics, and we’d just sit there and chat casually for five seconds before fading to black. But in that interview, when they cut to the wide shot, what you saw was Mordecai ripping off his microphone and walking off the set. He couldn’t wait five more seconds to get out of there. It was fascinating — and honestly, I don’t know what went wrong. I was a friend of his son, who actually used to host a show at TVO. We even talked about that during the interview — but it didn’t help. He was just a very uncooperative interviewee that day.”
There aren’t many journalists who’ve moderated as many federal and provincial leaders’ debates as you have. From some experience, moderating a debate is one of the most daunting challenges a journalist can face. I’m curious, from your perspective, what is the role of the moderator supposed to be? Particularly now, when journalists and moderators are under intense scrutiny, how do you look at the job?
“First and foremost, the role of a moderator is to make sure you don’t get mentioned in the papers the next day. That basically means being scrupulously fair — making sure everybody gets roughly the same amount of time, and making sure all the leaders come away from the experience feeling like they were treated fairly.
I don’t believe the moderator’s job is to fact-check. I think you get into trouble when you do that. If the leaders want to fact-check each other, that’s fine, but I don’t see that as my role. I do see it as my job to make sure they’re not all yelling over each other. That contributes nothing to a civilized debate, and the viewing public gets nothing out of that.
At the end of the day, you have to remind yourself what this is all about. It’s about giving the leaders a chance to respond to neutral, lean, open-ended questions — not about showing off how tough you can be or peacocking in front of the cameras. It’s about them. It’s about giving them a chance, under a clear set of rules, to engage with each other and convince Canadians why they’re the best option for their vote.”
Any interesting anecdotes?
“I remember reading the introduction on debate night [in 2006], and the teleprompter went dead just as I was starting. I remember thinking to myself, ’Someone upstairs has a pretty funny sense of humor — first they pull my name out of a hat [to moderate the debate], and now this.’ But whatever — I got through it. And I guess I didn’t do a horrible job, because they asked me eight more times.”
You’ve written about Premier Ford not coming on The Agenda. You’re known for being a tough interviewer — always balanced, but tough. Beyond Mr. Ford, have you run into that kind of resistance from other politicians over the years?
“The short answer is no. I think most people are very happy to come on The Agenda because, first, they know I’ll be fair. Second, I don’t force people to speak in 10-second clips — it’s a show where you’re allowed to speak in paragraphs. And third, we almost never edit. Occasionally we’ll have to make small edits for time, but guests know that what they say on set is what’s going to air that night. So, most people are quite happy to be on the program because they actually get a chance to express themselves in some depth. There are a few notable exceptions — people who’ve chosen not to come on — and I think that’s a shame. But that’s their choice. There’s no law that says anyone has to come on The Agenda.”
But he’d talk to American reporters. Does that irk you?
“I’ve always thought it was a little strange that his people wouldn’t make him available to TVO, given that he technically owns TVO. It’s the one media outlet in all of North America that he actually owns. So yeah, I always found that kind of funny. But let me hasten to add — and this is the truth — he and I have a very good professional relationship. A solid one. He’s been on TVO before: he came on for a leadership debate, he came on when his book came out and he came on once when he was running for mayor. He just hasn’t appeared in the seven years he’s been Premier. It’s not that he doesn’t like me. I think we like each other just fine. But for whatever reason, his people stopped returning my emails months and months ago. I don’t know why. They just refuse to even consider the request. And even when they did respond, the answer was always the same: ’The Premier is unavailable.’ That was it. So, I don’t know the reason. No one’s ever told me. But clearly, there is a reason — because we’ve never managed to get him.”
How do you manage having close family involved in politics while your job is to maintain neutrality and objectivity as a journalist? How do you find that balance?
“I don’t think you can ever say to journalists, ’If any member of your family has an interest in an issue you’re covering, then you can’t be seen as an honest broker and therefore you shouldn’t cover it.’ I just think that’s ridiculous. The reality is, anyone who’s engaged in public life — as I am, and as my broader family has been — is going to encounter appearances of conflict. All you can do is acknowledge them.
So, when we cover health care issues, I disclose that my wife is a health policy consultant. Years ago, my mother was chair of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and when we did stories on nuclear power — this was before The Agenda — I would disclose that too. My brother is a home builder in southern Ontario, so whenever we do housing issues, I say that on air.
The notion that I should somehow avoid covering health care, energy, or housing — just because I have relatives involved in those areas — is absurd. And those are only three people. I have other relatives with stakes in other fields. What am I supposed to do — avoid covering half of public policy? We don’t live in a world where everyone around you is completely disengaged. That’s just not realistic. So all you can do is be transparent: disclose what you know, acknowledge the potential appearance of conflict, and let the audience make up their own minds about whether you’re being fair.”
How hard was it for you to leave work at work? As a journalist, you’re always on your phone, people are always talking to you. How hard was it to make that balance?
“The word isn’t hard — the word is impossible. I never could. It was always a struggle for me not to reach for my iPhone during dinner. Back in the day, when I was doing Studio 2 and the early years of The Agenda, we were live at 8 p.m. I lived two blocks from the studio, so I’d race home for a quick dinner. But even when I was home, I wasn’t what you’d call fully present. It was an hour, maybe an hour and a half before airtime, and I had to stay in touch with the home office to see what was going on. That’s kind of the way I’ve always lived — whenever I’m doing something or talking to someone, part of me is always thinking: ’Is this a story? Is this something for the show? Could I write a column about this?’ That’s just my innate curiosity, which I’ve never lost.”
OK, I’m curious: what are Steve Paikin’s side hobbies?
“I play hockey once or twice a week, which I still love to do. And every year, I take a baseball road trip — I love doing that. I might do a couple this year, actually.
You’ve got more time now, right?
[Laughs].
“Not really. I don’t actually have more time — I’m working to set up my post-Agenda life. So no, I’m not retiring. I’m rewiring.”
What do you want that rewired life to look like?
“I don’t know yet — I’m still figuring it out. But I can tell you this: it won’t be a job. What I want is a mix of different things — different buckets. That’s one of the things I’ve loved most about working at TVO: I’ve been able to do a lot of different things under one roof. I could host a nightly TV show, but also write a column, host a monthly town hall, do YouTube segments like Nerds on Politics or Ontario Chronicle, and even attend events and live-tweet them like a reporter. That variety really worked for me. And whatever I do next, I want it to be just as varied.”
— The House is out for the summer.
— Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy is taking Bill 9 on the road.
Haven’t weighed in yet? You still can — in writing. Want to have your say elsewhere? Make a submission.
— The New Leaf Liberals are set to host two summer stops — one in Toronto on July 10, one in Ottawa on July 17.
To rewind: The group is calling for a full-scale overhaul of the party — and new leadership to lead it. They blame Bonnie Crombie for her “inability to undertake the necessary steps to rebuild our party," and say that if she’s unable to lock in two-thirds support in September, she should quit.
— A giant new flag just went up over the front doors of Queen’s Park.
Recall: Canada Day at the Park — a 10 to 5 p.m. event — will feature live performances, midway rides, family-friendly games, roaming entertainers, self-guided tours of the building and more. Yes, there’ll be food. More.
The Board of Internal Economy had green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s party.se
— Farewell: Sol Mamakwa’s wife, Pearl, has died. “She was a devoted wife, a loving mother and a proud grandmother,” he wrote. “Pearl’s strength, kindness, and unconditional love were the foundation of our family, and her absence leaves a void that can never be filled.”
The tributes:
Viewing will be held today at St. Mary’s Anglican Church from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., followed by the funeral from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. Burial will take place at 2:00 p.m. at Northway Cemetery, with a reception to follow. More.
— “You never know.” Asked if he’s eyeing Pierre Poilievre’s job, that was Doug Ford’s answer.
— One NDP MPP says forcing a non-disclosure agreement on labour leaders is “not appropriate.”
— Renderings are out for the 5-storey parking garage at Ontario Place. No decision yet on where the temporary Science Centre will go.
— Don’t ask Doug. Ford says the project’s financing isn’t his problem.
— The Ford government’s goal of 1.5 million homes by 2031 might not cut it, with internal projections suggesting as many as 2.1 million may be needed.
— Meanwhile, Ontario is not on pace to hit a key climate change target with less than 5 years to go.
— Metrolinx has a new CEO. So too does Infrastructure Ontario.
— A new hospital in Mississauga will be the first to specialize in care for women and children.
— One councillor is calling for a pause on automated speed enforcement in Toronto, arguing they’re more trap than deterrent.
— Complaints against lawyers and paralegals — including for sexual harassment — are being kept secret.
— The provincial ombudsman says crammed provincial jails are undermining the justice system.
— Wildfire personnel are getting a raise and a new title.
— In Liberal land, some are blaming Crombie’s co-campaign directors for how February played out.
— Between mid-December and mid-February, $38 million was spent on cross-border ads. Most of it landed on Fox News.
— John Michael McGrath is asking if the Ford government’s move to kill Toronto’s green standard for construction could land in court. Steve Paikin was in the room on a night that paid tribute to the Peterson-era. More from Martin Regg Cohn. Meanwhile, he says it’s time for Doug Ford to admit Bill 5 was a mistake. On whether Ford is thinking federally, Gerry Nicholls has some summer speculation.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Got a tip, a story idea or an annoying boss? I’m all ears — and I don’t name names. I’ll be back in your inbox in early August — don’t miss me too much.
Before we dig in, a programming note: This is the last regular issue before I duck out on a much-needed vacation. We’re dialing down, not out: expect the odd scoop or the occasional deep-read in my absence. I’ll be back in early August. May your July be quiet, calm and drama-free.
Q+A — Steve Paikin isn’t going anywhere.
Though the veteran broadcaster will close The Agenda for the last time tonight, don’t call it a retirement. “I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late,” Paikin said in a 40-minute Zoom interview earlier this month.
Instead, he’s “rewiring.” Though he’s still sketching out what that’ll look like, Paikin says he’s sticking with the kind of work that’s kept him going for more than four decades. And on that work, he’s got plenty to tell: on what’s changed about journalism, why moderating debates should never be about the moderator and why Doug Ford has been a no-show on his program.
We caught up with him to chat about the end of The Agenda — and why his work isn’t over.
Here’s our conversation, edited for length and clarity:
How are you feeling?
“I feel great about all of it. If you had told me when I signed my first contract to do The Agenda 19 years ago that I’d get to host the show for this long, I’d have said you were crazy — it’ll never last that long. So the fact that it has is a great joy. But you can’t overstay your welcome with these things, and I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late. That’s why, three years ago, I decided this would be my last contract. We’ll see what comes next.”
What was the moment when you thought, “This is it — I don’t want to renew again, I want to step aside”? What made you feel that way?
“I can’t say that there was a moment. Well, you’re actually getting me today on my 65th birthday. I remember thinking when I was 62, signing this, ’Okay, this contract will take me to 65.’ And, you know, if I’m ever going to have a chance to do some of the other things in my so-called career that I want to do, I’m running out of runway. So I thought three years ago, ’This probably ought to be the last contract.’ And they were very good about it. They said, ’We can re-up if you want.’ But I thought, ’No, this feels right. Let’s go out while things are still, I think, reasonably good,’ and see what’s next.”
Take me back to the beginning. What drew you into journalism?
“I knew the moment I wanted to be a broadcaster. It was actually before my first classes had even started at the University of Toronto, back in 1978. I went to Hart House during Clubs Night, which I think was still in the last week of August. Classes hadn’t started yet. I walked in and saw all these tables — the chess club, the debate club, the archery club, the photography club. And then I saw a table that said U of T Radio. And I’m telling you, it was like a eureka light went off above my head. I walked over and asked, ’Do you guys have anybody who does the play-by-play for the Varsity Blues hockey or football teams?’ And they said, ’No.’ I said, ’Well, could I do it?’ And they said, ’Sure.’ And that was it. That was my first gig in radio — doing sportscasting and play-by-play, the voice of the Varsity Blues hockey and football teams. It just kind of grew from there. I eventually became the sports editor at the student paper — not The Varsity, but The Newspaper. And it really took off from there."
Now, on your way out —
“Well, I’m not on my way out of journalism — I’m staying in journalism. That’s the first thing. Let me clarify that I’m stepping away from The Agenda, but I’m continuing with a number of other projects. I’ll still be hosting the #onpoli podcast and writing a weekly column for TVO. I’m also going to keep doing our monthly town hall show, TVO Today Live. And I’ll continue with the short five-minute YouTube segments we do called Ontario Chronicles, which focus on political history. So, yes, I’m reducing my time at TVO, but I’m not leaving TVO. Over the last six months, I’ve been in the process of figuring out what to do with the time I’ve spent on The Agenda, and that’s starting to become clearer — though I’m not quite there yet.”
But how do you think journalism has changed since you first got into it?
“Well, I mean — massively, catastrophically, amazingly — take your pick. Use any adverb you want. It’s just so different. So, so different.
My first full-time job in journalism was in 1982, so obviously, things have changed dramatically since then. Technically speaking, I remember going out to do interviews with a cassette tape recorder, bringing them back to the newsroom, transferring them to reel-to-reel, then voicing my reports. We’d literally take a razor blade and cut the tape to edit the audio — that’s how prehistoric it was when I started. Of course, none of that happens anymore. The technical capabilities we have now are extraordinary — but I sometimes wonder if our brains have been able to keep up with all these advancements.
Back then, working in legacy media came with a certain gatekeeping function. You had editors. People read your work before it was published. When I was at CBC, I did over a thousand TV news pieces, and every single script I wrote was reviewed by two editors before I even got to the editing booth. Then someone else watched the final piece before it went to air. That was called quality control. We don’t really have that anymore — or at least, we have far less of it. Some of the quality control that does exist isn’t even in the same building anymore — sometimes it’s in a different country. So the standards in legacy media aren’t what they used to be.
On top of that, anyone with an iPhone now considers themselves a journalist. And in some ways, they are — but in many ways, they’re not. And all of this stuff is concerning to me.”
Do you ever worry that journalism, as an industry, is fading away — or even dying?
“I don’t think so. It’s just changing — cataclysmically. People still want to know stuff. The way they’re learning about stuff is very different, and that’s okay. And, you know, those of us who are in this game have to figure out how to move with the times. I hope, in our stampede toward whatever comes next — or whatever the latest fad is — we’re not going to lose some of the basic things that I think we still ought to care about: accuracy, neutrality, fairness, balance. I still think those are important things. And there seems to be a lot less worshiping at the altar of those things nowadays, because anybody with a cell phone and an opinion thinks they’re on the same plane as a columnist for The New York Times who’s been at it for 25 years. I’m sorry if it sounds snooty — but they’re not. I think experience counts for something in journalism. Quality control matters. Editing matters. Fact-checking matters. People still ought to care about all those things.”
When you set out to create The Agenda, what was the original mission or vision for the show?
“We called the show The Agenda because we were presumptuous enough to think, not that we had an agenda, but that the issues we felt were important to be engaged on at the dawn of the 21st century — which was when the show debuted, in 2006 — we thought we could make a contribution to the public’s understanding of the issues and engage them on it.
We wanted to do it in a way that was, we hoped, distinctive from what everything else on the dial was doing. I noticed that there are all-news channels on this continent, and they’re great — they give us a window into the world, 24/7 — but I also noticed that they’ve fallen into the formula of basically not allowing any interviews to go longer than six minutes, or any panel discussions to go longer than 20 minutes. And yes, there are some exceptions, but not too many. We very much wanted to plant our flag firmly for long-form journalism — for longer one-on-ones and longer panel discussions. And if it meant we were only going to cover two or three issues per program instead of seven or eight, then okay.”
Do you think that the kind of long-form journalism you really tried to push — especially at a time when it wasn’t widely practiced — had an impact? And to what extent do you feel it had a measurable impact on the public’s understanding of policy?
“I don’t think they leave you on the air for 19 years if the people who make the decisions at TVO aren’t satisfied that you’re having some kind of impact. I couldn’t begin to know how to measure that — but let’s just say, there isn’t a day that goes by when someone doesn’t stop me on the subway, or on the street, or somewhere, to talk about something they saw on The Agenda. So, yeah — I’m happy about that.”
Was there ever a topic you felt strongly about covering, even if others were hesitant? Maybe one that really stands out — something you personally cared about?
“I’m sure there was. Now, if you put me on the spot and ask me what it is, I have a hard time telling you… Well, all right — I’ll give you something that’s happening right now. I happen to believe that the most important election of my lifetime took place in 1985, 40 years ago this month, in fact. And I went to the executive producer last month and said, ’The 40th anniversary of the election that ended a 42-year-long Progressive Conservative dynasty is coming up in June 2025, and we should do a show on it.’” And I don’t know that anybody else — I saw David Herle just did a show on it — but I don’t think too many others will. That’s something I pitched, and happily, it was accepted.”
Your toughest interview?
Oh, that predates The Agenda. My most difficult interview was on a show I used to do called Studio 2 and it was with Mordecai Richler. I got him on a bad day. He just didn’t want to be there. I still have nightmares about how badly that interview went.
Go on.
“I tried to engage him — he’d written a book, he was on a book tour. I don’t know if he didn’t like the book, didn’t like me, or just didn’t want to be there. But all of his answers were two- or three-word replies. I just couldn’t get anything out of him. And the format of that show — Studio 2 — was that after the interview ended, the director would cut to a wide shot, they’d kill the mics, and we’d just sit there and chat casually for five seconds before fading to black. But in that interview, when they cut to the wide shot, what you saw was Mordecai ripping off his microphone and walking off the set. He couldn’t wait five more seconds to get out of there. It was fascinating — and honestly, I don’t know what went wrong. I was a friend of his son, who actually used to host a show at TVO. We even talked about that during the interview — but it didn’t help. He was just a very uncooperative interviewee that day.”
There aren’t many journalists who’ve moderated as many federal and provincial leaders’ debates as you have. From some experience, moderating a debate is one of the most daunting challenges a journalist can face. I’m curious, from your perspective, what is the role of the moderator supposed to be? Particularly now, when journalists and moderators are under intense scrutiny, how do you look at the job?
“First and foremost, the role of a moderator is to make sure you don’t get mentioned in the papers the next day. That basically means being scrupulously fair — making sure everybody gets roughly the same amount of time, and making sure all the leaders come away from the experience feeling like they were treated fairly.
I don’t believe the moderator’s job is to fact-check. I think you get into trouble when you do that. If the leaders want to fact-check each other, that’s fine, but I don’t see that as my role. I do see it as my job to make sure they’re not all yelling over each other. That contributes nothing to a civilized debate, and the viewing public gets nothing out of that.
At the end of the day, you have to remind yourself what this is all about. It’s about giving the leaders a chance to respond to neutral, lean, open-ended questions — not about showing off how tough you can be or peacocking in front of the cameras. It’s about them. It’s about giving them a chance, under a clear set of rules, to engage with each other and convince Canadians why they’re the best option for their vote.”
Any interesting anecdotes?
“I remember reading the introduction on debate night [in 2006], and the teleprompter went dead just as I was starting. I remember thinking to myself, ’Someone upstairs has a pretty funny sense of humor — first they pull my name out of a hat [to moderate the debate], and now this.’ But whatever — I got through it. And I guess I didn’t do a horrible job, because they asked me eight more times.”
You’ve written about Premier Ford not coming on The Agenda. You’re known for being a tough interviewer — always balanced, but tough. Beyond Mr. Ford, have you run into that kind of resistance from other politicians over the years?
“The short answer is no. I think most people are very happy to come on The Agenda because, first, they know I’ll be fair. Second, I don’t force people to speak in 10-second clips — it’s a show where you’re allowed to speak in paragraphs. And third, we almost never edit. Occasionally we’ll have to make small edits for time, but guests know that what they say on set is what’s going to air that night. So, most people are quite happy to be on the program because they actually get a chance to express themselves in some depth. There are a few notable exceptions — people who’ve chosen not to come on — and I think that’s a shame. But that’s their choice. There’s no law that says anyone has to come on The Agenda.”
But he’d talk to American reporters. Does that irk you?
“I’ve always thought it was a little strange that his people wouldn’t make him available to TVO, given that he technically owns TVO. It’s the one media outlet in all of North America that he actually owns. So yeah, I always found that kind of funny. But let me hasten to add — and this is the truth — he and I have a very good professional relationship. A solid one. He’s been on TVO before: he came on for a leadership debate, he came on when his book came out and he came on once when he was running for mayor. He just hasn’t appeared in the seven years he’s been Premier. It’s not that he doesn’t like me. I think we like each other just fine. But for whatever reason, his people stopped returning my emails months and months ago. I don’t know why. They just refuse to even consider the request. And even when they did respond, the answer was always the same: ’The Premier is unavailable.’ That was it. So, I don’t know the reason. No one’s ever told me. But clearly, there is a reason — because we’ve never managed to get him.”
How do you manage having close family involved in politics while your job is to maintain neutrality and objectivity as a journalist? How do you find that balance?
“I don’t think you can ever say to journalists, ’If any member of your family has an interest in an issue you’re covering, then you can’t be seen as an honest broker and therefore you shouldn’t cover it.’ I just think that’s ridiculous. The reality is, anyone who’s engaged in public life — as I am, and as my broader family has been — is going to encounter appearances of conflict. All you can do is acknowledge them.
So, when we cover health care issues, I disclose that my wife is a health policy consultant. Years ago, my mother was chair of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and when we did stories on nuclear power — this was before The Agenda — I would disclose that too. My brother is a home builder in southern Ontario, so whenever we do housing issues, I say that on air.
The notion that I should somehow avoid covering health care, energy, or housing — just because I have relatives involved in those areas — is absurd. And those are only three people. I have other relatives with stakes in other fields. What am I supposed to do — avoid covering half of public policy? We don’t live in a world where everyone around you is completely disengaged. That’s just not realistic. So all you can do is be transparent: disclose what you know, acknowledge the potential appearance of conflict, and let the audience make up their own minds about whether you’re being fair.”
How hard was it for you to leave work at work? As a journalist, you’re always on your phone, people are always talking to you. How hard was it to make that balance?
“The word isn’t hard — the word is impossible. I never could. It was always a struggle for me not to reach for my iPhone during dinner. Back in the day, when I was doing Studio 2 and the early years of The Agenda, we were live at 8 p.m. I lived two blocks from the studio, so I’d race home for a quick dinner. But even when I was home, I wasn’t what you’d call fully present. It was an hour, maybe an hour and a half before airtime, and I had to stay in touch with the home office to see what was going on. That’s kind of the way I’ve always lived — whenever I’m doing something or talking to someone, part of me is always thinking: ’Is this a story? Is this something for the show? Could I write a column about this?’ That’s just my innate curiosity, which I’ve never lost.”
OK, I’m curious: what are Steve Paikin’s side hobbies?
“I play hockey once or twice a week, which I still love to do. And every year, I take a baseball road trip — I love doing that. I might do a couple this year, actually.
You’ve got more time now, right?
[Laughs].
“Not really. I don’t actually have more time — I’m working to set up my post-Agenda life. So no, I’m not retiring. I’m rewiring.”
What do you want that rewired life to look like?
“I don’t know yet — I’m still figuring it out. But I can tell you this: it won’t be a job. What I want is a mix of different things — different buckets. That’s one of the things I’ve loved most about working at TVO: I’ve been able to do a lot of different things under one roof. I could host a nightly TV show, but also write a column, host a monthly town hall, do YouTube segments like Nerds on Politics or Ontario Chronicle, and even attend events and live-tweet them like a reporter. That variety really worked for me. And whatever I do next, I want it to be just as varied.”
— The House is out for the summer.
— Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy is taking Bill 9 on the road.
Haven’t weighed in yet? You still can — in writing. Want to have your say elsewhere? Make a submission.
— The New Leaf Liberals are set to host two summer stops — one in Toronto on July 10, one in Ottawa on July 17.
To rewind: The group is calling for a full-scale overhaul of the party — and new leadership to lead it. They blame Bonnie Crombie for her “inability to undertake the necessary steps to rebuild our party," and say that if she’s unable to lock in two-thirds support in September, she should quit.
— A giant new flag just went up over the front doors of Queen’s Park.
Recall: Canada Day at the Park — a 10 to 5 p.m. event — will feature live performances, midway rides, family-friendly games, roaming entertainers, self-guided tours of the building and more. Yes, there’ll be food. More.
The Board of Internal Economy had green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s party.se
— Farewell: Sol Mamakwa’s wife, Pearl, has died. “She was a devoted wife, a loving mother and a proud grandmother,” he wrote. “Pearl’s strength, kindness, and unconditional love were the foundation of our family, and her absence leaves a void that can never be filled.”
The tributes:
Viewing will be held today at St. Mary’s Anglican Church from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., followed by the funeral from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. Burial will take place at 2:00 p.m. at Northway Cemetery, with a reception to follow. More.
— “You never know.” Asked if he’s eyeing Pierre Poilievre’s job, that was Doug Ford’s answer.
— One NDP MPP says forcing a non-disclosure agreement on labour leaders is “not appropriate.”
— Renderings are out for the 5-storey parking garage at Ontario Place. No decision yet on where the temporary Science Centre will go.
— Don’t ask Doug. Ford says the project’s financing isn’t his problem.
— The Ford government’s goal of 1.5 million homes by 2031 might not cut it, with internal projections suggesting as many as 2.1 million may be needed.
— Meanwhile, Ontario is not on pace to hit a key climate change target with less than 5 years to go.
— Metrolinx has a new CEO. So too does Infrastructure Ontario.
— A new hospital in Mississauga will be the first to specialize in care for women and children.
— One councillor is calling for a pause on automated speed enforcement in Toronto, arguing they’re more trap than deterrent.
— Complaints against lawyers and paralegals — including for sexual harassment — are being kept secret.
— The provincial ombudsman says crammed provincial jails are undermining the justice system.
— Wildfire personnel are getting a raise and a new title.
— In Liberal land, some are blaming Crombie’s co-campaign directors for how February played out.
— Between mid-December and mid-February, $38 million was spent on cross-border ads. Most of it landed on Fox News.
— John Michael McGrath is asking if the Ford government’s move to kill Toronto’s green standard for construction could land in court. Steve Paikin was in the room on a night that paid tribute to the Peterson-era. More from Martin Regg Cohn. Meanwhile, he says it’s time for Doug Ford to admit Bill 5 was a mistake. On whether Ford is thinking federally, Gerry Nicholls has some summer speculation.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Got a tip, a story idea or an annoying boss? I’m all ears — and I don’t name names. I’ll be back in your inbox in early August — don’t miss me too much.
Before we dig in, a programming note: This is the last regular issue before I duck out on a much-needed vacation. We’re dialing down, not out: expect the odd scoop or the occasional deep-read in my absence. I’ll be back in early August. May your July be quiet, calm and drama-free.
Q+A — Steve Paikin isn’t going anywhere.
Though the veteran broadcaster will close The Agenda for the last time tonight, don’t call it a retirement. “I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late,” Paikin said in a 40-minute Zoom interview earlier this month.
Instead, he’s “rewiring.” Though he’s still sketching out what that’ll look like, Paikin says he’s sticking with the kind of work that’s kept him going for more than four decades. And on that work, he’s got plenty to tell: on what’s changed about journalism, why moderating debates should never be about the moderator and why Doug Ford has been a no-show on his program.
We caught up with him to chat about the end of The Agenda — and why his work isn’t over.
Here’s our conversation, edited for length and clarity:
How are you feeling?
“I feel great about all of it. If you had told me when I signed my first contract to do The Agenda 19 years ago that I’d get to host the show for this long, I’d have said you were crazy — it’ll never last that long. So the fact that it has is a great joy. But you can’t overstay your welcome with these things, and I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late. That’s why, three years ago, I decided this would be my last contract. We’ll see what comes next.”
What was the moment when you thought, “This is it — I don’t want to renew again, I want to step aside”? What made you feel that way?
“I can’t say that there was a moment. Well, you’re actually getting me today on my 65th birthday. I remember thinking when I was 62, signing this, ’Okay, this contract will take me to 65.’ And, you know, if I’m ever going to have a chance to do some of the other things in my so-called career that I want to do, I’m running out of runway. So I thought three years ago, ’This probably ought to be the last contract.’ And they were very good about it. They said, ’We can re-up if you want.’ But I thought, ’No, this feels right. Let’s go out while things are still, I think, reasonably good,’ and see what’s next.”
Take me back to the beginning. What drew you into journalism?
“I knew the moment I wanted to be a broadcaster. It was actually before my first classes had even started at the University of Toronto, back in 1978. I went to Hart House during Clubs Night, which I think was still in the last week of August. Classes hadn’t started yet. I walked in and saw all these tables — the chess club, the debate club, the archery club, the photography club. And then I saw a table that said U of T Radio. And I’m telling you, it was like a eureka light went off above my head. I walked over and asked, ’Do you guys have anybody who does the play-by-play for the Varsity Blues hockey or football teams?’ And they said, ’No.’ I said, ’Well, could I do it?’ And they said, ’Sure.’ And that was it. That was my first gig in radio — doing sportscasting and play-by-play, the voice of the Varsity Blues hockey and football teams. It just kind of grew from there. I eventually became the sports editor at the student paper — not The Varsity, but The Newspaper. And it really took off from there."
Now, on your way out —
“Well, I’m not on my way out of journalism — I’m staying in journalism. That’s the first thing. Let me clarify that I’m stepping away from The Agenda, but I’m continuing with a number of other projects. I’ll still be hosting the #onpoli podcast and writing a weekly column for TVO. I’m also going to keep doing our monthly town hall show, TVO Today Live. And I’ll continue with the short five-minute YouTube segments we do called Ontario Chronicles, which focus on political history. So, yes, I’m reducing my time at TVO, but I’m not leaving TVO. Over the last six months, I’ve been in the process of figuring out what to do with the time I’ve spent on The Agenda, and that’s starting to become clearer — though I’m not quite there yet.”
But how do you think journalism has changed since you first got into it?
“Well, I mean — massively, catastrophically, amazingly — take your pick. Use any adverb you want. It’s just so different. So, so different.
My first full-time job in journalism was in 1982, so obviously, things have changed dramatically since then. Technically speaking, I remember going out to do interviews with a cassette tape recorder, bringing them back to the newsroom, transferring them to reel-to-reel, then voicing my reports. We’d literally take a razor blade and cut the tape to edit the audio — that’s how prehistoric it was when I started. Of course, none of that happens anymore. The technical capabilities we have now are extraordinary — but I sometimes wonder if our brains have been able to keep up with all these advancements.
Back then, working in legacy media came with a certain gatekeeping function. You had editors. People read your work before it was published. When I was at CBC, I did over a thousand TV news pieces, and every single script I wrote was reviewed by two editors before I even got to the editing booth. Then someone else watched the final piece before it went to air. That was called quality control. We don’t really have that anymore — or at least, we have far less of it. Some of the quality control that does exist isn’t even in the same building anymore — sometimes it’s in a different country. So the standards in legacy media aren’t what they used to be.
On top of that, anyone with an iPhone now considers themselves a journalist. And in some ways, they are — but in many ways, they’re not. And all of this stuff is concerning to me.”
Do you ever worry that journalism, as an industry, is fading away — or even dying?
“I don’t think so. It’s just changing — cataclysmically. People still want to know stuff. The way they’re learning about stuff is very different, and that’s okay. And, you know, those of us who are in this game have to figure out how to move with the times. I hope, in our stampede toward whatever comes next — or whatever the latest fad is — we’re not going to lose some of the basic things that I think we still ought to care about: accuracy, neutrality, fairness, balance. I still think those are important things. And there seems to be a lot less worshiping at the altar of those things nowadays, because anybody with a cell phone and an opinion thinks they’re on the same plane as a columnist for The New York Times who’s been at it for 25 years. I’m sorry if it sounds snooty — but they’re not. I think experience counts for something in journalism. Quality control matters. Editing matters. Fact-checking matters. People still ought to care about all those things.”
When you set out to create The Agenda, what was the original mission or vision for the show?
“We called the show The Agenda because we were presumptuous enough to think, not that we had an agenda, but that the issues we felt were important to be engaged on at the dawn of the 21st century — which was when the show debuted, in 2006 — we thought we could make a contribution to the public’s understanding of the issues and engage them on it.
We wanted to do it in a way that was, we hoped, distinctive from what everything else on the dial was doing. I noticed that there are all-news channels on this continent, and they’re great — they give us a window into the world, 24/7 — but I also noticed that they’ve fallen into the formula of basically not allowing any interviews to go longer than six minutes, or any panel discussions to go longer than 20 minutes. And yes, there are some exceptions, but not too many. We very much wanted to plant our flag firmly for long-form journalism — for longer one-on-ones and longer panel discussions. And if it meant we were only going to cover two or three issues per program instead of seven or eight, then okay.”
Do you think that the kind of long-form journalism you really tried to push — especially at a time when it wasn’t widely practiced — had an impact? And to what extent do you feel it had a measurable impact on the public’s understanding of policy?
“I don’t think they leave you on the air for 19 years if the people who make the decisions at TVO aren’t satisfied that you’re having some kind of impact. I couldn’t begin to know how to measure that — but let’s just say, there isn’t a day that goes by when someone doesn’t stop me on the subway, or on the street, or somewhere, to talk about something they saw on The Agenda. So, yeah — I’m happy about that.”
Was there ever a topic you felt strongly about covering, even if others were hesitant? Maybe one that really stands out — something you personally cared about?
“I’m sure there was. Now, if you put me on the spot and ask me what it is, I have a hard time telling you… Well, all right — I’ll give you something that’s happening right now. I happen to believe that the most important election of my lifetime took place in 1985, 40 years ago this month, in fact. And I went to the executive producer last month and said, ’The 40th anniversary of the election that ended a 42-year-long Progressive Conservative dynasty is coming up in June 2025, and we should do a show on it.’” And I don’t know that anybody else — I saw David Herle just did a show on it — but I don’t think too many others will. That’s something I pitched, and happily, it was accepted.”
Your toughest interview?
Oh, that predates The Agenda. My most difficult interview was on a show I used to do called Studio 2 and it was with Mordecai Richler. I got him on a bad day. He just didn’t want to be there. I still have nightmares about how badly that interview went.
Go on.
“I tried to engage him — he’d written a book, he was on a book tour. I don’t know if he didn’t like the book, didn’t like me, or just didn’t want to be there. But all of his answers were two- or three-word replies. I just couldn’t get anything out of him. And the format of that show — Studio 2 — was that after the interview ended, the director would cut to a wide shot, they’d kill the mics, and we’d just sit there and chat casually for five seconds before fading to black. But in that interview, when they cut to the wide shot, what you saw was Mordecai ripping off his microphone and walking off the set. He couldn’t wait five more seconds to get out of there. It was fascinating — and honestly, I don’t know what went wrong. I was a friend of his son, who actually used to host a show at TVO. We even talked about that during the interview — but it didn’t help. He was just a very uncooperative interviewee that day.”
There aren’t many journalists who’ve moderated as many federal and provincial leaders’ debates as you have. From some experience, moderating a debate is one of the most daunting challenges a journalist can face. I’m curious, from your perspective, what is the role of the moderator supposed to be? Particularly now, when journalists and moderators are under intense scrutiny, how do you look at the job?
“First and foremost, the role of a moderator is to make sure you don’t get mentioned in the papers the next day. That basically means being scrupulously fair — making sure everybody gets roughly the same amount of time, and making sure all the leaders come away from the experience feeling like they were treated fairly.
I don’t believe the moderator’s job is to fact-check. I think you get into trouble when you do that. If the leaders want to fact-check each other, that’s fine, but I don’t see that as my role. I do see it as my job to make sure they’re not all yelling over each other. That contributes nothing to a civilized debate, and the viewing public gets nothing out of that.
At the end of the day, you have to remind yourself what this is all about. It’s about giving the leaders a chance to respond to neutral, lean, open-ended questions — not about showing off how tough you can be or peacocking in front of the cameras. It’s about them. It’s about giving them a chance, under a clear set of rules, to engage with each other and convince Canadians why they’re the best option for their vote.”
Any interesting anecdotes?
“I remember reading the introduction on debate night [in 2006], and the teleprompter went dead just as I was starting. I remember thinking to myself, ’Someone upstairs has a pretty funny sense of humor — first they pull my name out of a hat [to moderate the debate], and now this.’ But whatever — I got through it. And I guess I didn’t do a horrible job, because they asked me eight more times.”
You’ve written about Premier Ford not coming on The Agenda. You’re known for being a tough interviewer — always balanced, but tough. Beyond Mr. Ford, have you run into that kind of resistance from other politicians over the years?
“The short answer is no. I think most people are very happy to come on The Agenda because, first, they know I’ll be fair. Second, I don’t force people to speak in 10-second clips — it’s a show where you’re allowed to speak in paragraphs. And third, we almost never edit. Occasionally we’ll have to make small edits for time, but guests know that what they say on set is what’s going to air that night. So, most people are quite happy to be on the program because they actually get a chance to express themselves in some depth. There are a few notable exceptions — people who’ve chosen not to come on — and I think that’s a shame. But that’s their choice. There’s no law that says anyone has to come on The Agenda.”
But he’d talk to American reporters. Does that irk you?
“I’ve always thought it was a little strange that his people wouldn’t make him available to TVO, given that he technically owns TVO. It’s the one media outlet in all of North America that he actually owns. So yeah, I always found that kind of funny. But let me hasten to add — and this is the truth — he and I have a very good professional relationship. A solid one. He’s been on TVO before: he came on for a leadership debate, he came on when his book came out and he came on once when he was running for mayor. He just hasn’t appeared in the seven years he’s been Premier. It’s not that he doesn’t like me. I think we like each other just fine. But for whatever reason, his people stopped returning my emails months and months ago. I don’t know why. They just refuse to even consider the request. And even when they did respond, the answer was always the same: ’The Premier is unavailable.’ That was it. So, I don’t know the reason. No one’s ever told me. But clearly, there is a reason — because we’ve never managed to get him.”
How do you manage having close family involved in politics while your job is to maintain neutrality and objectivity as a journalist? How do you find that balance?
“I don’t think you can ever say to journalists, ’If any member of your family has an interest in an issue you’re covering, then you can’t be seen as an honest broker and therefore you shouldn’t cover it.’ I just think that’s ridiculous. The reality is, anyone who’s engaged in public life — as I am, and as my broader family has been — is going to encounter appearances of conflict. All you can do is acknowledge them.
So, when we cover health care issues, I disclose that my wife is a health policy consultant. Years ago, my mother was chair of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and when we did stories on nuclear power — this was before The Agenda — I would disclose that too. My brother is a home builder in southern Ontario, so whenever we do housing issues, I say that on air.
The notion that I should somehow avoid covering health care, energy, or housing — just because I have relatives involved in those areas — is absurd. And those are only three people. I have other relatives with stakes in other fields. What am I supposed to do — avoid covering half of public policy? We don’t live in a world where everyone around you is completely disengaged. That’s just not realistic. So all you can do is be transparent: disclose what you know, acknowledge the potential appearance of conflict, and let the audience make up their own minds about whether you’re being fair.”
How hard was it for you to leave work at work? As a journalist, you’re always on your phone, people are always talking to you. How hard was it to make that balance?
“The word isn’t hard — the word is impossible. I never could. It was always a struggle for me not to reach for my iPhone during dinner. Back in the day, when I was doing Studio 2 and the early years of The Agenda, we were live at 8 p.m. I lived two blocks from the studio, so I’d race home for a quick dinner. But even when I was home, I wasn’t what you’d call fully present. It was an hour, maybe an hour and a half before airtime, and I had to stay in touch with the home office to see what was going on. That’s kind of the way I’ve always lived — whenever I’m doing something or talking to someone, part of me is always thinking: ’Is this a story? Is this something for the show? Could I write a column about this?’ That’s just my innate curiosity, which I’ve never lost.”
OK, I’m curious: what are Steve Paikin’s side hobbies?
“I play hockey once or twice a week, which I still love to do. And every year, I take a baseball road trip — I love doing that. I might do a couple this year, actually.
You’ve got more time now, right?
[Laughs].
“Not really. I don’t actually have more time — I’m working to set up my post-Agenda life. So no, I’m not retiring. I’m rewiring.”
What do you want that rewired life to look like?
“I don’t know yet — I’m still figuring it out. But I can tell you this: it won’t be a job. What I want is a mix of different things — different buckets. That’s one of the things I’ve loved most about working at TVO: I’ve been able to do a lot of different things under one roof. I could host a nightly TV show, but also write a column, host a monthly town hall, do YouTube segments like Nerds on Politics or Ontario Chronicle, and even attend events and live-tweet them like a reporter. That variety really worked for me. And whatever I do next, I want it to be just as varied.”
— The House is out for the summer.
— Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy is taking Bill 9 on the road.
Haven’t weighed in yet? You still can — in writing. Want to have your say elsewhere? Make a submission.
— The New Leaf Liberals are set to host two summer stops — one in Toronto on July 10, one in Ottawa on July 17.
To rewind: The group is calling for a full-scale overhaul of the party — and new leadership to lead it. They blame Bonnie Crombie for her “inability to undertake the necessary steps to rebuild our party," and say that if she’s unable to lock in two-thirds support in September, she should quit.
— A giant new flag just went up over the front doors of Queen’s Park.
Recall: Canada Day at the Park — a 10 to 5 p.m. event — will feature live performances, midway rides, family-friendly games, roaming entertainers, self-guided tours of the building and more. Yes, there’ll be food. More.
The Board of Internal Economy had green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s party.se
— Farewell: Sol Mamakwa’s wife, Pearl, has died. “She was a devoted wife, a loving mother and a proud grandmother,” he wrote. “Pearl’s strength, kindness, and unconditional love were the foundation of our family, and her absence leaves a void that can never be filled.”
The tributes:
Viewing will be held today at St. Mary’s Anglican Church from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., followed by the funeral from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. Burial will take place at 2:00 p.m. at Northway Cemetery, with a reception to follow. More.
— “You never know.” Asked if he’s eyeing Pierre Poilievre’s job, that was Doug Ford’s answer.
— One NDP MPP says forcing a non-disclosure agreement on labour leaders is “not appropriate.”
— Renderings are out for the 5-storey parking garage at Ontario Place. No decision yet on where the temporary Science Centre will go.
— Don’t ask Doug. Ford says the project’s financing isn’t his problem.
— The Ford government’s goal of 1.5 million homes by 2031 might not cut it, with internal projections suggesting as many as 2.1 million may be needed.
— Meanwhile, Ontario is not on pace to hit a key climate change target with less than 5 years to go.
— Metrolinx has a new CEO. So too does Infrastructure Ontario.
— A new hospital in Mississauga will be the first to specialize in care for women and children.
— One councillor is calling for a pause on automated speed enforcement in Toronto, arguing they’re more trap than deterrent.
— Complaints against lawyers and paralegals — including for sexual harassment — are being kept secret.
— The provincial ombudsman says crammed provincial jails are undermining the justice system.
— Wildfire personnel are getting a raise and a new title.
— In Liberal land, some are blaming Crombie’s co-campaign directors for how February played out.
— Between mid-December and mid-February, $38 million was spent on cross-border ads. Most of it landed on Fox News.
— John Michael McGrath is asking if the Ford government’s move to kill Toronto’s green standard for construction could land in court. Steve Paikin was in the room on a night that paid tribute to the Peterson-era. More from Martin Regg Cohn. Meanwhile, he says it’s time for Doug Ford to admit Bill 5 was a mistake. On whether Ford is thinking federally, Gerry Nicholls has some summer speculation.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Got a tip, a story idea or an annoying boss? I’m all ears — and I don’t name names. I’ll be back in your inbox in early August — don’t miss me too much.
Before we dig in, a programming note: This is the last regular issue before I duck out on a much-needed vacation. We’re dialing down, not out: expect the odd scoop or the occasional deep-read in my absence. I’ll be back in early August. May your July be quiet, calm and drama-free.
Q+A — Steve Paikin isn’t going anywhere.
Though the veteran broadcaster will close The Agenda for the last time tonight, don’t call it a retirement. “I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late,” Paikin said in a 40-minute Zoom interview earlier this month.
Instead, he’s “rewiring.” Though he’s still sketching out what that’ll look like, Paikin says he’s sticking with the kind of work that’s kept him going for more than four decades. And on that work, he’s got plenty to tell: on what’s changed about journalism, why moderating debates should never be about the moderator and why Doug Ford has been a no-show on his program.
We caught up with him to chat about the end of The Agenda — and why his work isn’t over.
Here’s our conversation, edited for length and clarity:
How are you feeling?
“I feel great about all of it. If you had told me when I signed my first contract to do The Agenda 19 years ago that I’d get to host the show for this long, I’d have said you were crazy — it’ll never last that long. So the fact that it has is a great joy. But you can’t overstay your welcome with these things, and I’ve always wanted to leave the party an hour early rather than a minute too late. That’s why, three years ago, I decided this would be my last contract. We’ll see what comes next.”
What was the moment when you thought, “This is it — I don’t want to renew again, I want to step aside”? What made you feel that way?
“I can’t say that there was a moment. Well, you’re actually getting me today on my 65th birthday. I remember thinking when I was 62, signing this, ’Okay, this contract will take me to 65.’ And, you know, if I’m ever going to have a chance to do some of the other things in my so-called career that I want to do, I’m running out of runway. So I thought three years ago, ’This probably ought to be the last contract.’ And they were very good about it. They said, ’We can re-up if you want.’ But I thought, ’No, this feels right. Let’s go out while things are still, I think, reasonably good,’ and see what’s next.”
Take me back to the beginning. What drew you into journalism?
“I knew the moment I wanted to be a broadcaster. It was actually before my first classes had even started at the University of Toronto, back in 1978. I went to Hart House during Clubs Night, which I think was still in the last week of August. Classes hadn’t started yet. I walked in and saw all these tables — the chess club, the debate club, the archery club, the photography club. And then I saw a table that said U of T Radio. And I’m telling you, it was like a eureka light went off above my head. I walked over and asked, ’Do you guys have anybody who does the play-by-play for the Varsity Blues hockey or football teams?’ And they said, ’No.’ I said, ’Well, could I do it?’ And they said, ’Sure.’ And that was it. That was my first gig in radio — doing sportscasting and play-by-play, the voice of the Varsity Blues hockey and football teams. It just kind of grew from there. I eventually became the sports editor at the student paper — not The Varsity, but The Newspaper. And it really took off from there."
Now, on your way out —
“Well, I’m not on my way out of journalism — I’m staying in journalism. That’s the first thing. Let me clarify that I’m stepping away from The Agenda, but I’m continuing with a number of other projects. I’ll still be hosting the #onpoli podcast and writing a weekly column for TVO. I’m also going to keep doing our monthly town hall show, TVO Today Live. And I’ll continue with the short five-minute YouTube segments we do called Ontario Chronicles, which focus on political history. So, yes, I’m reducing my time at TVO, but I’m not leaving TVO. Over the last six months, I’ve been in the process of figuring out what to do with the time I’ve spent on The Agenda, and that’s starting to become clearer — though I’m not quite there yet.”
But how do you think journalism has changed since you first got into it?
“Well, I mean — massively, catastrophically, amazingly — take your pick. Use any adverb you want. It’s just so different. So, so different.
My first full-time job in journalism was in 1982, so obviously, things have changed dramatically since then. Technically speaking, I remember going out to do interviews with a cassette tape recorder, bringing them back to the newsroom, transferring them to reel-to-reel, then voicing my reports. We’d literally take a razor blade and cut the tape to edit the audio — that’s how prehistoric it was when I started. Of course, none of that happens anymore. The technical capabilities we have now are extraordinary — but I sometimes wonder if our brains have been able to keep up with all these advancements.
Back then, working in legacy media came with a certain gatekeeping function. You had editors. People read your work before it was published. When I was at CBC, I did over a thousand TV news pieces, and every single script I wrote was reviewed by two editors before I even got to the editing booth. Then someone else watched the final piece before it went to air. That was called quality control. We don’t really have that anymore — or at least, we have far less of it. Some of the quality control that does exist isn’t even in the same building anymore — sometimes it’s in a different country. So the standards in legacy media aren’t what they used to be.
On top of that, anyone with an iPhone now considers themselves a journalist. And in some ways, they are — but in many ways, they’re not. And all of this stuff is concerning to me.”
Do you ever worry that journalism, as an industry, is fading away — or even dying?
“I don’t think so. It’s just changing — cataclysmically. People still want to know stuff. The way they’re learning about stuff is very different, and that’s okay. And, you know, those of us who are in this game have to figure out how to move with the times. I hope, in our stampede toward whatever comes next — or whatever the latest fad is — we’re not going to lose some of the basic things that I think we still ought to care about: accuracy, neutrality, fairness, balance. I still think those are important things. And there seems to be a lot less worshiping at the altar of those things nowadays, because anybody with a cell phone and an opinion thinks they’re on the same plane as a columnist for The New York Times who’s been at it for 25 years. I’m sorry if it sounds snooty — but they’re not. I think experience counts for something in journalism. Quality control matters. Editing matters. Fact-checking matters. People still ought to care about all those things.”
When you set out to create The Agenda, what was the original mission or vision for the show?
“We called the show The Agenda because we were presumptuous enough to think, not that we had an agenda, but that the issues we felt were important to be engaged on at the dawn of the 21st century — which was when the show debuted, in 2006 — we thought we could make a contribution to the public’s understanding of the issues and engage them on it.
We wanted to do it in a way that was, we hoped, distinctive from what everything else on the dial was doing. I noticed that there are all-news channels on this continent, and they’re great — they give us a window into the world, 24/7 — but I also noticed that they’ve fallen into the formula of basically not allowing any interviews to go longer than six minutes, or any panel discussions to go longer than 20 minutes. And yes, there are some exceptions, but not too many. We very much wanted to plant our flag firmly for long-form journalism — for longer one-on-ones and longer panel discussions. And if it meant we were only going to cover two or three issues per program instead of seven or eight, then okay.”
Do you think that the kind of long-form journalism you really tried to push — especially at a time when it wasn’t widely practiced — had an impact? And to what extent do you feel it had a measurable impact on the public’s understanding of policy?
“I don’t think they leave you on the air for 19 years if the people who make the decisions at TVO aren’t satisfied that you’re having some kind of impact. I couldn’t begin to know how to measure that — but let’s just say, there isn’t a day that goes by when someone doesn’t stop me on the subway, or on the street, or somewhere, to talk about something they saw on The Agenda. So, yeah — I’m happy about that.”
Was there ever a topic you felt strongly about covering, even if others were hesitant? Maybe one that really stands out — something you personally cared about?
“I’m sure there was. Now, if you put me on the spot and ask me what it is, I have a hard time telling you… Well, all right — I’ll give you something that’s happening right now. I happen to believe that the most important election of my lifetime took place in 1985, 40 years ago this month, in fact. And I went to the executive producer last month and said, ’The 40th anniversary of the election that ended a 42-year-long Progressive Conservative dynasty is coming up in June 2025, and we should do a show on it.’” And I don’t know that anybody else — I saw David Herle just did a show on it — but I don’t think too many others will. That’s something I pitched, and happily, it was accepted.”
Your toughest interview?
Oh, that predates The Agenda. My most difficult interview was on a show I used to do called Studio 2 and it was with Mordecai Richler. I got him on a bad day. He just didn’t want to be there. I still have nightmares about how badly that interview went.
Go on.
“I tried to engage him — he’d written a book, he was on a book tour. I don’t know if he didn’t like the book, didn’t like me, or just didn’t want to be there. But all of his answers were two- or three-word replies. I just couldn’t get anything out of him. And the format of that show — Studio 2 — was that after the interview ended, the director would cut to a wide shot, they’d kill the mics, and we’d just sit there and chat casually for five seconds before fading to black. But in that interview, when they cut to the wide shot, what you saw was Mordecai ripping off his microphone and walking off the set. He couldn’t wait five more seconds to get out of there. It was fascinating — and honestly, I don’t know what went wrong. I was a friend of his son, who actually used to host a show at TVO. We even talked about that during the interview — but it didn’t help. He was just a very uncooperative interviewee that day.”
There aren’t many journalists who’ve moderated as many federal and provincial leaders’ debates as you have. From some experience, moderating a debate is one of the most daunting challenges a journalist can face. I’m curious, from your perspective, what is the role of the moderator supposed to be? Particularly now, when journalists and moderators are under intense scrutiny, how do you look at the job?
“First and foremost, the role of a moderator is to make sure you don’t get mentioned in the papers the next day. That basically means being scrupulously fair — making sure everybody gets roughly the same amount of time, and making sure all the leaders come away from the experience feeling like they were treated fairly.
I don’t believe the moderator’s job is to fact-check. I think you get into trouble when you do that. If the leaders want to fact-check each other, that’s fine, but I don’t see that as my role. I do see it as my job to make sure they’re not all yelling over each other. That contributes nothing to a civilized debate, and the viewing public gets nothing out of that.
At the end of the day, you have to remind yourself what this is all about. It’s about giving the leaders a chance to respond to neutral, lean, open-ended questions — not about showing off how tough you can be or peacocking in front of the cameras. It’s about them. It’s about giving them a chance, under a clear set of rules, to engage with each other and convince Canadians why they’re the best option for their vote.”
Any interesting anecdotes?
“I remember reading the introduction on debate night [in 2006], and the teleprompter went dead just as I was starting. I remember thinking to myself, ’Someone upstairs has a pretty funny sense of humor — first they pull my name out of a hat [to moderate the debate], and now this.’ But whatever — I got through it. And I guess I didn’t do a horrible job, because they asked me eight more times.”
You’ve written about Premier Ford not coming on The Agenda. You’re known for being a tough interviewer — always balanced, but tough. Beyond Mr. Ford, have you run into that kind of resistance from other politicians over the years?
“The short answer is no. I think most people are very happy to come on The Agenda because, first, they know I’ll be fair. Second, I don’t force people to speak in 10-second clips — it’s a show where you’re allowed to speak in paragraphs. And third, we almost never edit. Occasionally we’ll have to make small edits for time, but guests know that what they say on set is what’s going to air that night. So, most people are quite happy to be on the program because they actually get a chance to express themselves in some depth. There are a few notable exceptions — people who’ve chosen not to come on — and I think that’s a shame. But that’s their choice. There’s no law that says anyone has to come on The Agenda.”
But he’d talk to American reporters. Does that irk you?
“I’ve always thought it was a little strange that his people wouldn’t make him available to TVO, given that he technically owns TVO. It’s the one media outlet in all of North America that he actually owns. So yeah, I always found that kind of funny. But let me hasten to add — and this is the truth — he and I have a very good professional relationship. A solid one. He’s been on TVO before: he came on for a leadership debate, he came on when his book came out and he came on once when he was running for mayor. He just hasn’t appeared in the seven years he’s been Premier. It’s not that he doesn’t like me. I think we like each other just fine. But for whatever reason, his people stopped returning my emails months and months ago. I don’t know why. They just refuse to even consider the request. And even when they did respond, the answer was always the same: ’The Premier is unavailable.’ That was it. So, I don’t know the reason. No one’s ever told me. But clearly, there is a reason — because we’ve never managed to get him.”
How do you manage having close family involved in politics while your job is to maintain neutrality and objectivity as a journalist? How do you find that balance?
“I don’t think you can ever say to journalists, ’If any member of your family has an interest in an issue you’re covering, then you can’t be seen as an honest broker and therefore you shouldn’t cover it.’ I just think that’s ridiculous. The reality is, anyone who’s engaged in public life — as I am, and as my broader family has been — is going to encounter appearances of conflict. All you can do is acknowledge them.
So, when we cover health care issues, I disclose that my wife is a health policy consultant. Years ago, my mother was chair of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and when we did stories on nuclear power — this was before The Agenda — I would disclose that too. My brother is a home builder in southern Ontario, so whenever we do housing issues, I say that on air.
The notion that I should somehow avoid covering health care, energy, or housing — just because I have relatives involved in those areas — is absurd. And those are only three people. I have other relatives with stakes in other fields. What am I supposed to do — avoid covering half of public policy? We don’t live in a world where everyone around you is completely disengaged. That’s just not realistic. So all you can do is be transparent: disclose what you know, acknowledge the potential appearance of conflict, and let the audience make up their own minds about whether you’re being fair.”
How hard was it for you to leave work at work? As a journalist, you’re always on your phone, people are always talking to you. How hard was it to make that balance?
“The word isn’t hard — the word is impossible. I never could. It was always a struggle for me not to reach for my iPhone during dinner. Back in the day, when I was doing Studio 2 and the early years of The Agenda, we were live at 8 p.m. I lived two blocks from the studio, so I’d race home for a quick dinner. But even when I was home, I wasn’t what you’d call fully present. It was an hour, maybe an hour and a half before airtime, and I had to stay in touch with the home office to see what was going on. That’s kind of the way I’ve always lived — whenever I’m doing something or talking to someone, part of me is always thinking: ’Is this a story? Is this something for the show? Could I write a column about this?’ That’s just my innate curiosity, which I’ve never lost.”
OK, I’m curious: what are Steve Paikin’s side hobbies?
“I play hockey once or twice a week, which I still love to do. And every year, I take a baseball road trip — I love doing that. I might do a couple this year, actually.
You’ve got more time now, right?
[Laughs].
“Not really. I don’t actually have more time — I’m working to set up my post-Agenda life. So no, I’m not retiring. I’m rewiring.”
What do you want that rewired life to look like?
“I don’t know yet — I’m still figuring it out. But I can tell you this: it won’t be a job. What I want is a mix of different things — different buckets. That’s one of the things I’ve loved most about working at TVO: I’ve been able to do a lot of different things under one roof. I could host a nightly TV show, but also write a column, host a monthly town hall, do YouTube segments like Nerds on Politics or Ontario Chronicle, and even attend events and live-tweet them like a reporter. That variety really worked for me. And whatever I do next, I want it to be just as varied.”
— The House is out for the summer.
— Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy is taking Bill 9 on the road.
Haven’t weighed in yet? You still can — in writing. Want to have your say elsewhere? Make a submission.
— The New Leaf Liberals are set to host two summer stops — one in Toronto on July 10, one in Ottawa on July 17.
To rewind: The group is calling for a full-scale overhaul of the party — and new leadership to lead it. They blame Bonnie Crombie for her “inability to undertake the necessary steps to rebuild our party," and say that if she’s unable to lock in two-thirds support in September, she should quit.
— A giant new flag just went up over the front doors of Queen’s Park.
Recall: Canada Day at the Park — a 10 to 5 p.m. event — will feature live performances, midway rides, family-friendly games, roaming entertainers, self-guided tours of the building and more. Yes, there’ll be food. More.
The Board of Internal Economy had green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s party.se
— Farewell: Sol Mamakwa’s wife, Pearl, has died. “She was a devoted wife, a loving mother and a proud grandmother,” he wrote. “Pearl’s strength, kindness, and unconditional love were the foundation of our family, and her absence leaves a void that can never be filled.”
The tributes:
Viewing will be held today at St. Mary’s Anglican Church from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., followed by the funeral from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. Burial will take place at 2:00 p.m. at Northway Cemetery, with a reception to follow. More.
— “You never know.” Asked if he’s eyeing Pierre Poilievre’s job, that was Doug Ford’s answer.
— One NDP MPP says forcing a non-disclosure agreement on labour leaders is “not appropriate.”
— Renderings are out for the 5-storey parking garage at Ontario Place. No decision yet on where the temporary Science Centre will go.
— Don’t ask Doug. Ford says the project’s financing isn’t his problem.
— The Ford government’s goal of 1.5 million homes by 2031 might not cut it, with internal projections suggesting as many as 2.1 million may be needed.
— Meanwhile, Ontario is not on pace to hit a key climate change target with less than 5 years to go.
— Metrolinx has a new CEO. So too does Infrastructure Ontario.
— A new hospital in Mississauga will be the first to specialize in care for women and children.
— One councillor is calling for a pause on automated speed enforcement in Toronto, arguing they’re more trap than deterrent.
— Complaints against lawyers and paralegals — including for sexual harassment — are being kept secret.
— The provincial ombudsman says crammed provincial jails are undermining the justice system.
— Wildfire personnel are getting a raise and a new title.
— In Liberal land, some are blaming Crombie’s co-campaign directors for how February played out.
— Between mid-December and mid-February, $38 million was spent on cross-border ads. Most of it landed on Fox News.
— John Michael McGrath is asking if the Ford government’s move to kill Toronto’s green standard for construction could land in court. Steve Paikin was in the room on a night that paid tribute to the Peterson-era. More from Martin Regg Cohn. Meanwhile, he says it’s time for Doug Ford to admit Bill 5 was a mistake. On whether Ford is thinking federally, Gerry Nicholls has some summer speculation.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Got a tip, a story idea or an annoying boss? I’m all ears — and I don’t name names. I’ll be back in your inbox in early August — don’t miss me too much.