Juno News - October 06, 2025
700,000 students locked out as Alberta teachers STAY HOME + Libs attack speech & privacy rights
Episode Stats
Words per minute
163.17052
Harmful content
Misogyny
2
sentences flagged
Hate speech
4
sentences flagged
Summary
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Alberta Director, Chris Simms, fills in for Candice on the show today to talk about the Alberta Teacher Strike and what it means for our students and families. The strike in Alberta has affected hundreds of thousands of students and teachers across the province and across the rest of Canada.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Welcome to The Candice Malcolm Show. My name is Chris Simms. I'm the Alberta Director for the
00:00:07.760
Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Filling in for Candice today, we've got a great show for you.
00:00:13.840
Hey, do you like being able to express yourself on the internet? Do you like being able to hold
00:00:18.960
government to account by speaking out against them? Possibly even protesting against them?
00:00:24.880
Maybe even embarrassing them a little bit? We here at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation,
00:00:28.960
we do that every day. We hand out golden pig statues to politicians and bureaucrats who waste
00:00:34.500
your time while dressed in a pig suit, okay? We protest in front of MPs' offices in chicken suits,
0.94
00:00:42.600
calling them chickens, okay? So yeah, we can get in your face and you might get your feelings hurt a
00:00:47.940
little bit. What's happening with some of these laws that are being proposed right there in the
00:00:53.480
House of Commons? There's so much going on. We're going to be speaking with John Carpe about that
00:00:58.220
in a couple of minutes. But first, I wanted to update you folks on what's going on on the ground
00:01:02.900
here in Alberta. I know we have a lot of viewers and subscribers in the province of Alberta.
00:01:08.980
Thank you very much. But this also affects everybody else across the rest of Canada because
00:01:14.300
government union strikes spread, okay? They all talk amongst themselves and they all take ideas from
00:01:21.980
each other and they spread. Alberta, as of today, is in the middle of a huge teacher strike. This is the
00:01:29.540
first teacher strike in the province of Alberta in 23 years. Put another way, there are kids who are
00:01:38.580
locked out of school today, Monday, with their teachers out on the picket line, not able to go to
00:01:43.940
school, whose parents never had to go through this, never had to endure this. So, we've got hundreds
00:01:52.900
of thousands of families whose lives have been disrupted. There's around 700,000 students,
00:01:59.320
700,000 students in Alberta who are out of school right now. There's approximately 50,000,
00:02:06.380
50,000, 50,000 teachers who are now on strike, okay? So, look at it this way. So, depending on how old
00:02:15.240
the kids are, we've got kids in grade 12 who are now missing out on important elements of their
00:02:22.440
graduation year. These are kids who already went through being locked down out of school a few years
00:02:28.620
ago, remember? And we've got little kids, so kids in kindergarten or grade one or something,
00:02:34.120
who are suddenly now in a brand new babysitting situation or childcare situation that they may
00:02:40.720
have never experienced before. Why? Because their routines have been totally disrupted by this
00:02:46.000
teacher strike. Now, this is what's going on. As far as we understand, they're not talking. The two
00:02:53.540
sides, as far as you've been told, the Alberta government and the Alberta teachers unions are not
00:02:58.520
speaking. The latest deal that was offered from the Alberta government and Premier Daniel Smith
00:03:05.500
that was rejected by the teachers would have reportedly made Alberta teachers the highest
00:03:13.140
paid teachers in Western Canada. Yeah. So, this is a dead deal. They aren't going through with it,
00:03:22.520
okay? They said no to this. And this is something that we brought to you on the show last week. So,
00:03:27.660
just reading right off the grid, again, they said no to this. Starting in September of 2027,
00:03:33.360
okay? So, not long from now, say you've got five years of experience and you've got five years of
00:03:39.880
teacher's education. So, you took one extra year just to bump it up. You're already making over,
00:03:45.280
you're making about $100,000 a year. Like, it's all there that was in that offer that they said no to.
00:03:51.980
So, this is where people are scratching their heads and they're like, okay,
00:03:55.700
if you were offered 12% increase over four years, so 3% pay hike per year, plus they were offering,
00:04:04.160
reportedly, to hire 3,000 new teachers plus 1,500 new classroom assistants and you'd be the highest
00:04:12.760
paid teachers in all of Western Canada? And they said no to that. So, what's going on?
00:04:19.740
We don't actually know. But there's something going on, okay? A few things I'm hearing. I'm
00:04:27.340
hearing through various grapevines because I have two kids who are out of school, okay? And I talk to
00:04:31.380
lots of people all the time. I'm hearing a few things. I keep hearing the term, it's about classroom
00:04:36.600
complexity. Folks, if you're a teacher and you're watching this and you're on the picket line, number
00:04:42.400
one, buy some snow boots, okay? Because you got out there for a long time. Two, if you're a teacher
00:04:48.880
and you're listening to this, nobody knows what you're talking about when you use euphemisms and
00:04:54.280
buzzwords like it's about classroom complexity. If there's something going on that is really
00:04:59.440
important in your classroom that is making you not be able to do your job, you have to be crystal
00:05:04.700
clear with the government about that and offer solutions that the government can offer back to
00:05:11.180
you, okay? Because I'll put it this way. There can't be more money. There can't be. Alberta is in a
00:05:18.060
massive debt. We are on track to have a provincial debt of more than 84 billion dollars this year.
00:05:27.980
The interest payments alone that all of us taxpayers are coughing up this year on Alberta's provincial
00:05:34.140
debt is more than three billion dollars. Gone. Poof. To give you an idea of how much money that is,
00:05:42.460
build three brand new hospitals. Shiny, chrome, glass doors, all that stuff. Burn it down. Burn it down.
00:05:51.260
That's how much our interest payments are costing us on Alberta's debt. So,
00:05:56.140
Alberta Premier Daniel Smith can't be giving you more money than this. We already thought of the
00:06:00.620
Taxpayers Federation that that offer was pretty darn generous. If they'd consulted us about it,
00:06:05.900
we'd be like, why are you spending this much money on this government union? What are you doing?
00:06:10.700
Figure out a way for teachers to be able to do their jobs that won't break the bank of taxpayers.
00:06:17.500
Lastly, we are encouraging Alberta Premier Daniel Smith
00:06:21.740
to be strong on this. Okay? Because she came out and she announced how much money the teachers just
0.94
00:06:28.140
turned down. And she announced how much extra teachers they were going to hire and educational
00:06:34.380
assistants they were going to hire. And they still voted, apparently, 89.5% rejection. That is a huge no vote
00:06:44.860
to what looked like a very generous offer. So, there's something going on here. It could be
00:06:51.980
something internal that most normal people don't understand that's going on in the classrooms.
00:06:57.420
Or, this could be a whole lot of politics. And if this is a whole lot of politics,
00:07:04.860
the folks in the teachers union who are pushing this, okay, it's not all rank and file teachers.
00:07:09.820
We know most rank and file teachers just want to go to work and do their job. But if there are folks
00:07:14.780
who are agitating politics within the Alberta teachers, don't use kids as pawns. And Premier
00:07:23.420
Smith did the right thing. When she came out immediately, it was within 12 hours of the Alberta
00:07:29.100
teachers rejecting what, again, reportedly sounded like a really generous offer. Okay?
00:07:34.380
She came out very quickly and said, okay, so the money that we're saving right now, as of today,
00:07:40.060
by not paying teachers their salary, because they're not paid their salary when they're out on strike.
00:07:45.020
Okay? That money that we're saving, we're handing it back to parents, which is the right thing to do.
00:07:51.740
She took a page out of the British Columbia playbook. I think it was back in 2014 they did this. So,
00:07:58.140
this is an important public service announcement. If you know people who have kids in Alberta,
00:08:04.220
apparently a lot of them don't know this. Tell parents this. If your kid is under the age of 12,
00:08:10.540
and he or she is locked out of school due to the teacher's strike, you can get $30 per child per day
00:08:18.780
for the duration of the strike. So that's like $150 bucks a week per kid.
00:08:25.260
This is to help you with childcare, babysitting, day camps, maybe some tutors that can come over
00:08:31.980
and help your kid here and there. I know that a lot of people's lives have been upheaved. Like,
00:08:36.700
they're scrambling. There's so many single parents out there. There's so many two-person
00:08:40.540
working families who are outside the home that we're counting on school being in session.
00:08:44.300
And I'm sorry. Okay? But Alberta Premier Daniel Smith is doing the right thing by saying,
00:08:49.660
you know what? We're saving money here. So we're giving it back to parents. And before somebody
00:08:54.460
says, oh, well, why would the government hand out money to parents? Blah, blah, blah. That's the
00:08:58.460
parents' money. So the parents are taxpayers. They've paid their taxes for those schools to be open
00:09:06.060
and for teachers to be at work. If the schools are closed and the teachers are refusing to work,
00:09:11.260
you better believe those parents deserve a refund on that money.
00:09:14.940
So folks, if you have kids who are under the age of 12 and they're in the Alberta system and they're
00:09:19.820
locked out of school, go to the Alberta government website and make sure you can get at least some
00:09:24.780
compensation for your kid being out of school. Also, a note, there's also apparently a curriculum
00:09:31.580
help button there. So if you're somehow trying to teach your kid from home, all of a sudden, there's
00:09:37.020
apparently a week-by-week guide that you can click on there and download that will try to keep them up to
00:09:42.380
speed for the duration of this strike. Okay. That is the update on the ground here in Alberta.
00:09:47.340
And the reason why I'm highlighting this is twofold. One, we got a lot of viewers in Alberta and two,
00:09:53.900
these government union strikes have a way of spreading. And this is a big one. First one in
00:09:58.700
23 years. And their friends and neighboring provinces are probably getting some pretty squirrely ideas. So go
00:10:04.860
check that out. We're going to shift gears now to the importance of the ability for you to express
00:10:10.620
yourself and hold government to account. But first, let's check in with our sponsor.
00:10:16.780
I want to give a quick word from our sponsor, Albertans Against No Fault Insurance. So did you
00:10:22.220
know that the Alberta government is overhauling its auto insurance system? Under a new model called
00:10:26.700
CareFirst coming into effect in 2027, most Albertans injured in car accidents will no longer be able to
00:10:31.420
sue the at-fault driver. Instead, decisions about your care and compensation will be made by the
00:10:35.900
insurance company, not your doctor, not the courts. Critics say this system puts insurance companies
00:10:40.860
first and removes key rights from victims and their families. Okay. There are three bills that are in
00:10:48.380
front of the House of Commons right now. There's another one coming to apparently, but let's just focus
00:10:53.100
on the three, okay, which could affect your privacy and your ability to express yourself online. Let's
00:11:02.700
listen to a short clip here. This is a member of parliament, new member of parliament, Matt Strauss,
00:11:07.980
with the Conservatives in opposition, highlighting some of his concerns about this new law.
00:11:13.580
I am concerned, as I say, by the following sections. 15.1 and 15.2 give the minister the unprecedented,
00:11:21.820
incredible power to kick any private Canadian citizen off the internet, to cut off their phone
00:11:26.620
line, to turn off their cell phone. That sounds pretty alarming. But what is actually happening?
00:11:33.660
Does this mean that if you, you know, upset the minister, or if you say something the government
00:11:39.180
doesn't like, like for example, you shouldn't ban people from buying normal gasoline and diesel-powered
00:11:45.660
vehicles and anti-car zealots shouldn't be making up laws as to how much we need to spend on our
00:11:53.020
vehicles or where we can park or what kind of fuel we can put into them, et cetera, et cetera,
00:11:57.900
would that run afoul of the government? What happens to our freedom of expression? Because if we can't
00:12:03.820
express ourselves freely, how are we supposed to hold the government to account? How would this affect
00:12:09.180
regular people? Let's find out. Joining me now is John Carpe. He is the president of the Justice
00:12:16.540
Center for Constitutional Freedom and a friend of the show. John, thank you so much for taking time
00:12:22.140
to join us today. Glad to be with you and your viewers and listeners. There is a whole kettle of
00:12:28.300
fish that is at the House of Commons right now. The Kearney government has dumped it back over,
00:12:34.700
left over from the previous Trudeau government, different incarnations of this stuff. But suffice
00:12:39.660
to say, there are a lot of proposed law changes right now in the House of Commons that would deeply
00:12:46.380
affect our ability for freedom of expression and privacy. And unless people forget, I have to remind
00:12:54.780
them, if you cannot freely express yourself, you cannot hold government to account. So this is a really
00:13:02.380
big deal, John, and that's why we've got you on. Where did you want to start with this? You want
00:13:06.540
to start with the cyber issues that are being changed or the fact that now it looks like our
00:13:11.340
mail can be opened without a warrant? Where do you want to go first? Well, let's do them in numerical
00:13:16.540
order, C2, C8, C9. The terrifying thing about this, Chris, is that the average citizen, like I'm full-time
00:13:24.380
working in public policy and, you know, and I have other responsibilities as well, and I am spending
00:13:31.660
hours and hours and hours. These bills are 100 pages long. They amend various acts, they create new
00:13:37.820
pieces of legislation. So there's no way the average citizen, you know, unless you're working full-time
00:13:43.660
maybe as a university prof or, you know, working for public policy organization like the Taxpayers'
00:13:49.980
Federation, it's just next to impossible. So that's really scary because in terms of government
00:13:57.340
accountability, if they're bringing forward, like Bill C2, I'll give you, I'll rattle off just a few
00:14:02.700
points. Okay, it's 140 pages long, 140 pages to read through the entire bill. It authorizes Canada Post
00:14:10.700
to open letter mail without a warrant. It criminalizes the use of cash in amounts of 10,000
00:14:17.100
or higher. It creates this new piece of legislation called the Authorized Access to Information Act,
00:14:23.660
whereby the government can demand information from an electronic services provider. When you look up
00:14:30.620
the definition of electronic services provider, it is anybody sending out an email. So every church,
00:14:36.460
every business, every nonprofit, every advocacy group, even if you were sending out emails to a bunch
00:14:42.780
of buddies for monthly guys, poker night, you're all, you're an electronic services provider.
00:14:49.100
So Bill C2 is a massive privacy violation that authorizes the government also to demand from
00:14:56.300
corporations that they turn over their subscriber lists and IP addresses. It's a massive privacy
00:15:04.860
violation. Now, it also has tucked in there some provisions to strengthen our borders and changing
00:15:10.540
the refugee policies, changing immigration policies, some of which may or may not be legitimate,
00:15:17.100
but it should be split up. I mean, this is just wrong, right? To have your strong borders act, they
00:15:23.100
call it, right? Where only a fraction of the bill is about the borders and that should be debated separately.
00:15:31.020
And then we should have a separate bill on whether to create this brand new Authorized Access to
00:15:36.220
Information Act. So that's Bill C2. This reminds me of last time when they brought forward the so-called
00:15:45.980
Online Harms Act. And of course, part of that law was what any decent person would want to do was to
00:15:53.420
strengthen penalties for people who victimize children on the internet. Like every sane person
00:15:59.100
would vote in favor of that. But stuck in there was a whole bunch of crazy censorship laws.
00:16:05.900
And I can't help it, man. I'm not new to this game. I have a feeling that they're purposefully
00:16:12.300
like train carring these issues together so that they can drive a political wedge in the House of
0.96
00:16:17.900
Commons. And then it makes it look like, well, why would you vote against strong borders? Don't
00:16:22.140
you want strong borders? It's like, no, I just value people's privacy. Is that what's going on here,
00:16:27.180
John? Yes, definitely. And I was really pleased to learn that apparently the Conservative Party has
00:16:34.860
said that in regards to Bill C2, they're going to vote against it if it's not separated. Because
00:16:41.180
there are parts of the Strong Borders Act that apply to borders that would be supported by the
00:16:47.340
Conservatives. The Conservatives said, no, we're voting against the bill. There are so many other bad
00:16:53.420
things in there that don't need to be there that that could be debated separately just by splitting
00:16:58.300
it up. Right. So C8 is the cybersecurity. And I always say governments never take away your rights
00:17:09.740
and freedoms. They never violate your privacy without providing a nice sounding pretext. And so
00:17:15.580
the language in there over and over again is we have to protect cybersecurity from terrorists,
00:17:20.940
from hackers, from people that would seek to destroy our, you know, oil and gas pipelines, roads, bridges,
00:17:27.900
banking, we got to protect you against terrorism, so on and so forth, all of which is laudable. I agree
00:17:34.380
100%. You know, we need to protect our infrastructure and so on. The solution is law enforcement,
00:17:42.940
figure out who these people are, I'm assuming that they would always be operating under an assumed name.
00:17:48.380
So what does the bill do? C8, ostensibly to protect us from cyber threats and its cybersecurity,
00:17:56.220
it gives a blanket power to the federal cabinet to kick any Canadian off the internet if the minister
00:18:03.980
deems that Canadian to be a threat to security. And threat can include manipulation, degradation.
0.98
00:18:14.460
There's nothing in the bill that expressly says that your freedom of the content of what you say
00:18:21.820
is protected. So if this passes in current form, if the government thinks that, you know,
00:18:26.300
the Taxpayers Federation or the Justice Centre is spreading misinformation, well, then we are a threat to
00:18:32.620
cybersecurity. So they could kick Chris Sims or John Carpe or Scott Hennig, kick individuals off the
00:18:40.060
internet to protect us from, to protect the cybersecurity. So it's a huge power grab where,
00:18:47.420
again, the minister can demand information without a warrant, the minister can order companies to do
00:18:52.700
anything or refrain from doing anything if the minister decides that it's a threat to cybersecurity.
00:19:01.260
And the court process, you are, some of the orders can be secret. So, Chris, if you were kicked off the
00:19:07.500
internet, then the order might specify that you're not allowed to tell anybody that you're kicked off
00:19:11.900
the internet. And penalties of up to a million dollars a day for individuals, up to, for each day. And
00:19:20.380
penalties up to $15 million for corporations. So a very, very aggressive, heavy handed approach to
00:19:28.700
silencing people. And if you do manage to go to court, remember, unless you've got $100,000 sitting
00:19:36.700
in the bank for, you know, my spare cash for litigation, practically speaking, Canadians, they
1.00
00:19:43.180
don't have $100,000 in the bank to go to court, and the court action would take two or three years.
00:19:47.580
So if the minister kicks you off the internet, theoretically, you can go to court and get a
00:19:52.860
court ruling to reverse that, theoretically, but only if you've got $100,000 and you're willing to
00:19:59.020
be off the internet for the two or three years that it's going to take for the court action to proceed.
00:20:03.820
I just need you to specify something here, which I think, you go past it real fast, you miss it.
00:20:10.700
Are you saying that this isn't, so I wouldn't have to be convicted in a criminal court of law,
00:20:16.540
and then sentenced, like with cyber terrorism or something awful, right? In order for this to be
00:20:22.540
part of my sentencing punishment, are you saying that the minister or the cabinet would have the
00:20:27.420
power to kick an individual off of the internet or deny their access to the internet without a
00:20:33.020
conviction? Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. That's it. Because currently, the state of the law currently,
00:20:39.660
if you were, let's say you're, you know, a terrorist or trafficking in child pornography or,
00:20:44.780
you know, threatening children online, if you were convicted of a crime, then part of your
00:20:49.580
conditions could be, if you're in prison, you're not going to have access to the internet anyways,
00:20:55.180
as far as I know. But if you're out on bail, the judge might say, we're kicking you off the internet,
00:21:00.780
you're not allowed to go on it at all. That would be an extreme sanction, but that could be done
00:21:05.340
currently. But if you're out on bail, or if you've been convicted of a crime, right now, the minister,
00:21:11.900
if he has, you know, reasonable grounds, as determined by the minister himself in his own head,
00:21:19.420
okay, and that's just way too, we always do and say what we ourselves think is reasonable. So that's
00:21:27.740
a pretty broad standard. But if the minister on reasonable grounds, as determined by the minister in
00:21:33.180
his own head, thinks that you are a threat to Canada's cyber security, then he can order you,
00:21:40.460
he can kick you off the internet and order every, you know, whoever's providing it, that you no longer
00:21:48.700
I wanted to highlight something here for people who are thinking, okay, guys, like your slope is
00:21:52.940
pretty steep and too slippery, and you're kind of imagining things here. This is only about, you know,
00:21:57.500
cyber terrorism or something. Well, remember before, when you former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in
00:22:04.540
charge, and I'll give you an example from the Taxpayers Federation, we were pushing really, really
00:22:09.820
hard against things like the carbon tax. And at one point, we found in one of the government's own
00:22:15.820
reports that they had commissioned, it was on the Environment Canada website. In that report, they were
00:22:22.540
suggesting that the Trudeau government implement a pickup truck tax, straight up. That was a
00:22:29.340
recommendation to the minister. Now, that was right there in the study that they posted on their own
00:22:35.420
website and the government website. So it's like, hey, let's have a special tax just for SUVs and pickup
00:22:40.940
trucks, because the environment, etc, etc. It was right there in black and white. We reported on it,
00:22:46.620
we put it all over the internet. And the minister was so upset that he was calling it either
00:22:52.780
misinformation or disinformation, like directly on the internet. Whoa! Like, this is your point,
00:23:00.140
I think your point exactly, John, is that our interpretation of what is harmful or threatening
00:23:06.940
can vary based on our own judgment. Is that what we're getting at here, where we could then be muzzled
00:23:14.220
for saying, for example, you know, the carbon tax is wrong. They could turn around and say,
00:23:19.340
well, you're harming our environmental, you know, goals. Isn't that part of this?
00:23:24.620
Yeah. Well, what I see more and more frequently these days is that a simple criticism of a politician
00:23:32.940
or a government official, bureaucrat, non-elected, whether elected or unelected, get a criticism
00:23:39.660
of a person or a policy. And then you hear this accusation that this is bullying, harassment,
00:23:48.780
intimidation. It's like, no, it's nothing of the sorts. It's just that, you know, there's cabinet
00:23:55.100
minister Smith and some citizens are saying that the bill that he's introducing is a very bad bill.
00:24:01.500
Or whatever school trustee, you know, votes in favor of such and such a policy. And the next thing you
00:24:08.380
know, and then she gets criticism or he gets criticism. And then it's like, oh, well, you know,
00:24:13.900
I'm the victim of bullying and harassment and intimidation. What, because somebody criticized
00:24:20.940
And so the point is with loaded words, right? The minister could very easily say that
00:24:27.180
something that somebody's saying is, is disinformation and disinformation threatens all of us.
00:24:33.180
You know? Yeah, I can see where this is heading. The puck is going in the bad direction. Speaking
00:24:39.020
for the tax, like Taxpayers Federation, I mean, we do stunts all the time. Like we hand out golden pig
00:24:45.180
statues in a pig costume for politicians and bureaucrats who waste your money. Politicians who are refusing
00:24:52.940
to stand up for taxpayers and vote to lower their taxes or on critical other votes and bills.
00:24:59.020
Like we have chicken suits that we dance in front of the office with the protest sign. Like
00:25:04.140
if their feelings get too hurt over that kind of stuff, A, you shouldn't be in politics, but B,
00:25:10.460
they could try to extend something like this down the road, couldn't they? To try to say,
00:25:14.380
you know what, you're no longer allowed to speak.
00:25:16.380
Well, that ties right in with Bill C-9. If we can get back to C-8, I'm happy to do so,
00:25:23.020
but this is so on point. So Bill C-9 takes the current hate speech provisions, which already allow
00:25:31.340
a Canadian judge to impose a more severe sentence. If somebody is convicted, let's say of robbing a
00:25:38.140
grocery store. And so they came in there with a knife or a gun or a baseball bat, and they threatened
00:25:43.900
the clerk and said, give me all your money, otherwise I'll kill you. If there is hate involved,
00:25:49.100
and let's say that the grocery store clerk is Somali or Korean or East Indian or whatever.
00:25:56.380
And so the perpetrator there is, you know, what the judge can do on sentencing, if the person's
00:26:01.980
convicted of the crime, the judge can increase the penalty. If the judge finds that hate for the,
00:26:09.660
like racial hatred or hatred based on gender or sexual orientation, if hatred was a motivating
00:26:15.740
factor, the penalty can be stiffer. Now we can agree or disagree on that. Some people would say
00:26:20.460
the crime is the crime and it doesn't matter what was in your heart. But the point is this law is
00:26:24.540
already on the books right now. Canadian judges have under criminal code section 718, they have the
00:26:30.380
power to impose a stiffer sentence within the range of whatever, whether it's a maximum two years crime,
00:26:36.860
maximum five years crime, maximum 10 years crime. What Bill C-9 does is it puts this on steroids by
00:26:45.500
increasing the maximum penalty. So if let's say that robbing a convenience store carries a maximum
00:26:51.900
penalty of five years, okay, if there was hatred, the maximum penalty becomes 10 years. So it's actually
00:26:58.940
the entire sentence gets increased if the judge finds that there's hate. So a two year sentence can become a
00:27:06.620
five year sentence, five can become 10, a 14 year sentence can become a life sentence. That's the,
00:27:12.940
that's the first change. The other change is that hate speech prosecutions, we've had these laws on the
00:27:18.700
books for, for 30 years, but the reason you don't see a lot of hate speech prosecutions, well, one reason
00:27:26.460
is that maybe the chilling effect, but the other reason is the attorney general of the province has to
00:27:31.740
give a thumbs up, has to give a green lights to proceeding with the prosecution. Every other crime,
00:27:36.620
it's the local police, local crown prosecutors, they decide in that city, you know, if you commit
00:27:41.820
a crime in Lethbridge, it'll be the Lethbridge police, crown prosecutors decide whether to prosecute or
00:27:46.460
not. For the hate speech, if they want to prosecute, they have to run it by the attorney general of the
00:27:52.940
province for review. And in some cases, the attorney general of the province thinking about it, maybe
00:27:59.020
more dispassionately. Anyway, they're scrapping that. So the local police and crown prosecutors can decide
00:28:07.260
on whether you've engaged in hate speech. Hate speech, hate is an emotion, you cannot define it. And
00:28:14.140
it's almost ridiculous what they do in Bill C-9. They actually say that to dislike and disdain is not hate
00:28:21.340
speech. But detestation and vilification is hate speech. So to be very clear there, you can dislike
00:28:29.740
somebody, but just don't vilify them. They also say that it is not hate speech to humiliate, discredit,
00:28:37.740
offend, or hurt the feelings of people. That's not hate speech. So my chicken suit is okay for now?
00:28:43.900
Your chicken suit is not hate speech. You can discredit, humiliate, hurt the feelings of, and offend people.
00:28:48.860
It's not hate speech. But don't cross into this detestation, vilification, because then it's hate
00:28:55.500
speech. So it's just, it's going to have a big chilling effect. But now the local police and local
00:29:02.060
crowns can just decide on their own whether to proceed with the prosecution. And what these people
00:29:08.220
sometimes do is they will prosecute and say, well, you'll get a fair day, you'll get a fair hearing in
00:29:13.900
court. And if our case wasn't strong, then you'll be acquitted. So nothing to worry about. It's like,
00:29:18.860
yeah, but the accused person, you've got to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers to defend
00:29:24.780
yourself. And you've got this public criminal charges hanging over you for a year. So anyway,
00:29:33.260
so that's C9 is kind of a further attack on free speech is what it boils down to.
00:29:40.700
I know you don't have a crystal ball and you can't see inside their heads,
00:29:45.900
but why remove that kind of emergency break or sober second thought or signals check,
00:29:51.740
whatever term you want to use. Why remove the attorney general step here? What would be
00:29:57.660
the government's reason for doing that? Like usually I'm for, you know, taxpayers federation.
00:30:03.260
We want streamlined government. We want less, you know, less delays. But in this case,
00:30:09.500
where you're dealing with things like potential in freedom of expression, expression implications,
00:30:18.780
Because you're going to see a whole lot more prosecutions for hate speech than what we've
00:30:22.700
ever seen before. Because sometimes it's even the existence of the review makes you think twice,
00:30:28.780
okay, are, is this, does this really qualify as hate? Are we really going to get a conviction?
00:30:34.940
Is it really in the public interest? Just knowing that the attorney general of the province is going to
00:30:40.460
review it already gets you to slow things down, which is why off the top of my head, I'm only aware
00:30:48.380
of, of one hate speech prosecution in the last decade, or maybe it was 15 years ago. There was
00:30:53.580
some Aboriginal leader in Saskatchewan made a anti-Semitic comment and, and you know, but this,
00:31:01.340
this happens once per decade. That's going to start happening once a year, once a month, once a week
00:31:14.300
So would you say then the three bills that people need to really be aware of at this moment, because
00:31:20.460
it could change tomorrow in the House of Commons, when it comes to things like privacy, freedom of
00:31:25.100
expression, right, would be C9, C8, and C2, they have to watch all of these?
00:31:30.540
All three of them, there are hundreds of pages each. However, the good news is that doesn't stop you from
00:31:35.660
contacting your MP and saying, you know, even if it's just an email, a phone call,
00:31:41.260
I want you to vote against Bill C2, C8, C9, 289, which are serious threats to privacy and freedom of
00:31:49.500
expression, sign yours truly, your constituent, you know, can even write in your street address if you
00:31:56.300
want your postal code to make it clear to your MP that this is an email they're getting from their
00:32:01.740
own constituent. So nothing stops you from contacting your MP and say, vote against Bill C289.
00:32:11.820
And then we've got the Online Harms Act from the previous parliament, which hasn't even been brought
00:32:15.980
back. But the word on the street is that it will very likely be brought back. So it'll get a different
00:32:22.220
number, it won't be C63 anymore. But that's also horrific, it can have people placed under house
00:32:27.980
arrest wearing an ankle bracelet, based on a neighbour fearing that you might commit a speech
00:32:33.100
crime in future. Like it actually has, you can get punished, not punished with jail time, but punished
00:32:40.060
with house arrest and an ankle bracelet, and a strict order about who you can and cannot talk with,
00:32:46.140
without having been charged with a crime, had a trial, convicted, nothing, you can get conditions
00:32:52.460
placed on you already. So supposedly, that's coming back. But for right now, at this moment,
00:32:59.020
it's Bill 289. C2, C8, C9 are the huge problems.
00:33:04.140
Wow. Okay, before I let you go quickly, I know that we're going to have some sentencing hearings
00:33:12.940
Yes, Tuesday, October 7th, Tamara Leach, Chris Barber. They are on their way to Ottawa. I mean,
00:33:21.100
they're probably arriving on Monday the 6th at some point. And the Crown is demanding eight years jail
00:33:28.700
time for Chris Barber, convicted of mischief, and seven years jail time for Tamara Leach, convicted of
00:33:35.100
mischief. And we get a ruling on Tuesday the 7th. There was a very important federal court judgment
00:33:43.580
that said the invocation of the Emergencies Act was wrong. I'm using layman's terms, of course,
00:33:50.140
and that that shouldn't have been done. And that, of course, was during that protest,
00:33:54.060
the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act, bank accounts were
00:33:59.580
frozen. Suffice to say, the federal court judge at that level said, you know what, that was
00:34:05.580
unconstitutional, shouldn't have done that. So we saw that that was a big win for the CCF.
00:34:11.020
Do you think that that is going to factor into this? Go ahead.
00:34:15.340
Oh, sorry. No, the Justice Centre was involved in that case as well. We provided lawyers for
00:34:19.900
Canadians that put forward affidavits, and the CCF, Civil Liberties Association as well.
00:34:26.300
Yes. I would say a lot of people in what I would describe as the freedom movement who want freedom
00:34:31.900
of expression and ability to hold government to account, and you can't do that if you're worried about
00:34:35.420
your bank account be frozen. We're happy to see that ruling. Do you think that that will factor
00:34:41.980
in to the judge's sentencing at all when they're thinking about this and weighing the consequences?
00:34:47.260
Because I was a long-time court reporter, and just speaking as a former court reporter,
00:34:53.420
eight and seven years, in my experience, was a pretty hefty sentence for those convictions.
00:34:58.540
Oh, yeah. There's people convicted of manslaughter that are getting less than seven years, eight years,
00:35:07.420
and this mischief is a pretty minor crime. I don't think that the fact that we got this court ruling
00:35:17.100
that declared that the federal government under Trudeau violated the Emergencies Act and wrongfully
00:35:25.420
declared state of emergency when there was no national emergency. It's not directly relevant on
00:35:32.300
sentencing. What is relevant though, and I think the lawyers for Chris and Tamara have brought this up,
00:35:40.380
is that both individuals were continually in touch with police and with their own lawyers,
00:35:47.900
striving around the clock to be law-abiding. The Justice Center had lawyers on the ground during all three
00:35:54.540
weeks. The lawyers, as well as Tamara and Chris themselves, they were always talking with police,
00:36:00.220
being very open and transparent, what we're doing. Chris and other truckers, they parked their truck
00:36:06.220
where the police told them. Hopefully, the judge will take that into serious account, that Tamara and Chris
00:36:17.740
were striving 24 hours a day to comply with the law. There was an initial court ruling pertaining to
00:36:25.980
an injunction against horn honking, where a judge said in his ruling that this is a lawful protest.
00:36:34.460
So we've got to hope for the best, but it's pretty scary because there's a double standard
00:36:39.340
that is at play here. When you see, for example, the aboriginals protesting against residential
0.61
00:36:46.460
schools at the Manitoba legislature, and then vandalizing, tearing down a statue of Queen Victoria,
00:36:53.420
which is committing a crime in broad daylight. The police were watching, nothing was done. Crown
00:36:57.740
prosecutors announced that nobody would be prosecuted. That's a double standard.
00:37:01.420
I support peaceful protests, 100%. But when you start vandalizing a statue, you're committing a crime.
00:37:09.580
And yet, because these people were the right people protesting for the right cause, being sarcastic,
00:37:17.980
there's no criminal charges. So that's a double standard that is terrifying, because it really
00:37:23.500
undermines the rule of law and our democracy. When how you're handled by prosecutors,
00:37:35.020
We definitely live in interesting times. John Carpe, thank you so much for your time today.
00:37:42.380
Once again, that is John Carpe. He is the President of the Justice Center for Constitutional
00:37:47.420
Freedoms. You can go check out their work on their website. They're typically known as the JCCF.
00:37:55.100
Folks, it has been wonderful sitting in for Candace Malcolm. I've been guest hosting,
00:38:01.180
for Candace, off and on for the last few weeks. Thank you so much for making us a big part of your day.
00:38:07.340
I wanted to let you know that I get to host my own show, which is really exciting. I'm super happy
00:38:14.300
about it. And it's going to be right here on Juno News, backed up by the good folks at True North,
00:38:19.980
and it launches tomorrow. So be sure to check back here on the same bat channel to watch it then.
00:38:26.860
Thank you so much for joining us. And remember, make sure to like this video and share it with people