Podcasts about Canadian Civil Liberties Association

In this conversation with Blacklock's Reporter managing editor Tom Korski, Alex Pierson digs into the growing list of ethical and governance crises facing Ottawa. Korski breaks down the Commons vote ordering hearings into Prime Minister Mark Carney's extensive stock holdings — a portfolio spanning hundreds of companies, including Brookfield's Westinghouse subsidiary, which has received federal funding. The discussion questions whether Canada's top office can truly separate public duty from private interest. They then turn to a surge in federal whistleblower complaints, as the Integrity Commissioner warns Parliament that her office is overwhelmed with serious allegations of corruption, nepotism, and misuse of funds — calling it evidence of a “petty, and sometimes not-so-petty” corruption problem in Ottawa. Finally, the pair debate the proposed federal ban on public displays of the swastika, which the Canadian Civil Liberties Association calls government overreach. Korski argues that while consistency matters, Ottawa's selective outrage reveals deep contradictions in how Charter rights are defended. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Doug Ford's anti-tariff TV ads ruffle feathers in Washington, with Trump furious and U.S. Ambassador clashing with Ford's trade advisor. John weighs in on whether Doug is playing the long game or blowing up the Canada-U.S. trade file. Guests include: Franco Terrazzano, Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, exposes jaw-dropping government spending on stress balls, branded apples, and even AI garbage cans. Lori Sheeran, Professor of Anthropology at Central Washington University, explains the real dangers of escaped lab monkeys in Mississippi—and whether monkeys actually barter with tourists. Tamir Israel, Director of the Privacy, Surveillance & Technology Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, breaks down the U.S. border's new biometric surveillance rules and what Canadians should know about facial recognition risks. Plus, John unpacks the political theater around Mark Carney, Trump, Doug Ford, and trade strategy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Will Stewart from Enterprise Canada joins Jerry at the party table for Party for Two. Shakir Rahim from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association talks to Jerry about bail reform. The Blacklock's Report with Tom Korski. Plus - Prime Minister Carney announces changes to bail are coming next week.

** There are less than 10 tickets remaining for the live recording of Uncommons with Catherine McKenna on Thursday Oct 2nd. Register for free here. **On this two-part episode of Uncommons, Nate digs into Bill C-2 and potential impacts on privacy, data surveillance and sharing with US authorities, and asylum claims and refugee protections.In the first half, Nate is joined by Kate Robertson, senior researcher at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. Kate's career has spanned criminal prosecutions, regulatory investigations, and international human rights work with the United Nations in Cambodia. She has advocated at every level of court in Canada, clerked at the Supreme Court, and has provided pro bono services through organizations like Human Rights Watch Canada. Her current research at Citizen Lab examines the intersection of technology, privacy, and the law.In part two, Nate is joined by Adam Sadinsky, a Toronto-based immigration and refugee lawyer and co-chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers' Advocacy Committee. Adam has represented clients at every level of court in Canada, including the Supreme Court, and was co-counsel in M.A.A. v. D.E.M.E. (2020 ONCA 486) and Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (2023 SCC 17).Further Reading:Unspoken Implications A Preliminary Analysis of Bill C-2 and Canada's Potential Data-Sharing Obligations Towards the United States and Other Countries - Kate Robertson, Citizen LabKate Robertson Chapters:00:00 Introduction & Citizen Lab03:00 Bill C-2 and the Strong Borders Act08:00 Data Sharing and Human Rights Concerns15:00 The Cloud Act & International Agreements22:00 Real-World Examples & Privacy Risks28:00 Parliamentary Process & Fixing the BillAdam Sadinsky Chapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsPart 1: Kate RobertsonNate Erskine-Smith00:00-00:01Kate, thanks for joining me.Kate Robertson00:01-00:01Thanks for having me.Nate Erskine-Smith00:02-00:15So I have had Ron Debert on the podcast before. So for people who really want to go back into the archive, they can learn a little bit about what the Citizen Lab is. But for those who are not that interested, you're a senior researcher there. What is the Citizen Lab?Kate Robertson00:16-01:00Well, it's an interdisciplinary research lab based at University of Toronto. It brings together researchers from a technology standpoint, political science, lawyers like myself and other disciplines to examine the intersection between information and communication technologies, law, human rights, and global security. And over time, it's published human rights reports about some of the controversial and emerging surveillance technologies of our time, including spyware or AI-driven technologies. And it's also really attempted to produce a thoughtful research that helps policymakers navigate some of these challenges and threats.Nate Erskine-Smith01:01-02:50That's a very good lead into this conversation because here we have Bill C-2 coming before Parliament for debate this fall, introduced in June, at the beginning of June. And it's called the Strong Borders Act in short, but it touches, I started counting, it's 15 different acts that are touched by this omnibus legislation. The government has laid out a rationale around strengthening our borders, keeping our borders secure, combating transnational organized crime, stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl, cracking down on money laundering, a litany of things that I think most people would look at and say broadly supportive of stopping these things from happening and making sure we're enhancing our security and the integrity of our immigration system and on. You, though, have provided some pretty thoughtful and detailed rational legal advice around some of the challenges you see in the bill. You're not the only one. There are other challenges on the asylum changes we're making. There are other challenges on lawful access and privacy. You've, though, highlighted, in keeping with the work of the Citizen Lab, the cross-border data sharing, the challenges with those data sharing provisions in the bill. It is a bit of a deep dive and a little wonky, but you've written a preliminary analysis of C2 and Canada's potential data sharing obligations towards the U.S. and other countries, unspoken implications, and you published it mid-June. It is incredibly relevant given the conversation we're having this fall. So if you were to at a high level, and we'll go ahead and some of the weeds, but at a high level articulate the main challenges you see in the legislation from the standpoint that you wrote in unspoken implications. Walk us through them.Kate Robertson02:51-06:15Well, before C2 was tabled for a number of years now, myself and other colleagues at the lab have been studying new and evolving ways that we're seeing law enforcement data sharing and cross-border cooperation mechanisms being put to use in new ways. We have seen within this realm some controversial data sharing frameworks under treaty protocols or bilateral agreement mechanisms with the United States and others, which reshape how information is shared with law enforcement in foreign jurisdictions and what kinds of safeguards and mechanisms are applied to that framework to protect human rights. And I think as a really broad trend, what is probably most, the simplest way to put it is that what we're really seeing is a growing number of ways that borders are actually being exploited to the detriment of human rights standards. Rights are essentially falling through the cracks. This can happen either through cross-border joint investigations between agencies in multiple states in ways that essentially go forum shopping for the laws and the most locks, that's right. You can also see foreign states that seek to leverage cooperation tools in democratic states in order to track, surveil, or potentially even extradite human rights activists and dissidents, journalists that are living in exile outside their borders. And what this has really come out of is a discussion point that has been made really around the world that if crime is going to become more transient across borders, that law enforcement also needs to have a greater freedom to move more seamlessly across borders. But what often is left out of that framing is that human rights standards that are really deeply entrenched in our domestic law systems, they would also need to be concurrently meaningful across borders. And unfortunately, that's not what we're seeing. Canada is going to be facing decisions around this, both within the context of C2 and around it in the coming months and beyond, as we know that it has been considering and in negotiation around a couple of very controversial agreements. One of those, the sort of elephant in the room, so to speak, is that the legislation has been tabled at a time where we know that Canada and the United States have been in negotiations for actually a couple of years around a potential agreement called the CLOUD Act, which would quite literally cede Canada's sovereignty to the United States and law enforcement authorities and give them really a blanket opportunity to directly apply surveillance orders onto entities, both public and private in Canada?Nate Erskine-Smith06:16-07:46Well, so years in the making negotiations, but we are in a very different world with the United States today than we were two years ago. And I was just in, I was in Mexico City for a conference with parliamentarians across the Americas, and there were six Democratic congressmen and women there. One, Chuy Garcia represents Chicago district. He was telling me that he went up to ICE officials and they're masked and he is saying, identify yourself. And he's a congressman. He's saying, identify yourself. What's your ID? What's your badge number? They're hiding their ID and maintaining masks and they're refusing to identify who they are as law enforcement officials, ostensibly refusing to identify who they are to an American congressman. And if they're willing to refuse to identify themselves in that manner to a congressman. I can only imagine what is happening to people who don't have that kind of authority and standing in American life. And that's the context that I see this in now. I would have probably still been troubled to a degree with open data sharing and laxer standards on the human rights side, but all the more troubling, you talk about less democratic jurisdictions and authoritarian regimes. Well, isn't the U.S. itself a challenge today more than ever has been? And then shouldn't we maybe slam the pause button on negotiations like this? Well, you raise a number of really important points. And I think thatKate Robertson07:47-09:54there have been warning signs and worse that have long preceded the current administration and the backsliding that you're commenting upon since the beginning of 2025. Certainly, I spoke about the increasing trend of the exploitation of borders. I mean, I think we're seeing signs that really borders are actually, in essence, being used as a form of punishment, even in some respects, which I would say it is when you say to someone who would potentially exercise due process rights against deportation and say if you exercise those rights, you'll be deported to a different continent from your home country where your rights are perhaps less. And that's something that UN human rights authorities have been raising alarm bells about around the deportation of persons to third countries, potentially where they'll face risks of torture even. But these patterns are all too reminiscent of what we saw in the wake of 9-11 and the creation of black sites where individuals, including Canadian persons, were detained or even tortured. And really, this stems from a number of issues. But what we have identified in analyzing potential cloud agreement is really just the momentous decision that the Canadian government would have to make to concede sovereignty to a country which is in many ways a pariah for refusing to acknowledge extraterritorial international human rights obligations to persons outside of its borders. And so to invite that type of direct surveillance and exercise of authority within Canada's borders was a country who has refused for a very long time, unlike Canada and many other countries around the world, has refused to recognize through its courts and through its government any obligation to protect the international human rights of people in Canada.Nate Erskine-Smith09:56-10:21And yet, you wrote, some of the data and surveillance powers in Bill C-2 read like they could have been drafted by U.S. officials. So you take the frame that you're just articulating around with what the U.S. worldview is on this and has been and exacerbated by obviously the current administration. But I don't love the sound of it reading like it was drafted by AmericanKate Robertson10:22-12:43officials. Well, you know, it's always struck me as a really remarkable story, to be frank. You know, to borrow Dickens' tale of two countries, which is that since the 1990s, Canada's Supreme Court has been charting a fundamentally different course from the constitutional approach that's taken the United States around privacy and surveillance. And it really started with persons looking at what's happening and the way that technology evolves and how much insecurity people feel when they believe that surveillance is happening without any judicial oversight. And looking ahead and saying, you know what, if we take this approach, it's not going to go anywhere good. And that's a really remarkable decision that was made and has continued to be made by the court time and time again, even as recently as last year, the court has said we take a distinct approach from the United States. And it had a lot of foresight given, you know, in the 1990s, technology is nowhere near what it is today. Of course. And yet in the text of C2, we see provisions that, you know, I struggle when I hear proponents of the legislation describe it as balanced and in keeping with the Charter, when actually they're proposing to essentially flip the table on principles that have been enshrined for decades to protect Canadians, including, for example, the notion that third parties like private companies have the authority to voluntarily share our own. information with the police without any warrant. And that's actually the crux of what has become a fundamentally different approach that I think has really led Canada to be a more resilient country when it comes to technological change. And I sometimes describe us as a country that is showing the world that, you know, it's possible to do both. You can judicially supervise investigations that are effective and protect the public. And the sky does not fall if you do so. And right now we're literally seeing and see to something that I think is really unique and important made in Canada approach being potentially put on the chopping block.Nate Erskine-Smith12:44-13:29And for those listening who might think, okay, well, at a high level, I don't love expansive data sharing and reduced human rights protections, but practically, are there examples? And you pointed to in your writing right from the hop, the Arar case, and you mentioned the Supreme Court, but they, you know, they noted that it's a chilling example of the dangers of unconditional information sharing. And the commission noted to the potentially risky exercise of open ended, unconditional data sharing as well. But that's a real life example, a real life Canadian example of what can go wrong in a really horrible, tragic way when you don't have guardrails that focus and protect human rights.Kate Robertson13:31-14:56You're right to raise that example. I raise it. It's a really important one. It's one that is, I think, part of, you know, Canada has many commendable and important features to its framework, but it's not a perfect country by any means. That was an example of just information sharing with the United States itself that led to a Canadian citizen being rendered and tortured in a foreign country. Even a more recent example, we are not the only country that's received requests for cooperation from a foreign state in circumstances where a person's life is quite literally in jeopardy. We have known from public reporting that in the case of Hardeep Najjar, before he was ultimately assassinated on Canadian soil, an Interpol Red Notice had been issued about him at the request of the government of India. And the government had also requested his extradition. And we know that there's a number of important circumstances that have been commented upon by the federal government in the wake of those revelations. And it's provoked a really important discussion around the risks of foreign interference. But it is certainly an example where we know that cooperation requests have been made in respect of someone who's quite literally and tragically at risk of loss of life.Nate Erskine-Smith14:57-16:07And when it comes to the, what we're really talking about is, you mentioned the Cloud Act. There's also, I got to go to the notes because it's so arcane, but the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention. These are, in that case, it's a treaty that Canada would ratify. And then this piece of legislation would in some way create implementing authorities for. I didn't fully appreciate this until going through that. And I'd be interested in your thoughts just in terms of the details of these. And we can make it as wonky as you like in terms of the challenges that these treaties offer. I think you've already articulated the watering down of traditional human rights protections and privacy protections we would understand in Canadian law. But the transparency piece, I didn't fully appreciate either. And as a parliamentarian, I probably should have because there's... Until reading your paper, I didn't know that there was a policy on tabling of treaties That really directs a process for introducing treaty implementing legislation. And this process also gets that entirely backwards.Kate Robertson16:09-17:01That's right. And, you know, in researching and studying what to do with, you know, what I foresee is potentially quite a mess if we were to enter into a treaty that binds us to standards that are unconstitutional. You know, that is a diplomatic nightmare of sorts, but it's also one that would create, you know, a constitutional entanglement of that's really, I think, unprecedented in Canada. But nevertheless, that problem is foreseen if one or both of these were to go ahead. And I refer to that in the cloud agreement or the 2AP. But this policy, as I understand it, I believe it was tabled by then Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, as he was at the time, by Prime Minister Harper's government.Nate Erskine-Smith17:02-17:04He's come a long way.Kate Robertson17:07-18:12I believe that the rationale for the policy was quite self-evident at the time. I mean, if you think about the discussions that are happening right now, for example, in Quebec around digital sovereignty and the types of entanglements that U.S. legal process might impact around Quebec privacy legislation. Other issues around the AI space in Ontario or our health sector in terms of technology companies in Ontario. These treaties really have profound implications at a much broader scale than the federal government and law enforcement. And that's not even getting to Indigenous sovereignty issues. And so the policy is really trying to give a greater voice to the range of perspectives that a federal government would consider before binding Canada internationally on behalf of all of these layers of decision making without perhaps even consulting with Parliament First.Nate Erskine-Smith18:12-19:15So this is, I guess, one struggle. There's the specific concerns around watering down protections, but just on process. This just bothered me in particular because we're going to undergo this process in the fall. And so I printed out the Strong Borders Act, Government of Canada Strengthens Border Security and the backgrounder to the law. And going through it, it's six pages when I print it out. And it doesn't make mention of the Budapest Convention. It doesn't make mention of the Cloud Act. It doesn't make mention of any number of rationales for this legislation. But it doesn't make mention that this is in part, at least, to help implement treaties that are under active negotiation. not only gets backwards the policy, but one would have thought, especially I took from your paper, that the Department has subsequently, the Justice Department has subsequently acknowledged that this would in fact help the government implement these treaties. So surely it shouldKate Robertson19:15-19:57be in the background. I would have thought so. As someone that has been studying these treaty frameworks very carefully, it was immediately apparent to me that they're at least relevant. It was put in the briefing as a question as to whether or not the actual intent of some of these new proposed powers is to put Canada in a position to ratify this treaty. And the answer at that time was yes, that that is the intent of them. And it was also stated that other cooperation frameworks were foreseeable.Nate Erskine-Smith19:59-20:57What next? So here I am, one member of parliament, and oftentimes through these processes, we're going to, there's the objective of the bill, and then there's the details of the bill, and we're going to get this bill to a committee process. I understand the intention is for it to be a pretty fulsome committee hearing, and it's an omnibus bill. So what should happen is the asylum components should get kicked to the immigration committee. The pieces around national security should obviously get kicked to public safety committee, and there should be different committees that deal with their different constituent elements that are relevant to those committees. I don't know if it will work that way, but that would be a more rational way of engaging with a really broad ranging bill. Is there a fix for this though? So are there amendments that could cure it or is it foundationally a problem that is incurable?Kate Robertson20:58-21:59Well, I mean, I think that for myself as someone studying this area, it's obvious to me that what agreements may be struck would profoundly alter the implications of pretty much every aspect of this legislation. And that stems in part from just how fundamental it would be if Canada were to cede its sovereignty to US law enforcement agencies and potentially even national security agencies as well. But obviously, the provisions themselves are quite relevant to these frameworks. And so it's clear that Parliament needs to have the opportunity to study how these provisions would actually be used. And I am still left on knowing how that would be possible without transparencyNate Erskine-Smith22:00-22:05about what is at stake in terms of potential agreements. Right. What have we agreed to? If thisKate Robertson22:05-24:57is implementing legislation what are we implementing certainly it's a significantly different proposition now even parking the international data sharing context the constitutional issues that are raised in the parts of the bill that i'm able to study within my realm of expertise which is in the context of omnibus legislation not the entire bill of course yeah um but it's hard to even know where to begin um the the the powers that are being put forward you know i kind of have to set the table a bit to understand to explain why the table is being flipped yeah yeah we're at a time where um you know a number of years ago i published about the growing use of algorithms and AI and surveillance systems in Canada and gaps in the law and the need to bring Canada's oversight into the 21st century. Those gaps now, even five years later, are growing into chasms. And we've also had multiple investigative reports by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada being sent to Parliament about difficulties it's had reviewing the activities of law enforcement agencies, difficulties it's had with private sector companies who've been non-compliant with privacy legislation, and cooperating at all with the regulator. And we now have powers being put forward that would essentially say, for greater certainty, it's finders keepers rules. Anything in the public domain can be obtained and used by police without warrant. And while this has been put forward as a balancing of constitutional norms, the Supreme Court has said the opposite. It's not an all or nothing field. And in the context of commercial data brokers that are harvesting and selling our data, including mental health care that we might seek online, AI-fueled surveillance tools that are otherwise unchecked in the Canadian domain. I think this is a frankly stunning response to the context of the threats that we face. And I really think it sends and creates really problematic questions around what law enforcement and other government agencies are expected to do in the context of future privacy reviews when essentially everything that's been happening is supposedly being green lit with this new completely un-nuanced power. I should note you are certainly not alone in theseNate Erskine-Smith24:57-27:07concerns. I mean, in addition to the paper that I was talking about at the outset that you've written as an analyst that alongside Ron Deaver in the Citizen Lab. But there's another open letter you've signed that's called for the withdrawal of C2, but it's led by open media. I mean, BCCLA, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, QP, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Penn Canada, the Center for Free Expression, privacy experts like Colin Bennett, who I used be on the Privacy Committee and that were pretty regular witnesses. You mentioned the Privacy Commissioner has not signed the open letter, but the Privacy Commissioner of both Canada and the Information Commissioner of Ontario, who's also responsible for privacy. In the context of the treaties that you were mentioning, the Budapest Convention in particular, they had highlighted concerns absent updated, modernized legislation. And at the federal level, we have had in fits and starts attempts to modernize our private sector privacy legislation. But apart from a consultation paper at one point around the Privacy Act, which would apply to public sector organizations, there's really been no serious effort to table legislation or otherwise modernize that. So am I right to say, you know, we are creating a myriad number of problems with respect to watering down privacy and human rights protections domestically and especially in relation to foreign governments with relation to data of our citizens here. And we could potentially cure those problems, at least in part, if we modernize our privacy legislation and our privacy protections and human rights protections here at home. But we are, as you say, a gap to chasm. We are so woefully behind in that conversation. It's a bit of an odd thing to pass the open-ended data sharing and surveillance piece before you even have a conversation around updating your privacy protections.Kate Robertson27:07-28:13Yeah, I mean, frankly, odd, I would use the word irresponsible. We know that these tools, it's becoming increasingly well documented how impactful they are for communities and individuals, whether it's wrongful arrests, whether it's discriminatory algorithms. really fraught tools to say the least. And it's not as if Parliament does not have a critical role here. You know, in decades past, to use the example of surveillance within Quebec, which was ultimately found to have involved, you know, years of illegal activity and surveillance activities focused on political organizing in Quebec. And that led to Parliament striking an inquiry and ultimately overhauling the mandate of the RCMP. There were recommendations made that the RCMP needs to follow the law. That was an actual recommendation.Nate Erskine-Smith28:14-28:16I'm sorry that it needs to be said, but yeah.Kate Robertson28:16-29:05The safeguards around surveillance are about ensuring that when we use these powers, they're being used appropriately. And, you know, there isn't even, frankly, a guarantee that judicial oversight will enable this to happen. And it certainly provides comfort to many Canadians. But we know, for example, that there were phones being watched of journalists in Montreal with, unfortunately, judicial oversight not even that many years ago. So this is something that certainly is capable of leading to more abuses in Canada around political speech and online activity. And it's something that we need to be protective against and forward thinking about.Nate Erskine-Smith29:05-29:58Yeah, and the conversation has to hold at the same time considerations of public safety, of course, but also considerations for due process and privacy and human rights protections. These things, we have to do both. If we don't do both, then we're not the democratic society we hold ourselves out as. I said odd, you said irresponsible. You were forceful in your commentary, but the open letter that had a number of civil society organizations, I mentioned a few, was pretty clear to say the proposed legislation reflects little more than shameful appeasement of the dangerous rhetoric and false claims about our country emanating from the United States. It's a multi-pronged assault on the basic human rights and freedoms Canada holds dear. Got anything else to add?Kate Robertson30:00-30:56I mean, the elephant in the room is the context in which the legislation has been tabled within. And I do think that we're at a time where we are seeing democratic backsliding around the world, of course, and rising digital authoritarianism. And these standards really don't come out of the air. They're ones that need to be protected. And I do find myself, when I look at some of the really un-nuanced powers that are being put forward, I do find myself asking whether or not those risks are really front and center when we're proposing to move forward in this way. And I can only defer to experts from, as you said, hundreds of organizations that have called attention towards pretty much every aspect of this legislation.Nate Erskine-Smith30:57-31:44And I will have the benefit of engaging folks on the privacy side around lawful access and around concerns around changes to the asylum claim and due process from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. But as we do see this move its way through Parliament, if we see it move its way through Parliament in the fall, if they're recognizing that the call was for withdrawal, but also recognizing a political reality where if it is to pass, we want to make sure we are improving it as much as possible. If there are amendments along the way, if there are other people you think that I should engage with, please do let me know because this is before us. It's an important piece of legislation. And if it's not to be withdrawn, we better improve it as much as possible.Kate Robertson31:46-32:02I appreciate that offer and really commend you for covering the issue carefully. And I really look forward to more engagement from yourself and other colleagues in parliament as legislation is considered further. I expect you will be a witness at committee,Nate Erskine-Smith32:02-32:06but thanks very much for the time. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.Part 2: Adam SadinskyChapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsNate Erskine-Smith33:33-33:35Adam, thanks for joining me.Adam Sadinsky33:35-33:36Thanks for having me, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith33:36-33:57We've had a brief discussion about this, by way of my role as an MP, but, for those who are listening in, they'll have just heard a rundown of all the concerns that the Citizen Lab has with data surveillance and data sharing with law enforcement around the world. You've got different concerns about C2 and you represent the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. What are your concerns here?Adam Sadinsky33:57-35:31I mean, our biggest concern with this bill is new provisions that create additional categories of folks ineligible to claim asylum in Canada. And specifically to have their hearings heard at the Immigration and Refugee Board. The biggest one of those categories is definitely, a bar on individuals making refugee claims in Canada one year after they have arrived in Canada, and that's one year, whether they have been in Canada for that whole year or they left at some point and came back. Those folks who have been here, who came more than a year ago, if they now fear persecution and want to make a claim for refugee protection, this bill would shunt them into an inferior system where rather than having a full hearing in their day in court.Their application will be decided by an officer of immigration, alone, sitting in the cubicle, probably, with some papers in front of them. That person is going to make an enormous decision about whether to send that person back home where they feared persecution, torture, death. Our position is that this new form of ineligibility. Is unfair. it doesn't meet the government's goals, as we understand them, and we share, we share the views of organizations like, Citizen Lab, that the bill should be withdrawn. There are other ways to do this, but this bill is fundamentally flawed.Nate Erskine-Smith35:31-35:57Let's talk about government goals. Those looking at the influx of temporary residents in Canada specifically, and I don't, and I don't wanna pick on international students, but we've seen a huge influx of international students just as one category example. And they've said, well, if someone's been here for a year and they didn't claim right away, they didn't come here to claim asylum. Because they would've claimed within that first year, presumably, you know, what's the problem with, uh, with a rule that is really trying to tackle this problem.Adam Sadinsky35:57-38:33The issue is, I mean, Nate, you had mentioned, you know, people who had come to Canada, they didn't initially claim and it didn't initially claim asylum, temporary residents. What do we do about it? I wanna give a couple of examples of people who would be caught by this provision, who fall into that category. But there's legitimate reasons why they might claim more than a year after arriving in Canada. The first is someone who came to Canada, student worker, whatever. At the time they came to Canada, they would've been safe going back home they didn't have a fear of returning back home. But country conditions change and they can change quickly. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, was a stark example there may have been people who came to Canada as students planning to go back to Afghanistan and rebuild their country. As the bill is currently written. If there were to be a situation like that, and there will be some other Afghanistan, there will be some other situation down the line. Those people who weren't afraid when they originally came to Canada and now have a legitimate claim, will have an inferior, process that they go through, one that is riddled with issues, examples of unfairness compared to the refugee, the regular refugee system, and a lack of protection from deportation, pending any appeal.So that's one category. A second category is people who were afraid of going back home when they came to Canada but didn't need to claim asylum because they had another avenue to remain in Canada. So the government advertised, Minister Frazier was saying this often come to Canada, come as a student and there's a well-established pathway. You'll have a study permit, you'll get a post-graduation work permit. This is what the government wanted. The rug has been pulled out from under many of those people. Towards the end of last year when Canada said, okay, it's enough, too many temporary residents. But what about the temporary residents who had a fear of returning home when they came? They went through the system the “right way,” quote unquote. They didn't go to the asylum system. they went through another path. And now they're looking at it. They say, well, you know, I came to Canada to study, but also I'm gay and I'm from a country where, if people know about that, you know, I'll be tortured. Maybe since they've been in Canada, that person in that example, they've been in a relationship, they've been posting on social media with their partner. It is very dangerous so why, why shouldn't that person claim refugee protection through regular means?Nate Erskine-Smith38:33-39:06Is this right on your read of the law as it is written right now, if someone were to come with their family when they're a kid and they were to be in Canada for over a year and then their family were to move back to either the home country or to a different country, and, they wake up as a teenager many years later, they wake up as an adult many years later and their country's falling apart, and they were to flee and come to Canada. By virtue of the fact they've been here for a year as a kid, would that preclude them from making a claim?Adam Sadinsky39:06-39:10It's even worse than that, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith39:09-39:10Oh, great.Adam Sadinsky39:10-39:47In your example, the family stayed in Canada for more than a year. Yes, absolutely. That person is caught by this provision. But here's who else would be someone comes when they're five years old with their family, on a trip to the United States. during that trip, they decide we want to see the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. They either have a visa or get whatever visa they need, or don't need one. They visit the falls, and at that point that they enter Canada, a clock starts ticking. That never stops ticking. So maybe they came to Canada for two hours.Nate Erskine-Smith39:44-39:45Two hours and you're outta luck.Adam Sadinsky39:45-39:47They go back to the USNate Erskine-Smith39:47-39:47Oh man.Adam Sadinsky39:47-40:09They never come back to Canada again. The way that the bill is written, that clock never stops ticking, right? Their country falls apart. They come back 15 years later. That person is going to have a very different kind of process that they go through, to get protection in Canada, than someone who wouldn't be caught by this bill.Nate Erskine-Smith40:09-40:34Say those are the facts as they are, that's one category. There's another category where I've come as a student, I thought there would be a pathway. I don't really fear persecution in my home country, but I want to stay in Canada we see in this constituency office, as other constituency offices do people come with immigration help or they've got legitimate claims. We see some people come with help with illegitimate claimsAdam Sadinsky40:34-42:46We have to be very careful when we talk about categorizing claims as frivolous. There is no question people make refugee claims in Canada that have no merit. You'll not hear from me, you'll not hear from our organization saying that every 100% of refugee claims made in Canada, are with merit. The issue is how we determine. At that initial stage that you're saying, oh, let's, let's deal quickly with frivolous claims. How do you determine if a claim is frivolous? What if someone, you know, I do a lot of appeal work, we get appeals of claims prepared by immigration consultants, or not even immigration consultants. And, you know, there's a core of a very strong refugee claim there that wasn't prepared properly.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-42:46Yeah, we see it too. That's a good point.Adam Sadinsky42:46-42:46How that claim was prepared has nothing to do with what the person actually faces back home. We have to be very careful in terms of, quick negative claims, and clearing the decks of what some might think are frivolous claims. But there may be some legitimate and very strong core there. What could be done, and you alluded to this, is there are significant claims in the refugee board's backlog that are very, very strong just based on the countries they come from or the profiles of the individuals who have made those claims, where there are countries that have 99% success rate. And that's not because the board is super generous. It's because the conditions in those countries are very, very bad. And so the government could implement policies and this would be done without legislation to grant pathways for folks from, for example, Eritrea 99ish percent success rate. However, the government wants to deal with that in terms of numbers, but there's no need for the board to spend time determining whether this claim is in the 1%, that doesn't deserve to be accepted. Our view is that 1% being accepted is, a trade off for, a more efficient system.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-43:30Similarly though, individuals who come into my office and they've been here for more than five years. They have been strong contributors to the community. They have jobs. They're oftentimes connected to a faith organization. They're certainly connected to a community based organization that is going to bat for them. There's, you know, obviously no criminal record in many cases they have other family here. And they've gone through so many appeals at different times. I look at that and I go, throughout Canadian history, there have been different regularization programs. Couldn't you kick a ton of people not a country specific basis, but a category specific basis of over five years, economic contributions, community contributions, no criminal record, you're approved.Adam Sadinsky43:30-44:20Yeah, I'd add to your list of categories, folks who are working in, professions, that Canada needs workers in. give the example of construction. We are facing a housing crisis. So many construction workers are not Canadian. Many of my clients who are refugee claimants waiting for their hearings are working in the construction industry. And the government did that, back in the COVID pandemic, creating what was, what became known as the Guardian Angels Program, where folks who were working in the healthcare sector, on the front lines, combating the pandemic, supporting, folks who needed it, that they were allowed to be taken again out of the refugee queue with a designated, pathway to permanent residents on the basis of the work and the contribution they were doing. All of these could be done.Adam Sadinsky44:20-45:05The refugee system is built on Canada's international obligations under the refugee convention, to claim refugee protection, to claim asylum is a human right. Every person in the world has the right to claim asylum. Individuals who are claiming asylum in Canada are exercising that right. Each individual has their own claim, and that's the real value that the refugee board brings to bear and why Canada has had a gold standard. The refugee system, replicated, around the world, every individual has their day in court, to explain to an expert tribunal why they face persecution. This bill would take that away.Nate Erskine-Smith45:05-46:18Yeah, I can't put my finger on what the other rationale would be though, because why the, why this change now? Well, we have right now, a huge number over a million people who are going to eventually be without status because they're not gonna have a pathway that was originally, that they originally thought would be there. The one frustration I have sometimes in the system is there are people who have come into my office with, the original claim, being unfounded. But then I look at it, and they've been here partly because the process took so long, they've been here for over five years. If you've been here for over five years and you're contributing and you're a member of the community, and now we're gonna kick you out. Like your original claim might have been unfounded, but this is insane. Now you're contributing to this country, and what a broken system. So I guess I'm sympathetic to the need for speed at the front end to ensure that unfounded claims are deemed unfounded and people are deported and legitimate claims are deemed founded, and they can be welcomed. So cases don't continue to come into my office that are over five or over six years long where I go, I don't even care if it was originally unfounded or not. Welcome to Canada. You've been contributing here for six years anyway.Adam Sadinsky46:18-46:33But if I can interject? Even if the bill passes as written, each of these individuals is still going to have what's called a pre-removal risk assessment.Nate Erskine-Smith46:31-46:33They're still gonna have a process. Yeah, exactly.Adam Sadinsky46:33-46:55They're still gonna have a process, and they're still going to wait time. All these people are still in the system. The bill is a bit of a shell game where folks are being just transferred from one process to another and say, oh, wow. Great. Look, we've reduced the backlog at the IRB by however many thousand claims,Nate Erskine-Smith46:53-46:55And we've increased the backlog in the process.Adam Sadinsky46:55-48:25Oh, look at the wait time at IRCC, and I'm sure you have constituents who come into your office and say, I filed a spousal sponsorship application two and a half years ago. I'm waiting for my spouse to come and it's taking so long. IRCC is not immune from processing delays. There doesn't seem to be, along with this bill, a corresponding hiring of hundreds and hundreds more pro officers. So, this backlog and this number of claims is shifting from one place to another. And another point I mentioned earlier within the refugee system within the board, when a person appeals a negative decision, right? Because, humans make decisions and humans make mistakes. And that's why we have legislative appeal processes in the system to allow for mistakes to be corrected. That appeal process happens within the board, and a person is protected from deportation while they're appealing with a pro. With this other system, it's different. The moment that an officer makes a negative decision on a pro that person is now eligible to be deported. CBSA can ask them to show up the next day and get on a plane and go home. Yes, a person can apply for judicial review in the federal court that does not stop their deportation. If they can bring a motion to the court for a stay of removal.Nate Erskine-Smith48:19-48:25You're gonna see a ton of new work for the federal court. You are gonna see double the work for the federal courtAdam Sadinsky48:25-48:39Which is already overburdened. So unless the government is also appointing many, many new judges, and probably hiring more Council Department of Justice, this backlog is going to move from one place to another.Nate Erskine-Smith48:39-48:41It's just gonna be industry whack-a-mole with the backlog.Adam Sadinsky48:41-48:52The only way to clear the backlog is to clear people out of it. There's no fair way to clear folks out of it in a negative way. So the only way to do that is positively.Nate Erskine-Smith48:52-49:37In the limited time we got left, the bill also empowers the governor and council of the cabinet to cancel documents, to suspend documents. And just so I've got this clearer in my mind, so if, for example: say one is a say, one is a student on campus, or say one is on a, on a work permit and one is involved in a protest, and that protest the government deems to be something they don't like. The government could cancel the student's permit on the basis that they were involved in the protest. Is that right? The law? Not to say that this government would do that. But this would allow the government to legally do just that. Am I reading it wrong?Adam Sadinsky49:37-50:46The bill gives broad powers to the government to cancel documents. I think you're reading it correctly. To me, when I read the bill, I don't particularly understand exactly what is envisioned. Where it would, where the government would do this, why a government would want to put this in. But you are right. I would hope this government would not do that, but this government is not going to be in power forever. When you put laws on the books, they can be used by whomever for whatever reason they can they want, that's within how that law is drafted. You know, we saw down south, you know, the secretary of State a few months ago said, okay, we're gonna cancel the permits of everyone from South Sudan, in the US because they're not taking back people being deported. It's hugely problematic. It's a complete overreach. It seems like there could be regulations that are brought in. But the power is so broad as written in this law, that it could definitely be used, for purposes most Canadians would not support.Nate Erskine-Smith50:46-51:07And, obviously that's a worst case scenario when we think about the United States in today's political climate. But, it's not clear to your point what the powers are necessary for. If we are to provide additional powers, we should only provide power as much as necessary and proportionate to the goal we want to achieve. Is there anything else you want to add?Adam Sadinsky51:07-51:43I just wanna touch, and I'm sure you got into a lot of these issues, on the privacy side but. The privacy issues in this bill bleed over into the refugee system with broad search powers, um, particularly requiring service providers to provide information, we are concerned these powers could be used by CBSA, for example, to ask a women's shelter, to hand over information about a woman claiming refugee protection or who's undocumented, living in a shelter, we have huge concerns that, you know, these powers will not just be used by police, but also by Canada Border Services and immigration enforcement. I'm not the expert on privacy issues, but we see it we see the specter of those issues as well.Nate Erskine-Smith51:43-52:22That's all the time we got, but in terms of what would help me to inform my own advocacy going forward is, this bill is gonna get to committee. I'm gonna support the bill in committee and see if we can amend it. I know, the position of CARL is withdraw. The position of a number of civil society organizations is to withdraw it. I think it's constructive to have your voice and others at committee, and to make the same arguments you made today with me. Where you have. I know your argument's gonna be withdrawn, you'll say then in the alternative, here are changes that should be made. When you've got a list of those changes in detailed, legislative amendment form, flip them to me and I'll share the ideas around the ministry and around with colleagues, and I appreciate the time. Appreciate the advocacy.Adam Sadinsky52:22-52:24Absolutely. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has just launched a constitutional challenge against legislation in the city of Vaughan known as a “bubble zone” bylaw. It restricts protest within 100 metres of a place of worship, school, daycare, hospital or care facility. Advocates say that in a time of rising extremism and hate crimes, the bylaws are necessary to protect vulnerable groups' access to these spaces.Toronto and the nearby town of Oakville also passed bubble zone bylaws last month, and several other Ontario municipalities, including Ottawa, are considering similar legislation of their own.But the CCLA argues the bylaws are unnecessary and infringe on free expression rights, while other critics have argued they're being used to silence dissent — in particular pro-Palestinian protest. Today, producer Allie Jaynes looks at the surprising history of bubble zones, the cases for and against them, and whether they're being used to chill peaceful protest.This episode references another Front Burner episode, from May 2024, on protests outside a synagogue in Vaughan, Ontario. You can find that episode here: Apple / SpotifyFor transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

This episode of Friends Who Argue features a discussion panel with three lawyers who have made the transition from BigLaw to found very different types of small or solo legal practices. Our speakers include Alexi Wood, Ryan Breedan, and John McIntyre. Our panelists discuss the very different reasons why they decided to found an independent legal practice, the myths and misconceptions of starting a small law practice, what challenges they overcame, and why they value the freedom of small or solo practice.Alexi Wood graduated law school in 2000 and started out carrying out non-private practice work relating to international development and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Alexi transitioned to BigLaw six or seven years after law school, and valued the commercial litigation training she received working in BigLaw for the decade that followed. Alexi struck out to found a law practice that was more flexible, diverse, and responsive to a mission statement that she could champion (as well as to benefit from conflict of interest referrals).Ryan Breedon made partner at a “big” Bay Street litigation boutique and was essentially content with his career. However, circa 2015 his wife and him wanted to relocate their young family back to Barrie, Ontario, where they had roots. Remote working was not yet a thing that law firms did at this time, which led Ryan to found his own solo practice. This eventually led to hiring some associate or two, and, recently, a partnership. While not his purpose, Ryan very much valued the flexibility and ability to make independent decisions that being a solo/small practitioner provided him. John McIntrye gained valuable experience in the health law specialty while articling and being an associate in BigLaw. John began to feel increasingly constrained by the bureaucratic environment he was in. He therefore left legal practice to pursue a master of public health at John Hopkins in the United States, intending to continue his career in the health sector but not necessarily legal practice. With the pandemic having very much put remote work on the table, John initially carried out Canadian health law work as something of a side practice while in graduate studies. In 2022, however, he joined forces with Jessica Szabo and embarked on a business development spree to found a boutique health law firm. This was successful, although a growing business leads to its own challenges. Land AcknowledgementThe Advocates' Society acknowledges that our offices, located in Toronto, are on the customary and traditional lands of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Haudenosaunee, the Anishinabek, the Huron-Wendat and now home to many First Nations, Inuit, and Metis peoples.  We acknowledge current treaty holders, the Mississaugas of the Credit and honour their long history of welcoming many nations to this territory. While The Advocates' Society is based in Toronto, we are a national organization with Directors and members located across Canada in the treaty and traditional territories of many Indigenous Peoples. We encourage our members to reflect upon their relationships with the Indigenous Peoples in these territories, and the history of the land on which they live and work. We acknowledge the devastating impacts of colonization, including the history of residential schools, for many Indigenous peoples, families, and communities and commit to fostering diversity, equity, and inclusiveness in an informed legal profession in Canada and within The Advocates' Society.

CUPE has joined with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and other labour organizations to demand an end to the use of the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The LabourStart report about union events. And singing: "Every Stitch." "Every Stitch" used with permission. RadioLabour is the international labour movement's radio service. It reports on labour union events around the world with a focus on unions in the developing world. It partners with rabble to provide coverage of news of interest to Canadian workers.  

In 2020 the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Newfoundland and Labrador issued certain orders under the province's Public Health Protection and Promotion Act, in an effort to curtail the spread of COVID-19. These orders restricted travel, by limiting the circumstances in which non-residents were permitted to enter the province. Appellant Kimberley Taylor resides in Nova Scotia. Her mother, a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador, passed away suddenly in 2020. Ms. Taylor sought an exemption from the travel restrictions in order to attend her mother's funeral. Her request was denied. Ms. Taylor brought an application seeking a declaration that the travel restriction orders, and the provision of the Act under which they were issued, were beyond the legislative authority of the province and of no force and effect. Ms. Taylor also argued that the travel restrictions violated her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador dismissed the application. The application judge held that the legislation at issue was constitutional, but that the right to remain in Canada, protected by s. 6(1) of the Charter, included a right of mobility simpliciter within Canada. The decision to deny Ms. Taylor entry into the province infringed her s. 6(1) right to mobility, but the infringement was justified under s. 1 of the Charter. By the time the appeal and cross-appeal from that judgment came before the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador, the travel restrictions were no longer in effect. The Court of Appeal declined to hear the appeal and cross-appeal on the basis that they were moot. Argued Date 2025-04-16 Keywords Charter of Rights – Mobility rights – Public health – COVID-19 – Chief medical officer of health issuing orders pursuant to provincial legislation to restrict travel into province during public health emergency – Appellant seeking to enter province to attend funeral – Appellant denied entry – Whether travel restriction order unconstitutional – Whether travel restriction order violates s. 6(1) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Whether travel restriction order violates s. 6(2)(a) of Charter – Whether s. 6 violation justified by s. 1 of Charter – Whether Court of Appeal correct to reject appeal as moot – Public Health Protection and Promotion Act, S.N.L. 2018, c. P-37.3, s. 28(1)(h). Notes (Newfoundland & Labrador) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

- TTC e-bike ban put on pause over equity concerns. Does looking at this make any sense from an equity standpoint? - Breaking down John Moore's chat today with Shakir Rahim, Lawyer and Director of the Criminal Justice program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Deb takes your calls on where you stand on bail reform- Joe Mihevc - adjunct professor at York University, served Toronto as a city councillor for 28 years, comments on his opinion column in today's  Toronto Star, I was a Toronto city councillor. This is why politicians deserve a pay raise 

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association takes issue with a resolution before Ontario's Big City Mayors and the Salvation Army's recent food drive cleans up. These stories and more are in your noon news on the go.

Mark Towhey joins Party for Two to talk about the top stories of the day. Brian Lilley talks about this weekends latest protest in Toronto. Then, Chris Lewis discusses police responses during protests. Then, Anaïs Bussières McNicoll from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association discusses people's rights in protests. 

Today, September 16, marks the release of iOS 18. Tech Expert Mike Babcock tells us about this feature-packed Apple update, and what accessibility tweaks to check out. At this year's Toronto International Film Festival, Film Critic/Lawyer Michael McNealy immersed himself in 38 films, exploring the diverse and thoughtful portrayals of disability, while reflecting on the festival's accessibility efforts. On Know Your Rights, Danielle McLaughlin brings us a chat with Harini Sivalingam from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association about situations where kids may have their rights challenged as they head back into the classroom. The pumpkin Spice craze is overflowing into products beyond lattes; let's check out the strangest pumpkin spice flavour profiles of 2024.

On Know Your Rights, Danielle McLaughlin brings us a chat with Harini Sivalingam from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association about situations where kids may have their rights challenged as they head back into the classroom.

On Know Your Rights Danielle McLaughlin and her guest Harini Sivalingam of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association discuss freedom of religion, secularity laws and the complexities that result when crucial rights collide.

Michael Babcock shares the pros of using virtual desktops, gives us shortcuts for adding attachments to emails, and brings us up to speed on the recent Made by Google event. Emergency room closures may be a symptom of a larger problem. Grant Hardy has more on trending headlines. Montreal Community Reporter Mathieu Rochette tells us about a pilot project happening from now until October which will allow people with disabilities to order on demand transportation at no additional cost. We talk with Joshua Ang, creator, producer, and host of Got Game, a new AMI series where six youths share their feelings, frustrations, triumphs, ambitions, and general outlook on life with a disability. Navigating school with confidence starts before the first day. Leanne Baarda shares essential tips on preparing, covering everything from Orientation and Mobility to getting in touch with campus accessibility services. On Know Your Rights Danielle McLaughlin and her guest Harini Sivalingam of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association discuss freedom of religion, secularity laws and the complexities that result when crucial rights collide.

Questions linger over the Umar Zameer first degree murder charge in the death of Toronto police Detective Constable Jeffrey Northrup and reaction to the trial of Mr. Zameer which came to an end last Sunday with a not guilty jury verdict, as well as the trial judge's "deepest apologies" expressed to Mr. Zameer. Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw's statement following the verdict that police "were hoping for a different outcome" has caused the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to engage and on Thursday the CCLA wanted to know what steps the Toronto Police Services Board will take to ensure the Chief and other police members will not "publicly malign bail decisions or criminal verdicts in the future." Toronto Police Service has responded, saying the chief "has stated numerous times that he supports the justice system and accepts the decision by the jury."  Comments made by Ontario premier Doug Ford, who described bail issued to Mr. Zameer as "completely unacceptable." Ford has since said his statement was based on "limited information" about the case. We speak to the head of the Toronto Police Association, representing rank and file officers. This after Umar Zameer advised "police should not commit perjury, or put up people prepared to commit perjury."   Guest: Jon Reid. President Toronto Police Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's podcast: PM Justin Trudeau on Wednesday challenged Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe saying "good luck with that" concerning the premier's decision to no longer collect the federal carbon tax and remit to Ottawa, adding CRA is "very, very good at getting money it is owed." What does the Saskatchewan premier say in response to the challenge be Mr. Trudeau? Guest: Scott Moe. Premier. Saskatchewan. Replies to PM. Questions linger over the Umar Zameer first degree murder charge in the death of Toronto police Detective Constable Jeffrey Northrup and reaction to the trial of Mr. Zameer which came to an end last Sunday with a not guilty jury verdict, as well as the trial judge's "deepest apologies" expressed to Mr. Zameer. Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw's statement following the verdict that police "were hoping for a different outcome" has caused the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to engage and on Thursday the CCLA wanted to know what steps the Toronto Police Services Board will take to ensure the Chief and other police members will not "publicly malign bail decisions or criminal verdicts in the future." Toronto Police Service has responded, saying the chief "has stated numerous times that he supports the justice system and accepts the decision by the jury."  Comments made by Ontario premier Doug Ford, who described bail issued to Mr. Zameer as "completely unacceptable." Ford has since said his statement was based on "limited information" about the case. We speak to the head of the Toronto Police Association, representing rank and file officers. This after Umar Zameer advised "police should not commit perjury, or put up people prepared to commit perjury."   Guest: Jon Reid. President Toronto Police Association. Why are university students in both Canada and the United States, as well as in Europe particularly engaging in "Jew hatred?" The clinical term is antisemitism, but really in the post secondary environments it is blatant Jew hatred which I for one never expected to experience at all in Canada, let alone at the level we're witnessing. We're going to speak with Jewish Canadians both today and tomorrow and one of our guests tomorrow was the specific target of vicious and intimidating Jew hatred.  Guest: Professor Eric Kam. Usually our go-to macroeconomics professor dealing with our national and personal economies, but today back to speak about Jew hatred on university campuses and one in particular. His university campus. Toronto Metropolitan University. Three weeks ago Professor Kam joined us with Emma, a Jewish student of his who feels empowered after discussing the issue of antisemitism at TMU with Professor Kam. --------------------------------------------- Host/Content Producer – Roy Green Technical/Podcast Producer – Tom Craig If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Roy Green Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/roygreen/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Brian Mulroney will leave a legacy as one of Canada's most consequential prime ministers, who in a time of great global change also transformed Canadian politics. The House digs deep on Mulroney's legacy, hearing from a former prime minister, senior Conservatives and politicians from across the political spectrum.Then, two national security experts explain what we learned from digging through hundreds of pages of documents surrounding the firing of two scientists from a major infectious diseases lab in Canada.Plus — an analysis of the government's new legislation meant to help protect Canadians from harmful content online.This episode features the voices of: Joe Clark, former prime ministerErin O'Toole, former Conservative leader John Baird, former Conservative minister Dan Stanton, former CSIS officialWesley Wark, professor, national security expert Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, executive director, Canadian Civil Liberties AssociationJustice Minister Arif ViraniJohannes Bahrke, spokesperson, European CommissionMichael McKell, Republican state senator for Utah

As hospitals in Toronto announce they are beefing up their security procedures following Monday's anti-Israel protest outside Mount Sinai Hospital, on Feb. 14 police were called to the Thornhill constituency office of Canada's deputy Conservative party leader, Melissa Lantsman. Her staff arrived to work Wednesday to find anti-Israel posters plastering her office's front windows. After more than four months of anti-Israel protests popping up seemingly everywhere in major cities, calls are getting louder for police to start cracking down on intimidation and harassment of Canadian Jews. But Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, the executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, says banning these protests outright would be a dangerous thing—even though many Jews find them annoying, scary or even fuelled by hatred. It's an opinion she knows might be unpopular, but she joins The CJN Daily to explain her case. What we talked about Read more about the Canadian Civil Liberties Association position on protests in The CJN Read more about the vandalism at Melissa Landsman's office in The CJN Learn why the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is challenging Quebec's Bill 21, which bans religious symbols at work for public servants Credits The CJN Daily is written and hosted by Ellin Bessner (@ebessner on Twitter). Zachary Kauffman is the producer. Michael Fraiman is the executive producer. Our theme music is by Dov Beck-Levine. Our title sponsor is Metropia. We're a member of The CJN Podcast Network. To subscribe to this podcast, please watch this video. Donate to The CJN and receive a charitable tax receipt by clicking here. Hear why The CJN is important to me.

Ontario Superior Court this past week heard a challenge begun in 2017 against the Safe Streets Act prohibiting panhandling (aggressive) toward a "captive audience" at ATM's or public transit. - Panhandlers at intersections have also been targeted. Could result in up to six months imprisonment. Guest: Harini Sivalingam. Director of the Equality Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's podcast: Alberta premier Danielle Smith on AB office opening in Ottawa, visit to D.C., transgender policy, Charlie Angus private members bill concerning oil/gas industry. Guest: Danielle Smith. Premier. Alberta   Safer supply of drugs program. How effective? Perspectives on open availability of drugs like heroin and opioids to those addicted. A success? A dangerous failure? Guest: Dr. Brian Conway, Medical Director and infectious diseases specialist at the Vancouver Infectious Diseases Centre. Then: There are chronic pain patients (more than a million Canadians) often suffering debilitating pain and sometimes driven to suicide because continuing successful opioid pain medication regimens through a physician increasingly difficult. Guest: Barry Ulmer. Executive director: Chronic Pain Association of Canada.   Ontario Superior Court this past week heard a challenge begun in 2017 against the Safe Streets Act prohibiting panhandling (aggressive) toward a "captive audience" at ATM's or public transit. - Panhandlers at intersections have also been targeted. Could result in up to six months imprisonment. Guest: Harini Sivalingam. Director of the Equality Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.   1: The ArriveCan app. Willful and easy abuse of millions of taxpayer dollars? Auditor general's report tomorrow. 2: Charlie Angus private members bill 372. 3: New developments concerning Canada's interim ethics commissioner. Guest: Duff Conacher. Co-founder, Democracy Watch. --------------------------------------------- Host/Content Producer – Roy Green Technical/Podcast Producer – Tom Craig If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Roy Green Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/roygreen/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, the panel discusses how the government's use of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and a violation of the Charter. This comes as a complete shock to the government, as they thought the courts were more of a suggestion than a rule, but they plan to appeal the decision. There are of course no consequences for those government officials that violated your Charter rights. Intro Hello to all you patriots out there in podcast land and welcome to Episode 416 of Canadian Patriot Podcast. The number one live podcast in Canada. Recorded January 29th, 2024.   We need your help! To support Canadian Patriot Podcast visit patreon.com/cpp and become a Patreon. You can get a better quality version of the show for just $1 per episode. Show you're not a communist, buy a CPP T-Shirt, for just $24.99 + shipping and theft. Visit canadianpatriotpodcast.com home page and follow the link on the right. What are we drinking And 1 Patriot Challenge item that you completed Gavin - Signal Hill and Pepsi Zero Pierre - whiskey and pepsi Andrew - Railway City Brewing - Elgin's Finest Wee Heavy Ian - Tea, cold Liz - White Claw Grab the Patriot Challenge template from our website and post it in your social media Listener Feedback We'd love to hear your feedback about the show. Please visit  canadianpatriotpodcast.com/feedback/ or email us at feedback@canadianpatriotpodcast.com A version of the show is Available on iTunes  at https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/canadian-patriot-podcast/id1067964521?mt=2 Upcoming Events RESUL Four Day March May 9-12 2024 Strava https://www.strava.com/clubs/ragnaruck News Ottawa's use of Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, violated Charter, court rules https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-court-1.7091891 Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley wrote that while the protests "reflected an unacceptable breakdown of public order," the invocation of the Emergencies Act "does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility." Ultimately, there "was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act," he wrote. The Federal Court case was argued by two national groups, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and two people whose bank accounts were frozen. They argued Ottawa did not meet the legal threshold when it invoked the legislation, which had never been used before. The act gave law enforcement extraordinary powers to remove and arrest protesters and gave the government the power to freeze the finances of those connected to the protests. The temporary emergency powers also gave authorities the ability to commandeer tow trucks to remove protesters' vehicles from the streets of the capital. Under the Emergencies Act, a national emergency only exists if the situation "cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada." Further, a public order emergency can be declared only in response to "an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency."  The act defers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service's definition of such threats — which includes serious violence against persons or property, espionage, foreign interference or an intent to overthrow the government by violence. "The potential for serious violence, or being unable to say that there was no potential for serious violence was, of course, a valid reason for concern," he wrote. "But in my view, it did not satisfy the test required to invoke the Act, particularly as there was no evidence of a similar 'hardened cell' elsewhere in the country, only speculation, and the situation at Coutts had been resolved without violence." Mosley's decision also examined one of the most controversial steps taken by the government in response to the protests — the freezing of participants' bank accounts. "I agree with the [the government] that the objective was pressing and substantial and that there was a rational connection between freezing the accounts and the objective, to stop funding the blockades. However, the measures were not minimally impairing," he wrote. The judge said the economic orders infringed on protesters' freedom of expression "as they were overbroad in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace." He also concluded the economic orders violated protesters' Charter rights "by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank and credit card accounts."   There's much more to the Emergencies Act ruling than a rebuke of Justin Trudeau's government https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/theres-much-more-to-the-emergencies-act-ruling-than-a-rebuke-of-justin-trudeaus-government/article_36df7ed2-bc9b-11ee-9cd5-dbed89230a60.html It's being framed as one of the most severe rebukes the federal government has received to date: a Federal Court ruling on its use of the Emergencies Act two years ago to end the trucker convoy that occupied the capital for three weeks and saw Canada-U.S. border blockades across the country. The decision is ammunition for Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who can now say Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “broke the highest law in the land”   Kamloops MP pitched special meeting after Emergencies Act court ruling https://www.castanetkamloops.net/news/Kamloops/469335/Kamloops-MP-pitched-special-meeting-after-Emergencies-Act-court-ruling MP Frank Caputo says he doesn't have enough support from other members of Parliament to investigate the federal government's use of the Emergencies Act in response to the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa. Following the ruling, Caputo and three other Conservatives on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights issued a letter calling for a special meeting to address the ruling. “We're in a situation where the court says that the government violated its own citizens Charter rights," Caputo told Castanet Kamloops. "And that's never a good situation." Caputo, along with Rob Moore, MP for Fundy Royal, Larry Brock, MP for Brantford-Brant and Langley-Aldergrove MP Tako van Popta signed off on the letter. NDP MP Randall Garrison from Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke and the Bloq's Rhéal Éloi Fortin form Riviere-du-Nord, who also sit on the committee, did not sign. The 11-member committee consists of five Liberal MPs, four Conservatives, one NDP and one Bloc Québécois member. In order to hold the meeting, at least five votes were needed, but neither the NDP nor the Bloc Québécois members were interested in signing off   Trudeau govt to appeal ruling on use of emergency powers to end 2022 protests https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ottawa-appeal-ruling-canadas-use-emergency-powers-was-unreasonable-2024-01-23/ Freeland, who also serves as the deputy prime minister, said the decision to invoke emergency powers was taken because the public safety of Canadians and national security were under threat. "We have discussed it with the prime minister, with cabinet colleagues, with senior federal government officials and experts,” Freeland said. “We respect, very much, Canada's independent judiciary. However, we do not agree with this decision and, respectfully, we will be appealing it.” Freeland told reporters in Montreal. "I was convinced at the time it was the right thing to do, it was the necessary thing to do. I remain and we remain convinced of that," she said.   Poilievre government would drop appeal of Emergencies Act ruling https://tnc.news/2024/01/26/poilievre-drop-appeal-emergencies-act/ Asked whether the Conservatives would drop the appeal if the Conservatives form government and it is still pending, a spokesperson for Poilievre said they would. “Yes, Mr. Poilievre would respect the ruling of the court on this matter,” the spokesperson said. The emergency declaration was supposed in the House of Commons by the Liberals and New Democrats. Trudeau revoked the emergency before the Senate voted on it. Poilievre trumpeted the decision when it was handed down, saying Trudeau “broke the highest law in the land with the Emergencies Act.”“He caused the crisis by dividing people. Then he violated Charter rights to illegally suppress citizens. As PM, I will unite our country for freedom.” Outro We're on Guilded now https://www.guilded.gg/i/k5a9wnDk Andrew - https://ragnaroktactical.ca/ Visit us at www.canadianpatriotpodcast.com   We value your opinions so please visit www.canadianpatriotpodcast.com/feedback/ or email us at feedback@canadianpatriotpodcast.com and let us know what you think.   Apologies to Rod Giltaca Remember, “you are a small fringe minority” with “unacceptable views”

THE MEDICAL RECORD: CANADIAN CENTENARIANS & AN ALZHEIMER'S BLOOD TEST Libby Znaimer is joined by Dr. Malcolm Moore, Medical Oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and former head of the BC Cancer Agency, Dr. Fahad Razak, Canada Research Chair in Healthcare Data and Analytics at the University of Toronto and Dr. Alisa Naiman, Family Physician, Founder and Medical Director of The Medical Station in Toronto. A research study shows promise in a blood test that could be a quicker and more affordable alternative way to diagnose Alzheimer's disease in patients. Also this week, ZoomerMedia celebrated iconic General Richard Rohmer who turned 100 years old. Our guests weigh in on centenarians-- the fastest growing demographic. TRUMP SCORES ANOTHER VICTORY...THIS TIME IN NEW HAMPSHIRE Libby Znaimer is now joined by Dr. Patrice Dutil, Professor in the Department of Politics and Public Administration, and Toronto Metropolitan University Professor Michael Flamm with the department of history at Ohio Wesleyan University. U.S. President Donald Trump is one step closer to the Presidential race after his latest win--this time in New Hampshire. Despite his strong performance, rival Republican candidate Nikki Haley is still in the race putting up a fight. Others, including Vivek Ramaswamy and Florida governor Ron DeSantis have since dropped out and have officially announced their backing of Trump. So, what does this all mean? And Ottawa is already planning for any outcome of the U.S. Presidential election. THE EMERGENCIES ACT VIOLATED CANADIANS' CHARTER RIGHTS Libby Znaimer is joined by Andrew House, Counsel and Co-lead for the National Security Group at Fasken Law, and Noa Mendelson Aviv, Executive Director & General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Yesterday: the federal court ruled that the Trudeau government violated Canadians' Charter rights when it initiated the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Trucker Convoy protests.

Schools across the country are back in session — and this fall, the spotlight is on trans issues in the classroom. Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have come out with new policies for parental consent on student pronoun changes, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has launched a lawsuit, saying this violates the Charter and human rights. Add to that, today, some parents will be marching in a cross-Canada protest against what they call gender ideology. Our guest on the podcast today has been reporting on these issues for years, and she has thoughts on how we might inject some nuance into this polarized conversation.Katie Herzog is an American journalist and host of the Blocked and Reported podcast.You can find Tara Henley on Twitter at @TaraRHenley, and on Substack at tarahenley.substack.com

On this third installment of five episodes for National Truck Driver Appreciation Week, Voice Of GO(r)D is very excited to present you an author and journalist whose upcoming book is called ... Thank You, Truckers! Donna Laframboise has spent her life writing from the perspective of the working class, and taking contrary positions against those in power who incorrectly believe they know better than the rest of us. Donna has written for the Toronto Star, National Post, Toronto Life magazine, Chatelaine, and many other publications, and she is also the former VP of The Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Her new book, set to be released next winter, documents the stories of many truckers and other regular working people who took part in Canada's Freedom Convoy, a project reminiscent of the late and great Studs Terkel. If you don't know who Studs Terkel is, here is a chapter from his book I published earlier in the year on my Substack - https://autonomoustruckers.substack.com/p/revisiting-a-working-class-classic Donna blogs daily at https://thankyoutruckers.substack.com/ - which serves as a first draft of her in-progress book by the same name. She is the author of a kids' picture book, Opa's Convoy Letters - - https://www.amazon.ca/Opas-Convoy-Letters-Donna-Laframboise/dp/B0BS93Z5J4 - about the thank you cards and letters of encouragement one grandfather received while protesting in his truck in Ottawa in early 2022. You can also find Donna on Twitter - https://twitter.com/noconsensus Questions, comments, suggestions and Hate Mail are accepted and encouraged - gordilocks@protonmail.com Please subscribe to my Substack, and never miss an episode or any written content - https://autonomoustruckers.substack.com/

Police in Canada are using licence plate scanners to identify drivers in arrears on fines. U.S. police are now actively using AI to identify likely criminals by the way a vehicle is being driven and they have arrested individuals fleeing from serious criminal charges.  If this initiative were adopted in Canada would it be a clear violation of Charter protected privacy rights? Guest: Daniel Konikoff. Director of the Privacy, Technology and Surveillance Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's podcast: Global News: Trudeau defends Canada's military spending against U.S. senator's scolding. Alaska senator Dan Sullivan rips into Canada's lack of proper military spending, missing our 2% GDP military spending promise, compromising our allies and directly asking the incoming Command General of NORAD, Lt. General Gregory Guillot to confront his Canadian counterparts on this issue.    Guest: Dr. Christian Leuprecht. Queen's University and Royal Military College. International security expert. Fellow at the NATO College in Rome. Book: Security. Cooperation. Governance. University of Michigan Press.    Police in Canada are using licence plate scanners to identify drivers in arrears on fines. U.S. police are now actively using AI to identify likely criminals by the way a vehicle is being driven and they have arrested individuals fleeing from serious criminal charges.  If this initiative were adopted in Canada would it be a clear violation of Charter protected privacy rights? Guest: Daniel Konikoff. Director of the Privacy, Technology and Surveillance Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.    Trudeau tears up his cabinet while more Liberal MPs are opting out of politics and the federal Liberals are slipping precipitously in national voter support. What do two former Liberal MPs believe is going on inside the party? Guests: Michelle Simson & Dan McTeague    Follow up to last Sunday's RGS when Scott Moe joined us and challenged, more directly than previously, the Trudeau government as increasing the East/West divide, based on an op ed by Yukon University professor Ken Coates and did not resist when I asked the premier if his fellow premiers across Canada have had it with the PM. Guest: Professor Ken Coates. We spoke with KC for 10 minutes last Sunday, but there's much more to be unpacked. Does Professor Coates see any parallels between the development of the politically successful Quebec sovereignty movement and what is developing in Western Canada. I related how I was present in Quebec when Rene Levesque gave personality to the Quebec sovereignty issue and was there for the election of the first PQ MNA's. I asked Ken Coates if he sees parallels in the West. His response: "They are fighting mad. Imagine this scenario. The Liberals appoint a Minister of Industry with a mandate to reduce emissions produced by manufacturing and processing. The focus would be on manufacturing and processing plants in Ontario and Quebec. Can you imagine such a thing?"  --------------------------------------------- Host/Content Producer – Roy Green Technical/Podcast Producer – Tom McKay Podcast Co-Producer – Matt Taylor If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Roy Green Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/roygreen/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As Canadian cities deal with an unprecedented wave of violent crimes, Statistics Canada data shows that every province except Manitoba and Quebec saw a decline in the number of police officers. Plus, citing a rise of hate and violence against “2SLGBTQI-plus communities,” the Ontario NDP introduced a bill on Tuesday to designate safety zones of 100 meters around venues where drag queens read to kids. And the federal government is defending its use of the Emergencies Act in Federal Court this week, facing a challenge by the Canadian Constitution Foundation and Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Tune into The Daily Brief with Rachel Emmanuel and Noah Jarvis! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The federal government is defending its use of the Emergencies Act in Federal Court this week, facing a challenge by the Canadian Constitution Foundation and Canadian Civil Liberties Association. The federal government has tried to dismiss the challenge as "moot," given the Emergencies Act is no longer in effect. True North's Andrew Lawton weighs in. Also, former CSIS intelligence officer Andrew Kirsch joins to discuss the leak of CSIS documents about China's interference in Canada's elections. Plus, Andrew sits down with Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights spokesperson Tracey Wilson about Justin Trudeau's war on gun owners. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Trudeau government convinced inquiry commissioner Paul Rouleau that it was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act during the Freedom Convoy. But vindicating the Liberals' claims the act can be used to limit damage to the economy sets a worrisome precedent for a tool with such sweeping powers to suspend people's rights, as Cara Zwibel from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association discusses with host Brian Lilley. And Rouleau's suggestion that the definition of “emergency” should be redefined could just make it easier for Ottawa to do again. (Recorded February 23, 2023) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A year after the convoy protests occupied Ottawa and the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act, Justice Rouleau's report finds Justin Trudeau justified. But not everyone agrees with the findings. Matt Galloways speaks with Cara Zwibel, director of the Fundamental Freedoms Program for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; and Vincent Rigby, former National Security and Intelligence Advisor to Trudeau and a visiting professor at McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says it disagrees with the Rouleau Commission's ruling and will pursue a judicial review of the federal government's invocation of the Emergencies Act. GUEST: Cara Zwibel, Director of Fundamental Freedoms, Canadian Civil Liberties Association Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Following the killing of an OPP officer last month, police associations and provincial leaders across the country want the federal government to tighten up the country's bail system. Is the system in need of reform? We debate the issue with: Laura Berger, staff lawyer, Canadian Civil Liberties Association; Jeff Lehman, chair of Muskoka District Council; Jim MacSween: chief of York Regional Police and Vice President of Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police; Theresa Donkor: Associate at Rudnicki & Company.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise. Former National Post & Toronto Star columnist, past vice president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Author of the 2023 book “Opa's Convoy Letters”: https://www.amazon.com/Opas-Convoy-Letters-Donna-Laframboise/dp/B0BS93Z5J4/ https://twitter.com/NOconsensus https://thankyoutruckers.substack.com/ Author: “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert” (2011)

Thursday at the E.A. Inquiry Deputy prime minister and minister of finance Christiya Freeland testified. Friday, Justin Trudeau testified. We talk to the lawyer who cross-examined both Freeland and Trudeau. Guest: Ewa Krajewska. Co-counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association at the POEC Inquiry. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's podcast: Perrin Beatty, president/CEO Canadian Chamber of Commerce and former Minister of National Defence in the government of Brian Mulroney. Interview pre-recorded earlier this week. Perrin Beatty on how the COC believes the federal government is missing tremendous opportunities to positively direct the Canadian economy and errors Ottawa is committing on the natural gas/oil and natural resources development file. And: The Emergencies Act. Perrin Beatty is the architect of the E.A. and explains why it was required, what it permits the federal government of the day to engage in and what has to happen prior to the E.A. being invoked (including paying very close attention to the language of the Act. Guest: Perrin Beatty. CEO C.O.C. & fmr defence minister. Thursday at the E.A. Inquiry Deputy prime minister and minister of finance Christiya Freeland testified. Friday, Justin Trudeau testified. We talk to the lawyer who cross-examined both Freeland and Trudeau. Guest: Ewa Krajewska. Co-counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association at the POEC Inquiry. As Global News has reported, another CAF member suffering with PTSD has been offered assisted death by a VAC staffer.  Also, former CAF member and host of the podcast Operation Tango Romeo, Mark Meincke shares he has now spoken on his podcast with both a CAF veteran, as well as serving member suffering with PTSD. To each, MAID (medical assistance in dying) was suggested. Guest: Mark Meincke. Podcast Operation Tango Romeo host. Meincke has also testified before parliamentary committee on Veterans Affairs. During 2022 we lost several NHL stars including Guy Lafleur, Mike Bossy, Clark Gillies and this week Borje Salming. Guest: Guy Carbonneau. Former Captain of the Montreal Canadiens and linemate to Guy Lafleur for three seasons, 1982-'85. --------------------------------------------- Host/Content Producer – Roy Green Technical/Podcast Producer – Tom McKay Podcast Co-Producer – Matt Taylor If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Roy Green Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/roygreen/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Public Order Emergency Commission heard from cabinet ministers this week. Matt Galloway discusses their testimony with Toronto Star reporter Tonda MacCharles; Richard Fadden, the former director of CSIS and former national security advisor to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau; and Cara Zwibel, who is representing the Canadian Civil Liberties Association at the inquiry.

Tomorrow the final week of testimony at the Emergencies Act Inquiry begins with Justin Trudeau and several ministers scheduled to appear. Guest: Cara Zwibel. Director, Fundamental Freedoms Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's podcast: Covid vaccination/boosters, annual flu shot, voluntary but advised masking, masking mandate return? No masking mandate return? Masking children because of respiratory viral infections public health informs are overwhelming pediatric facilities? Two infectious diseases specialists express their views, what they support and what they challenge as far as public health mandates, recommendations are concerned. Dr. Bonnie Henry and Dr. Luc Boileau, public health chiefs in B.C. and QC both are opposed to mask mandates returning. Guests: Dr. Martha Fulford. Infectious diseases specialist, Hamilton. Dr. Neil Rau. Infectious diseases specialist. Halton region, Ass't Professor, University of Toronto Medical School. Tomorrow the final week of testimony at the Emergencies Act Inquiry begins with Justin Trudeau and several ministers scheduled to appear. Guest: Cara Zwibel. Director, Fundamental Freedoms Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association. November 20 is Trans Remembrance Day. Langley B.C. lawyer Scott Taylor represented a trans client in family court seeking co-custody of her two children. The court supported the shared parenting. Scott Taylor assessment of the court decision "demonstrates that children deserve the love and attention of both parents, regardless of gender." Guests: Scott Taylor. Taylor Law Group, Langley, British Columbia. Riley. Transgender parent COP 27 climate conference ends in Egypt. Our guest was there.making the case for nuclear energy as a key component to address climate change concern. Guest: Dr. Chris Keefer, Staff Emergency physician, St. Joseph's Health Care, Toronto - President, Canadians for Nuclear Energy, - Director, Doctors for Nuclear Energy. --------------------------------------------- Host/Content Producer – Roy Green Technical/Podcast Producer – Tom McKay Podcast Co-Producer – Matt Taylor If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Roy Green Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/roygreen/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Friday we saw former Ottawa Police Chief, Peter Sloly, take the stand in a very teary eyed testimony when it comes to the usage of the Emergencies Act and the response from Ottawa Police. Out of all the testimonies we've heard thus far, what have we learned when it comes to the inquiry itself? Cara Zwibel is a Lawyer and Director of the Fundamental Freedoms Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and joined Alex to discuss it.

Judy Trinh, CTV News; Rachel Bendayan, Liberal MP; Adam Chambers, Conservative MP; Rachel Blaney, NDP MP; Jeremy Kinsman, former Canadian high commissioner to the U.K.; Joyce Napier, CTV News; Robert Benzie, the Toronto Star; Matthew Dubé, former NDP MP; and Laura Berger, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Civil liberties groups are demanding that the premier testify at the emergencies act inquiry. This week was the blame game with Ottawa officials blaming the ford gov for not sending help. It's very clear now that neither the city nor police planned for anything. Not only that, but it also speaks to the fact that the decision to actually invoke the Emergencies Act was for a very localized problem. Alain Bartleman is a Lawyer and Special Advisor to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and joined Alex to discuss it.

A public inquiry has begun into the federal government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to end Ottawa convoy protests in February. Matt Galloway talks to Vassy Kapelos, host of CBC's Power & Politics; Paul Champ, an Ottawa lawyer representing businesses and residents at the inquiry; and Cara Zwibel, director of the Fundamental Freedoms Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Scott Moe, Saskatchewan Premier, Bill Fortier, CTV News; Annie Bergeron-Oliver, CTV News; Larisa Galadza, Canada's Ambassador to Ukraine; Joyce Napier, CTV News; Tonda MacCharles, the Toronto Star; Nik Nanos, Nanos Research; and Cara Zwibel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This edition of The Andrew Lawton Show is coming to you from the Canada Strong and Free Conference in Ottawa! A federal court has granted Alberta intervenor status to support the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Fund in their legal challenge of the Trudeau government's use of the Emergencies Act to quash the peaceful Freedom Convoy. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney joins The Andrew Lawton Show to discuss Alberta's case and share his views on the Freedom Convoy. Plus, both outgoing and incoming presidents of the Canada Strong and Free Network, Troy Lanigan and Jamil Jivani, join the show to discuss the first Conservative leadership debate and the future of the conservative movement in Canada. Support the show: https://tnc.news/lawton-heritage-club/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sixty days after Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act to clamp down on Freedom Convoy protesters in Ottawa, his government has established a public inquiry. Trudeau won't say whether he'll let the judge overseeing the inquiry have access to cabinet documents though, raising questions about how fulsome the inquiry can be when it comes to the government's conduct and evidence for declaring a national "emergency." True North's Andrew Lawton discusses this with Canadian Constitution Foundation executive director Joanna Baron and Cara Zwibel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Also, Kate Harrison joins to chat about the upcoming Canada Strong and Free Network (formerly Manning Centre) conference in Ottawa. Support the show: https://tnc.news/lawton-heritage-club/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

PATRICIA KAREN GAGIC DStG Patricia is an accomplished International Contemporary Artist and an award-winning Author. She is President of Patricia Karen Gagic Art Enterprise Inc. Patricia is represented by the Paul Fisher Gallery in West Palm Beach and Miami, 13th Street Gallery in St. Catharines, Visual Voices In New York, and FACEC In France. Patricia has exhibited with BB International Fine Arts in Switzerland with her work accepted to Art Fairs including Geneva, Berlin, France, Austria, Zurich, London United Kingdom and Seoul, Korea. Exhibitions across North America have included the Coda Gallery in New York, Meg Gallery and Peak Gallery in Toronto, Artworld Fine Art, and Denison Gallery in Toronto. Patricia has achieved an impressive pedigree. In 1999, she began her solo mentorship with Master Artist Dragan Dragic in Savoillan, France. It was her great honor to exhibit with Dragan Dragic in Sault, France in 2008 with curation by Jean Pierre Thelcide. In 2007, Patricia was appointed Honorary Commissioner at the 52nd Venice Biennale in support of Transcendental Realism -Art by Adi Da Samraj. She is recognized by the International Institute for Arts Accreditation as an International Certified Artist. She is also a member of Mondial Art Institute and in 2018, exhibited at Parallax Art Fairs in London, Chelsea and Kensington UK. In December 2018, Patricia won the gold medal in photography at the Salon National des Beaux-Arts (SNBA) at the Carrousel du Louvre in Paris. She was the first Canadian female to achieve this recognition. In 2019, her work was exhibited at the Salons des Indépendants Grand Palais in Paris, the Brussels 3F Art Fair and the World Art event in Cannes. In 2019, she accepted the silver medal at the Societe Academique Arts, Sciences and Lettres de France in Paris and the Pewter Medal in 2020. Patricia received the 2020 Apollo and Daphne award from the Le Bernin – International Biennial of Baroque Art Salentin in Italy. Patricia received the International Prize New York City in October 2020 at the White Space Chelsea Gallery in NY. Her work has been published in the World of Art Contemporary Art Magazine and Contemporary Artists. By invitation, her paintings were exhibited at the prestigious Whitney Commons Gallery in Toronto, Ontario in 2018. Art Tour International magazine named Patricia Gagic one of the Top 60 best artists in New York in 2018, 2019 and 2020. She was named Artist of the Year 2020 by Art Tour International Magazine. Her painting Escape to Reality was displayed on the cover of the summer issue. Patricia hosted the Art In A Box project for the WXN (Women's Executive Network) Top 100 Most Powerful Women in Canada July 2020 and a CAN#150 event for Female Olympians. She is currently working on a collaboration with her long time friend Greg DiFrancesco under the brand Lotus97.7. In 2017, she received the Arts Excellence Award for Courage and Commitment to Human Rights, Dignity and Freedom from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in Toronto. It is a very prestigious award given to Canadians who dedicate their lives to service and art. Patricia was co-founder and a participant in the Colors of Freedom Art portfolio which included works by 20 international artists.

The Trudeau government used excessive force and violence to remove a group of peaceful and unarmed protesters in Ottawa. They created a No-Go Zone. Police explicitly told journalists to leave the area, and they threatened to arrest anyone found walking down the street in Ottawa. How is any of this legal? It isn't. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has condemned this behaviour, saying that: “time and time again, Canadian courts have ruled against exclusion zones and other limits on the press.” On today's episode of the Candice Malcolm Show, Candice is joined by journalist Andrew Lawton who was on the ground reporting all weekend for True North and was himself the victim of police brutalization. They discuss what happened, what it means and what's next.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Catch up on what you missed on an episode of The Richard Syrett Show. Managing Editor of Blacklock's Reporter, Tom Korski on Protesters Sue For Government Files & MPs declare National Emergency. Director of the Criminal Justice Program at Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Abby Deshman on Emergencies Act. Ruth Gaskovski gives homeschooling advice. Accidental & unofficial COVID-19 data analyst, Kelly Brown speaks about millions of eligible Canadians DONE with vaccinations. True North News Contributor & Author, Sue-Ann Levy with her article: “Legacy media lapdogs have done Trudeau proud.” Retired US Army Airborne-Ranger, infantry officer, & Author, Lt Col. Robert L. Maginnis gives the latest on Ukraine-Russia.

In this episode, it has become apparent Prime Minister Justin Trudeau envies dictatorships. Look at what has happened in Canada in just over three weeks since a convoy of over 50,000 truckers decided to rise up as free citizens to protest the actions of their government. While the administration is giddy with their new-found powers to oppress, thanks to invoking the Emergencies Act, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is bringing a lawsuit against the Canadian government. In their assessment, the government has brought in an extreme measure that should be reserved for national emergencies, a legal standard that has not been met. Similarly, when MP Dane Lloyd spoke on the floor, he said, “Deputy Director of Intelligence for FINTRAC, Barry MacKillop, stated there is no evidence that this funding in Ottawa is tied to ideologically motivated extremism.” In light of that fact, he asks the Prime Mister to explain under what basis the government has in freezing accounts of Canadians? Rather than answer the question, Trudeau side-steps and reinforces his administrations commitment to follow-through on the powers they have under the Emergencies Act. And, though the House and Senate have yet to vote their approval, the police have already been loosed on the organizers. Tamara Lich was arrested yesterday just standing on the sidewalk. The arresting officers gave no reason or charge. They simply handcuffed her and took her away. It's then we are reminded of a video of the Prime Minister who spoke before an audience and talked of his envy of how the Chinese dictatorship could make things happen so quickly. He literally admires a brutal, communist regime because it can use the power of government to force the people to do whatever they want. And, within the last few days, we can see just how much he has been yearning to yield similar authority. The second subject I hit has to do with the CDC and how they have become a propaganda tool for the Administration. It's a problem that comes from being an agency under the Executive Branch. When it comes to science versus politics, if an agency is beholden to government, it will ALWAYS put politics before science. I point out several studies the CDC has used over the course of the pandemic to justify policy-making, only to find the studies were skewed, flawed or data was taken out of context. And it isn't just on occasion. Every time a policy was demanded to be put in place, the CDC found a study to help justify a new mandate. None of the studies hold up to real science. What those studies prove, more than anything, is the CDC is part of the propaganda wing of the Democrat party. Take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and GETTR by searching for the Alan Sanders Show.