Juno News - Carney wants to SPY on Canadians, Sean Fraser caves to RADICALS – a constitutional lawyer weighs in

00:00:00.000 Hi, I'm Candice Malcolm and this is The Candice Malcolm Show. We have an excellent episode for

00:00:07.140 you today. Wow, a lot going on in the world of Canadian news. We're going to talk about Bill

00:00:11.320 C2, which is Mark Carney's new attempt to spy on all Canadians. We're going to talk about

00:00:16.320 Attorney General Sean Fraser and how he completely contradicted himself and he caved two radicals

00:00:21.980 just one day apart. Finally, we're going to talk about a parent and a school council member

00:00:26.740 and what happened to her after she refused to do a land acknowledgement in Hamilton.

00:00:32.240 Folks, please like this video. I'm going to ask you just to quickly hit that like button.

00:00:35.420 It really helps us with the YouTube algorithm. We want to be discovered by as many Canadians

00:00:39.760 as possible. So my guest today, I'm very pleased to be joined by John Carpe. John Carpe is a

00:00:45.060 constitutional lawyer and he's president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

00:00:49.020 and he's the author of a new book, Corrupted by Fear, which explores how Canadian courts

00:00:54.200 failed to properly scrutinize government overreach during COVID. And we are going to talk about that

00:01:00.080 as well. So John, welcome to the show. Thank you so much for joining us.

00:01:04.460 Glad to be with you.

00:01:05.760 Well, first I want to talk about this liberal border bill and how it threatens Canadians and

00:01:11.200 our privacy. So this is all, of course, in response to what has been happening with the

00:01:16.140 border, with fentanyl, with the Americans. It's always under the guise of a big, you know,

00:01:20.220 important security event, but people are really starting to raise the alarm. This is a 140 page

00:01:26.160 bill. So it seems to me that the government just wanted to throw in all kinds of other things

00:01:30.660 into this bill. So I'm going to read a little bit from University of Ottawa law professor Michael

00:01:36.040 Geis, because he wrote a long blog post on this that I think is really important. He writes,

00:01:41.020 this is his blog post called Privacy at Risk. Government buries lawful access provisions in

00:01:46.160 new border bill. He writes, the government yesterday introduced the strong border act,

00:01:50.520 Bill C-2, legislation that was promoted as establishing a new border measure provision,

00:01:55.600 presumably designed to address U.S. concerns regarding the border. Yet buried at the bottom

00:01:59.840 of the bill are lawful access provisions that have nothing to do with the border. The provisions raise

00:02:05.120 the prospects of warrantless access to information about internet subscribers, among other things.

00:02:11.360 He writes, much like the government's overreach last year from the online harms bill,

00:02:14.900 Bill C-2 overreaches by including measures on internet subscriber data that have nothing to

00:02:20.540 do with the border, but raise serious concerns about civil liberties. So I'm wondering, John,

00:02:26.420 what is your takeaway? What do you think about this bill as being introduced?

00:02:30.860 It's terrifying. There are provisions to restrict the use of cash. There are provisions that will allow

00:02:38.780 police for the first time to intercept mail, which repudiates a 157-year-old Canadian tradition of privacy

00:02:48.200 that dates all the way back to Confederation in 1867. Canada Post gets new powers to open mail. And then we have

00:02:59.840 this without a warrant access. And just as background, warrants are a crime-fighting tool. And so the starting

00:03:10.720 point is we all have a privacy right. But if the police have reasonable and probable grounds to believe

00:03:16.280 that, let's say Mark Smith, just invented name is, has got fentanyl or child pornography in his home. They

00:03:24.440 have, they have reasonable tips, reasonable leads. They can go to court and somebody needs to swear an affidavit

00:03:31.880 on which they can be cross-examined in the future. And they need to apply to a judge to get a search warrant. And so

00:03:40.280 they could violate the privacy rights of Mark Smith because they have reasonable and probable grounds to

00:03:46.120 do so. They could intercept his emails, read his emails. They could get a search warrant to go into

00:03:52.760 his home. And so they can show up suddenly and just walk into his home and it's legal. But the search warrant

00:03:59.640 is so important as a protection of the 99.99% of Canadians who are law-abiding. The police does not,

00:04:08.600 in the name of crime-fighting, have the right to, to enter your home. And so what we have with the

00:04:13.560 Strong Borders Act is, uh, included in the 140 pages, there's a provision whereby law enforcement

00:04:20.280 authorities can demand of anybody providing electronic services, which is pretty broad, uh, that might

00:04:27.400 include your organization and my organization. I mean, if we're sending out emails about constitutional

00:04:33.960 rights and freedoms, that could be an electronic service. We have to on demand, uh, produce our, and

00:04:40.520 turn over our email lists and, uh, provisions in there as well would require, um, releasing the locations of,

00:04:49.240 of where people live or where their IP address is. So it's, uh, all crime fighting, it's gotta be, uh, we have to be

00:04:59.160 protected by, uh, legal requirement for law enforcement to get a search warrant. Uh, this is

00:05:05.800 being, uh, put on, uh, this is being repudiated. So it's extremely dangerous.

00:05:10.200 Well, okay. So we have Ottawa, in Ottawa yesterday, Public Safety Minister, Gary Anansangari,

00:05:17.560 and he claimed that the bill is in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it strikes the

00:05:23.080 right balance between expanding, uh, powers and protecting the individual. Let's play that clip.

00:05:27.560 In order for me to bring forward legislation, it needed to have the safeguards in place. Uh,

00:05:33.320 it needed to be charter, uh, in line with the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

00:05:38.760 Um, and, and I fundamentally believe that, that we have, uh, strike the balance that, uh, while, um,

00:05:46.920 expanding powers in certain instances does have the safeguards and the protections in place, uh, to

00:05:52.520 protect individual freedoms or rights. I think a lot of Canadians really want to take action when it

00:05:57.400 comes to fighting illegal immigration and crime, crime specifically, as well as fentanyl. So

00:06:02.200 Canadians, there is an appetite for this, uh, but what do you make of the minister's, uh, claim

00:06:06.520 there that it strikes the right balance?

00:06:09.560 Politicians and other government officials never take away our rights and freedoms without offering

00:06:14.840 a nice sounding pretext. And so the pretext here has got some nice sounding things. Uh, most Canadians 1.00

00:06:21.080 legitimately, uh, myself included, uh, we want strong borders. We don't want to have non-existent

00:06:26.840 borders or anybody can just walk into Canada or fly into Canada and just stay here without lawful

00:06:34.120 authorization to do so. But whenever politicians bring legislation that violates rights and freedoms,

00:06:40.600 they always say, oh yeah, we've looked at the charter. This complies with the charter. Uh, we've taken

00:06:46.040 charter values into account. There are safeguards here to protect privacy, to protect freedom of

00:06:51.640 expression. The safeguards are there. They said that with the online harms, uh, act that, that they

00:06:57.080 brought in, uh, about a year and a half ago or a year and several months ago, they always say that

00:07:03.320 it's charter compliant because that's, uh, it's kind of a political speaking point. Uh, but what, what

00:07:09.720 we're learning about the bill so far, and it's a bit of a slow process being 140 pages is, is terrifying.

00:07:15.640 And, and no, it doesn't comply with the charter. Well, there you go. I want to take note because

00:07:20.920 I don't usually agree with the establishment journalists, but this time even they have expressed

00:07:25.720 concerns. So here we have Althea Raj with the Toronto Star. Her headline says, border bill primed

00:07:30.360 to give Mark Carney's government sweeping new powers, but who asked for it? On X, she criticized it. Next, we

00:07:36.600 have, uh, Robin Urbach from the Globe and Mail. Uh, she writes, so it appears the Carney government

00:07:41.320 decided to pair a bunch of mostly reasonable reforms to our asylum claim system with 0.56

00:07:45.400 a bunch of insane crap that expands law enforcement, surveillance power, uh, because we needed that 0.74

00:07:50.760 question mark. And finally, Chris Selle in the national post writes, uh, his headline says, 0.98

00:07:55.080 liberals wrap much needed refugee reform in a terrible privacy invading packages. He writes on X,

00:08:02.200 seems kind of Trumpy, right? Um, so I, I, I know, I know you probably share my view that for the most

00:08:07.720 part, the legacy media is not to be trusted, but when you even have legacy media, people like Althea Raj and

00:08:12.920 Robin Urbach saying, this isn't what anyone asked for and we shouldn't be doing this. Um, do you

00:08:17.320 think that the liberals will listen and maybe try to, uh, break this bill in half at least and take

00:08:23.320 out, um, some of the, the, the things that people are raising concerns about? Well, there's, there's a

00:08:29.320 good chance of that. It depends on, on, uh, pushback as well for Canadians, especially those who are living in, uh, an

00:08:38.040 electoral district where their member of parliament is a liberal. Uh, if those MPs get a lot of pushback

00:08:44.520 from their own constituents, that's going to, uh, bear influence. Another, uh, you know, mainstream

00:08:50.920 media person, um, Marie Wolf wrote in the Globe and Mail yesterday, uh, raised some, raised these same

00:08:58.600 flags that this is allowing law enforcement to access all kinds of information about people's names,

00:09:05.720 email addresses, uh, location of IP server without a warrant. And I, I'm glad I'm thankful that, uh,

00:09:13.720 this seems to be, uh, across the board that, that, that there is a real concern for privacy. I mean,

00:09:21.080 it'd be nice if, if, uh, others were also, you know, strong champions of the freedoms of, uh, expression,

00:09:27.000 religion, conscience, association, peaceful assembly, and they're not. Uh, but here, at least when it comes

00:09:32.280 to privacy rates, uh, we seem to have people from across the political spectrum that are, uh, raising,

00:09:39.960 raising alarms. Well, I'm old enough to remember back in 2015, John, when Stephen Harper introduced an

00:09:46.120 anti-terror bill, right? This was 2015. The backdrop was, we had Islamist ISIS fanaticals in Canada.

00:09:53.400 One of them shot and killed an unarmed soldier standing ceremoniously on guard. I'm talking about

00:09:58.120 Nathan Cirilla. Then that madman broke into parliament, fired shots very close to politicians 0.92

00:10:04.920 like Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau. Um, and so in response, the terror bill that he, uh, implemented 0.55

00:10:11.960 received huge pushback, um, from the establishment people, from the powers that be. Uh, I'm going to

00:10:17.720 show this joint letter that was signed by dozens, hundreds of organizations and law professors across

00:10:24.520 the country. So this is from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They signed a joint letter urging Canada

00:10:31.000 to dismiss the anti-terror legislation. And folks, you can just see, look at the names of the

00:10:36.600 organizations that signed this. Like there's, I don't know, a couple dozen plus all of these very

00:10:41.400 fancy law professors and other university professors, probably a hundred of them. And so they were very up

00:10:48.040 in arms. I think, you know, by today's standards, that bill seems quite mild, um, compared to some

00:10:54.600 of the things that the Justin Trudeau government has had introduced. And now here we are with Mark

00:10:59.960 Carney introducing things that just have nothing to do with each other. Um, so I know it's early days,

00:11:05.880 right? This was just introduced. Maybe the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and other groups are

00:11:11.000 drafting letters as we speak. Um, but I, I'm wondering, do you expect to see this level of pushback

00:11:16.200 against the Kearney government? Well, based on what we've seen so far about the bill's contents,

00:11:21.800 I would, uh, I would certainly hope so. The other frightening thing is that, that this kind of

00:11:26.760 legislation works hand in glove with a new online harms act. If the, uh, if the federal government

00:11:34.760 reintroduces the, the same bill or, or similar legislation. So on the one hand, law enforcement

00:11:41.160 gets easy access without a warrant to private and confidential information of thousands or even

00:11:47.720 millions of people. And then at the same time, uh, if you have something like an online harms act

00:11:54.600 that, um, uh, is going to put a chill on speech, that's going to allow the federal government to pass

00:12:02.520 regulations where they get to define what is hateful. And, uh, those two together, it's absolutely

00:12:10.520 terrifying and, and the technology is there. Uh, we know how social credit works in China with, um, 0.70

00:12:17.880 you know, if you criticize the government on social media, next thing you know, you can't go shopping,

00:12:24.280 you can't get onto a train or a plane or a subway or a bus. Uh, the technology is there to, to facilitate

00:12:32.520 worse tyranny than what we've ever experienced before. And it seems like that's the way that

00:12:38.840 they're heading. Okay. I want to switch gears a little bit, John, and ask you about Canada's

00:12:43.000 justice minister, attorney general, Sean Fraser. He seems to have either flip-flopped or sort of

00:12:47.720 capitulated to the radicals here. So this is all in the backdrop of that first minister's meeting

00:12:52.920 that happened in Saskatoon earlier in the week. The idea that Mark Carney is really focused on

00:12:57.240 creating energy corridors, making Canada an energy superpower, and yes, the prospect of new pipelines. So

00:13:03.880 justice minister, Sean Fraser, this is on Wednesday. He was asked about this and specifically made this

00:13:09.640 comment saying that indigenous communities don't have a blanket veto power over natural resource

00:13:15.880 projects. Let's play that clip. Uh, there's the potential to have a more direct impact on

00:13:19.880 aboriginal and treaty rights. It demands a higher degree of engagement. Uh, the commentary has suggested

00:13:25.800 to date, uh, that it's not necessarily a blanket veto power, but of course we're in new territory here.

00:13:30.760 And so looking a little frazzled there, but on Thursday, Sean Fraser came back and he actually

00:13:36.440 apologized for those comments saying that he shouldn't have said them and that instead he

00:13:40.200 should have just rejected the premise of the question. Let's play that clip.

00:13:43.960 Despite, uh, innocent intentions. I think my comments actually caused hurt and potentially

00:13:48.520 eroded a very precarious trust that has been built up, uh, over many years, uh, to respect the rights

00:13:54.440 of indigenous people in this country. And, uh, it's essential that we, uh, work in partnership,

00:13:59.320 uh, with indigenous partners when it comes to issues that engage their, uh, their rights and demand,

00:14:03.960 uh, the respect of the crown. What I should have done when faced with the question that I received

00:14:07.800 was rejecting the premise of the question. So it seems like he got a talking to John. I don't

00:14:13.320 know if it was from the prime minister's office news, uh, outlets have reported that the AFN, uh,

00:14:18.360 chief gave him a call, probably gave the prime minister's office a call as well. And you could see

00:14:23.160 that he, that he was sort of groveling for, um, you know, just saying that he shouldn't have said it

00:14:29.960 and that, that wasn't what he meant. And so I'm wondering, um, what do you make of this sort of,

00:14:34.280 I don't know how to call it a flip flop or capitulation, um, and the broader question of getting

00:14:40.120 pipelines and national projects, uh, to fruition without having small interest groups being able

00:14:45.800 to hijack the process? Well, it's, it's encouraging to hear the prime minister say that, uh, you know,

00:14:53.080 we do need these pipelines. Um, Alberta right now is, and, and therefore Canada as well. We are losing

00:15:01.160 huge sums of money by being forced to sell our oil at a discounted price to the United States because

00:15:07.160 we don't have, uh, full access to tide water. So we can't sell the oil to, um, to other countries.

00:15:14.600 It's a self-inflicted wound. And so we are losing massive revenues by selling to the Americans at a

00:15:21.400 lower price because they're the only ones we can sell to because we've shot ourselves in the foot

00:15:25.960 and, uh, not built these pipelines. Now it's good to hear support for the pipelines, but there's this

00:15:32.520 qualification where prime minister Carney says that subject to, uh, Aboriginal veto for whatever

00:15:39.320 they deem to be their traditional lands or unceded lands, uh, which is pretty vague. Um, and then

00:15:46.920 environmental concerns, which are legitimate, but when he says environment, he's talking about his

00:15:52.680 theory that mankind controls the climate. And then a third one is that, uh, any development has to be

00:16:00.360 subject to, uh, the, the public interest as defined by the government. So on the one hand, it's like,

00:16:06.040 yeah, we're four pipelines, but Aboriginals have a veto. Uh, we believe that mankind controls the 1.00

00:16:12.600 climate. So, uh, if the pipelines are going to interfere with that control of the climate, it's not going

00:16:19.720 ahead. And if the government thinks it's not really in the national interest. So really you don't have

00:16:25.320 serious support for pipelines. And, uh, I think, uh, the attorney general, Sean Fraser, I think his

00:16:31.640 first comments were far more reasonable than the, uh, the subsequent backtracking, uh, in response to

00:16:38.040 hurt feelings. Well, especially when we have a situation where you can have hereditary chiefs,

00:16:42.920 like not even elected people in these communities, but people who have deemed themselves through their

00:16:47.240 bloodline, um, the, the arbiters of whether Canada gets to have an economy that works or not.

00:16:53.320 And, uh, you know, the idea of, uh, what we, you know, what the Trudeau government has

00:16:57.880 given, pardon me, have, has, uh, paid homage to before the idea that first nations do have veto

00:17:04.280 power and that we adhere to, you know, United nations protocol that requires, what is it prior

00:17:10.040 informed consent, whatever that means, which is a gray area. Um, you know, they, they are given

00:17:15.960 outsized power in our society. I want to tie this to another story, John, um, which is really quite

00:17:21.880 something I know you at the justice center are focused on this case. So a parent in Hamilton,

00:17:26.520 basically she calmly expressed her opposition to land acknowledgements. You know, the land

00:17:31.160 acknowledgements, we saw King Charles do one embarrassingly, um, before his throne speech,

00:17:36.280 um, basically saying that Canada is not a legitimate country, um, and that it's unceded land,

00:17:40.040 it's not our land. Um, well, she expressed calm opposition to it. And we're going to talk a little

00:17:45.640 bit about what happened to her and we're going to talk about John's book on COVID government overreach.

00:17:50.520 But folks, we're going to cut off the YouTube stream right here because when I, whenever I talk

00:17:55.160 about these topics, um, my videos get demonetized. YouTube doesn't like us talking about these

00:17:59.560 comments. So we're going to switch it over to junonews.com. Come join us over there for the

00:18:04.520 rest of the conversation. And we can be a lot more open about our real thoughts and beliefs because

00:18:09.720 we're not facing any kind of government or YouTube censorship. So head on over and watch the rest there. Okay.

00:18:15.640 Take your hands on over again.

00:18:17.980 Take your hands off my website.

00:18:19.700 Take your hands off my website.

00:18:21.360 Take your hands off my website.

00:18:23.160 Take your hands off my website.

00:18:24.080 Take your hands off your website.

00:18:25.580 Pick your hands off my website.

00:18:26.480 T Building an e-play page.

00:18:27.700 Be your hands off my website.

00:18:28.700 Take your hands off my website.

00:18:29.600 Take your hands off my website.

00:18:30.580 Take your hand off my website.

00:18:32.040 Take your hands off my site.

00:18:33.780 Take your hands offman.

00:18:34.800 Take your hands off my website.

00:18:36.280 Check your hands off my website.

00:18:37.280 Take your hands off my website.

00:18:40.200 Click that on over again on the right side.

00:18:43.800 Here we will break your hands off my website.

Juno News - June 05, 2025

Carney wants to SPY on Canadians, Sean Fraser caves to RADICALS – a constitutional lawyer weighs in

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript