Juno News - It's official： Trudeau broke the law

00:00:00.000 Transcription by CastingWords

00:00:30.000 Thank you.

00:01:00.000 welcome to canada's most irreverent talk show this is the andrew lawton show brought to you by true

00:01:20.440 north canada's most irreverent talk show here on true north on this wednesday january 24 2023

00:01:33.320 the freedom convoy two years ago today was just passing through alberta i believe picking up steam

00:01:40.820 on its way to ottawa so that's something to keep in mind there uh we have i believe i'm just looking

00:01:47.120 at our little show production chat channel thing, whatever we call it here. And one of my colleagues

00:01:52.920 has a new profile picture. Send that over to Sean, Artem. I want to put that up on the screen for

00:01:58.480 people. I kind of like that. So I'm very easily distracted, but you'll understand why in a few

00:02:04.340 moments when we put this up on the screen. But you may have heard yesterday, if you've been sleeping

00:02:08.960 and in a coma for the last day and a half, perhaps you haven't. But yesterday, we had the big ruling

00:02:14.840 from the federal court and specifically justice richard mosley finding that the invocation of

00:02:21.120 the emergencies act was unjustified it was not keeping with the parameters and the legal tests

00:02:27.040 set out in the emergencies act itself and more crucially the measures that the federal government

00:02:33.760 brought into effect under the emergencies act like the freezing of bank accounts the conscription of

00:02:39.180 tow truck drivers this whole suite of things violated the constitution it was unconstitutional

00:02:44.800 it violated a couple of provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

00:02:49.260 So we are going to chat about that in a little bit more depth today

00:02:53.800 now that myself and other guests here have had the chance

00:02:57.300 to go through the 190-page ruling.

00:02:59.560 I was very grateful yesterday that Christine Van Gein

00:03:02.220 from the Canadian Constitution Foundation

00:03:04.440 had just like sped red for half an hour before coming on air

00:03:08.500 and made far more sense than most Canadian politicians ever would.

00:03:12.420 But we have her on now with the benefit of having been able to take a deeper dive into this.

00:03:17.260 Christine Van Gein, it is good to talk to you here.

00:03:20.280 Thank you so much for coming back on.

00:03:22.260 So now that you've had the chance to look through this, I'm curious what your takeaway is.

00:03:27.980 Because obviously you agree with the outcome, as do I.

00:03:31.360 But the reasoning behind it, do you find it sound?

00:03:34.500 And is it based on what you would have hoped as a lawyer it was going to be based on?

00:03:38.340 Yeah, so these are very detailed reasons where Justice Mosley goes through not just some of the preliminary matters like standing and mootness, but really dives into the crux of invocation.

00:03:54.660 So he gets, he spends a lot of time dealing with whether or not the threshold to invoke

00:04:01.300 the Emergencies Act was met, and then he looks at, once finding that it was not met, then he goes

00:04:06.640 through the measures enacted under the Emergencies Act, that was the freezing of bank accounts and

00:04:12.280 the prohibition on gatherings, and found that those were unconstitutional. So we can talk about

00:04:18.020 any of those. He also gave a shout out to counsel. He said that, one of my favorite quotes was at the

00:04:24.320 end of the decision and he said that the advocacy was wonderful. And he said in kind of radical

00:04:31.920 transparency, he said, when this case started, I was leaning the other way. But for the advocacy

00:04:37.740 of groups like the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Canadian Civil Liberties

00:04:41.780 Association, this case could have very well turned out differently. So to receive that type of

00:04:47.840 sort of shout out from the bench, it's a wonderful, wonderful feeling.

00:04:53.280 I wanted to ask about that, actually, because I've not read as many of these things as you have.

00:04:57.780 I've read probably more than it is healthy for a normal person, but I've not really come across

00:05:03.120 a judge being that transparent about their own evolution on a case like this, whereas he was

00:05:07.720 basically saying, look, at the beginning, I was leaning this way. Is that as rare as it seems on

00:05:12.540 the service it is so judges will uh will sometimes if counsel is particularly good or particularly

00:05:18.540 bad uh either give a a nice or a mean shout out to the lawyer and say that this counsel

00:05:25.980 was was exceptional or this counsel was bad uh you don't want to be the on the bad end because

00:05:32.900 well there was one of those in this case too i i saw it was one of the groups canada frontline

00:05:37.580 nurses just got a rather scathing rebuke by the judge yeah i i i was there in the courtroom uh so

00:05:44.460 i saw what the lead up to this was and i frankly it was pretty well deserved i wasn't surprised

00:05:50.860 that there was a some criticism from the bench of that one particular lawyer because he i mean

00:05:55.260 his argument started with a discussion about the prime minister wearing blackface which of course

00:06:00.380 he did but it's not really there's not really a legal argument uh in that it's more of a just by

00:06:05.580 the way yeah anyway yeah it is rare to receive a kudos like that from the bench so we were very

00:06:12.780 thrilled to get that i wanted to ask you because one of the things you and i spoke about when your

00:06:18.220 a book came out pandemic panic not that long ago was that freedom of assembly is a very

00:06:23.260 underdeveloped area of law and i was curious what your take was on on if that's a bit more

00:06:28.860 developed now or if that really weighed in in this decision in a meaningful way so justice

00:06:34.940 Mosley wrote that there was no breach of the right to freedom of assembly because he said

00:06:41.000 the right to freedom of assembly comes with a caveat, which is freedom of peaceful assembly.

00:06:46.180 So he was not concerned with the gathering limits breaching that right because he said

00:06:51.880 the gathering limits prohibited participating in a gathering that may lead to the, that could

00:06:59.500 reasonably lead to a breach of the peace. So he said those gatherings are protected anyway.

00:07:03.220 I mean, I do quibble with this because I don't want to say too much because it may be involved in the appeal, but I understand the position that he took because it does have that caveat in the right, but I don't agree with the conclusion that that right was not violated.

00:07:23.140 But the important thing to know about the right to freedom of assembly is that it is an underdeveloped right in our Charter.

00:07:30.120 There's not very much jurisprudence on the right to freedom of assembly.

00:07:33.720 And we wrote in our book that the pandemic presented a number of opportunities to develop a legal test of what constitutes an assembly.

00:07:41.720 In this case, there clearly was an assembly.

00:07:45.380 The question on whether or not something is an assembly more is geared to whether, you know, private gatherings like a Thanksgiving dinner would constitute an assembly under the charter.

00:07:56.640 I think that it would, given that the text of the charter doesn't delineate what the purpose of the gathering needs to be.

00:08:03.760 But anyway, that's sort of not what this case was about.

00:08:07.580 He found there was no breach of the right to freedom of assembly.

00:08:11.380 the breaches were the right to freedom of expression because a protest is an expressive

00:08:16.620 event. And he found there was a breach to privacy rights that the disclosure of information from

00:08:24.240 bank accounts was an unreasonable search and seizure that was unjustified.

00:08:28.980 I wanted to ask about something that follows up on a discussion we started yesterday,

00:08:33.340 which was the distinction between this and the Public Order Emergency Commission. And just to

00:08:38.060 bring people up to speed here, the Public Order Emergency Commission was a creature of statute.

00:08:42.360 It's mandated in the Emergencies Act itself that there must be this review. And at the end of that

00:08:47.540 rather exhaustive set of hearings, the commissioner, Paul Rouleau, found that the government was

00:08:53.740 justified, that it basically complied with the tests set out in the Emergencies Act. Now,

00:08:58.840 the federal court has found the opposite is true, that it was not justified. And I'm curious now

00:09:03.240 that you've dug into the decision, where that divergence took place and where, if there was

00:09:09.040 like a pivotal point, Justice Mosley disagreed with basically Commissioner Rouleau? So he doesn't

00:09:18.020 say that. I mean, it's obvious that he is disagreeing. But I think from what seems like

00:09:25.160 one of the key areas of disagreement is on the threshold of threats to the security of Canada.

00:09:32.420 And that is not what this case actually turned on. This case turned first on whether or not a national emergency existed, and Justice Mosley found that it did not.

00:09:45.180 But the real question for lawyers who are interested in the Emergencies Act is this issue of what is a threat to the security of Canada.

00:09:55.000 And in the legislation, the Emergencies Act, that is a term that the legislation says has the same

00:10:04.080 definition as given to the term in the CSIS Act, another piece of legislation. And the CSIS Act

00:10:12.560 requires there to be a threat or actual serious violence for a ideological or religious or

00:10:21.420 political cause. And Justice Mosley disagreed with Justice Rouleau about the flexibility of

00:10:32.300 that definition. And Justice Mosley found that that term, because it's defined in the statute

00:10:39.520 as having the same meaning as another statute, there can be only one reasonable interpretation.

00:10:45.240 It cannot have the myriad of possible interpretations that the federal government has tried to give it, which includes things like economic harm because there were border blockades.

00:10:59.120 Justice Mosley found that economic harm is not a threat to the security of Canada under the CESES Act.

00:11:05.560 And so it is not a threat to the security of Canada under the Emergencies Act.

00:11:10.000 And he said, perhaps it should be.

00:11:12.420 I don't know.

00:11:13.160 perhaps the legislature could amend it. If they want that to be the interpretation,

00:11:19.000 they should amend the legislation. But it is not the role of the court to do that,

00:11:25.100 to amend the legislation. But Justice Rouleau did accept the government's interpretation that

00:11:32.920 threat to the security of Canada had a sort of different meaning under the Emergencies Act than

00:11:39.660 it does under the CSIS Act. And the government has continued in the announcement of their appeal

00:11:45.000 to make that case that it has this broader definition that actually includes economic harm.

00:11:51.500 One of the things that I think is probably and will remain in the history books as the most

00:11:57.060 heavy handed aspect of this is the freezing of bank accounts. I mean, after you and I spoke

00:12:00.960 yesterday, I had Tom Marazzo on and also Eddie Cornell, two people whose bank accounts were

00:12:05.800 frozen. Cornell was actually one of the applicants in this case. And this remains incredibly

00:12:12.080 overbroad. There were, you know, the government sort of held as its defense to this, well, we only

00:12:17.320 froze this small handful of accounts, but the way the emergency orders were written,

00:12:22.180 they could have frozen many, many more. I mean, anyone who had donated a dime to the truckers

00:12:26.700 would have been fair game as I read this and as most people would. So I'm curious how the judge

00:12:32.200 really took that because I did see one section in particular that stood out in which Justice

00:12:37.440 Mosley talked about the indiscriminate nature of it, that the government really didn't do anything

00:12:41.280 to prevent spouses from being affected who had nothing to do with the convoy. So, okay, a few

00:12:47.700 things. So the bank account freezing, Justice Mosley found was a violation of the charter's

00:12:53.960 section eight guarantee to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. Now in court,

00:12:58.840 the government had argued that this was not even a search which is frankly preposterous and justice

00:13:04.520 mostly in the hearing basically told them to stop wasting their time and get to section one whether

00:13:10.120 or not it was a justified search because he's like i don't know i i forget his exact words but

00:13:15.720 in the hearing itself he was not buying this argument that this was not a search so we know

00:13:22.040 that the examination of financial records is a search. Like there is a lot of case law that says

00:13:30.360 that. Financial records are part of what we call the biographical core of personal information.

00:13:37.520 It can reveal all kinds of personal details about a person. So, you know, like what your

00:13:43.940 socioeconomic status is, what your lifestyle choices are. I mean, frankly, I don't want my

00:13:50.680 husband looking at my credit card bills, let alone Justin Trudeau. So clearly this is a search.

00:13:59.480 The orders required financial institutions to give this information to the government,

00:14:05.420 to police, to CSIS, and to the RCMP. So the other thing, Justin Mosley said, this is a search.

00:14:14.320 The other thing he found was he had to look at whether or not the search was minimally impairing.

00:14:20.680 whether it was a justified limit under section one of the charter. One of those criteria is that it

00:14:26.760 be a minimally impaired, minimal impairment of the right. And he found that the suspension

00:14:33.180 of bank accounts and credit cards affected joint account holders and joint credit cards.

00:14:40.880 So people who had absolutely nothing to do with the protest, if they were at home in

00:14:46.320 Toronto or Alberta or British Columbia or some other part of the country having nothing to do

00:14:51.660 with the protest. They might not be able to use their credit card or get into their bank account

00:14:56.860 to buy groceries or to buy medication. And that happened to one of the applicants in this case,

00:15:03.740 that happened to him. These family members had absolutely nothing to do with the protest,

00:15:09.920 yet their accounts were frozen. That's not minimally impairing. And Justice Mosley found

00:15:15.220 that the government took absolutely this to use his words. He said that he found there appears

00:15:21.740 to have been no effort to find a solution to that problem. Another thing that Justice Mosley found

00:15:28.640 on the credit card and bank freezing was that there was no clear standard that applied to

00:15:36.700 determine whether someone would be a designated person and have their account frozen. So the

00:15:42.920 The police say we only froze the accounts of people who were heavily involved in the protest.

00:15:48.720 But the regulations don't actually say that.

00:15:52.060 So as you pointed out, someone who had simply donated to or supported the convoy might be subject to being targeted.

00:16:01.080 There was no clear standard.

00:16:03.860 And Justice Mosley described the process for freezing the accounts.

00:16:07.820 To quote him, he said, the police just making it up as they went along.

00:16:12.080 And then he also found once your account was frozen, there was no process to question the

00:16:19.280 determination of why your account was frozen or how to get it unfrozen. So a lot going on there

00:16:25.740 that clearly a breach of Section 8 of your right to be free from an unreasonable search.

00:16:31.880 And Justice Mosley found that that breach was not a justified limit on your charter rights.

00:16:37.400 Were there any of the emergency measures that he defended that he said, you know,

00:16:40.940 actually that wasn't unconstitutional? So he said that there was no engagement of

00:16:47.100 the Bill of Rights. There was some argument on Bill of Rights. He was not interested in the

00:16:52.060 arguments on international law. He found there was no breach of Section 7, which is the right

00:16:57.960 to life, liberty and security of person, because he said, well, some people were detained when

00:17:04.780 they were arrested. I believe he said they were arrested under the ordinary criminal code and

00:17:10.580 their detention was uh was brief so because one because one aspect i was interested in was i mean

00:17:18.560 partially for selfish reasons was the way that journalists were uh excluded from even reporting

00:17:24.520 on this i mean there were some very i mean this would be something that would probably have to

00:17:27.980 come up in a separate case but there were excluded or pepper sprayed andrew well both i mean in my

00:17:33.140 in my case pepper spray but but even excluded and you had on the ground some very inconsistent

00:17:37.880 decisions, like police saying that you don't have a right to walk down a sidewalk because they've

00:17:43.320 decided that this is now an area that they're clearing out. And in my case, I had a couple of

00:17:49.000 points where I was threatened with arrest, even though this is the day after the protests had

00:17:53.760 been dismantled. But I'm wondering when you look at this from your perspective, and I don't want

00:17:58.580 you to give the government ideas here, but the government had committed to appealing this

00:18:02.660 basically before the ink was dry and before they had had a chance probably to-

00:18:07.880 Well, fair enough. But I'm curious where you think they'll try to dig in on this and where

00:18:12.800 you think they'll try to base their appeal. So they can only appeal what are referred to as

00:18:19.380 mistakes of law. I mean, you can also appeal what are called mistakes of fact, but that's a lot

00:18:27.060 harder. It needs to be what's called a palpable and overriding error. And so there were a number

00:18:31.880 of findings of fact in this decision that will be a difficult hurdle to overcome. So on this

00:18:39.320 question of threat to the security of Canada, one of the things Justice Mosley found was that the

00:18:46.080 only evidence of any threat of serious violence, which is part of the threshold, was in Coutts,

00:18:52.860 in Coutts, Alberta, where a number of people were arrested and had firearms. And Justice Mosley

00:18:58.620 wrote that while obviously concerning, and of course it is concerning, those individuals were

00:19:06.480 arrested before, I believe, before the, they were arrested under the ordinary criminal code. So

00:19:15.180 part of the threshold is the requirement that no other law can be used to deal with the situation.

00:19:20.960 And clearly these individuals were arrested under the existing criminal code. So the fact that

00:19:27.060 Justice Mosley kind of found that the evidence showed there was only one threat of serious

00:19:34.740 violence and it was addressed using the criminal law, I mean, that is a finding of fact. The

00:19:43.760 government can't now bring new evidence to show there were other hardened terror cells around

00:19:50.400 Canada that were a huge threat, they're stuck with that finding. And that can't really be

00:19:57.300 overcome, at least not very easily. I think on errors, what they have to focus on is what we

00:20:03.920 call as lawyers, errors in the law. And I mean, I don't think there are errors in law in this

00:20:09.840 decision. I agree with this decision completely. But based on what Chrystia Freeland said in her

00:20:16.120 press conference yesterday. It seems like the government continues to emphasize this notion

00:20:23.180 of threat to the security of Canada and the standard including economic harm. So they seem

00:20:31.180 set on that argument. But I will say before they can even get to that, Justice Mosley had already

00:20:38.060 found that the use of the law was unjustified because he found that there was not a national

00:20:43.020 emergency. And that alone was enough to find that the invocation was unreasonable.

00:20:49.320 Yeah. And the government's insistence that economic harm even qualifies as all of these

00:20:54.600 things under the Emergencies Act, I think is very, very questionable in a lot of ways. I just,

00:21:00.380 I wanted to, just before we go here, draw attention to, if you're following along at home,

00:21:04.300 everyone, para 308 and 309 of the, I see Christine's following along. She's, I see her

00:21:10.000 looking for the monitors there. Basically, what he's saying here is that there was no real

00:21:14.660 distinction between people that had a truck that were blocking a border effectively or blocking

00:21:20.340 Wellington Street and people that just wanted to stand on Parliament Hill with a Canadian flag and

00:21:24.760 stand up for freedom, as is always legal, is a legitimate form of protest. And that was something

00:21:30.220 that it came up slightly in the Public Order Emergency Commission, where Commissioner Rouleau

00:21:34.960 asked at a couple of points if there was ever an alternative representative. You can continue your

00:21:39.360 protest, but here's how. And I appreciated that Justice Mosley did dig in on that, where he said,

00:21:45.020 hang on, someone who wanted to stand there as an individual and not block a street was treated the

00:21:49.680 same way as someone that parked a semi in front of Parliament Hill. Yeah, so this is in the part

00:21:54.740 of the decision that's dealing with charter infringement. So the way the Emergencies Act

00:22:01.140 was invoked, the government created regulations, and one of them was a restriction on participating

00:22:07.340 in a gathering that could reasonably lead to a breach of the peace or materially supporting

00:22:12.460 the gathering or traveling to that gathering. And insofar as the prohibition would stop you from

00:22:24.480 sitting in a semi-truck on Wellington blasting your horn, perhaps that might have been okay.

00:22:31.160 But this prohibition was not minimally impairing, which is what is required for it to be

00:22:37.440 constitutional. It did not, it captured too many people. So yes, it captured the person who had

00:22:44.680 been spent three weeks on Wellington Street, which is not, you can't blockade infrastructure

00:22:51.120 indefinitely. That we are a rule of law country. You cannot do that. That is not protected

00:22:55.760 expression, but it captured that person. But it also captured a person who had a poster that they

00:23:03.400 wanted to walk with to Capitol Hill or Parliament Hill and stand on the grass, which is completely

00:23:08.920 protected expression. So it captured too many people. It was not minimally impairing, which is

00:23:15.160 one of the requirements of a law if it's going to infringe on a right, which this did.

00:23:20.340 Well, I'll give you again the congratulations well-earned that I gave you yesterday on the show.

00:23:26.100 And now the judge himself has also lauded you for your work, which I hadn't seen yesterday.

00:23:31.740 So well done all around on this, Christine.

00:23:33.940 I look forward to having you back on as this case proceeds.

00:23:36.660 I mean, the best case scenario at this point would be for the court of appeal or the federal court of appeal to say there's no appeal here, right?

00:23:43.540 I'm not sure if they get leave to appeal as of right or not.

00:23:47.200 but I think certainly if leave is the permission of the court to appeal, I think that they would

00:23:53.700 get it. I think an interesting question is if whatever the outcome is at the court of appeal,

00:24:02.120 I mean, the timeline that we're looking at is probably six months from now, an appeal could

00:24:06.660 be heard. And then six months from now, we might get a decision. So a year until there's a federal

00:24:12.120 Court of Appeal decision you're thinking? I think at a minimum. And then when we talk about any

00:24:17.620 possible, if there's any possible delays, how close are we pushing it to an election? Because

00:24:22.720 I do think if there's a change of government, the desire to appeal this decision will perhaps be

00:24:30.260 lacking. Yeah, fair enough. But assuming just that it goes through the normal channels here,

00:24:35.640 you've got a hearing under the Federal Court of Appeal, Federal Court of Appeal decision,

00:24:39.620 and then potentially beyond that Supreme Court of Canada,

00:24:42.400 how long would that add to the timeline?

00:24:44.900 Another six months for the appeal

00:24:47.080 and then six months for the decision.

00:24:49.580 Yeah, and you're right.

00:24:50.220 So we're well into, I mean,

00:24:51.260 a year into the next government's term possibly,

00:24:54.220 whether there's a change or not.

00:24:55.420 So ideally here, there would be a bit of contrition

00:24:58.260 from the federal government,

00:24:59.400 but right now we're not seeing that.

00:25:01.780 I think that they'll probably rush it

00:25:03.560 because I think they can read polls as well.

00:25:06.040 Yeah, fair enough.

00:25:07.200 All right, well, we'll get the political analysis

00:25:09.020 us next time. Christine Van Gein, Litigation Director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

00:25:13.820 Well done on this, and thanks so much for coming on again. Thank you. All right, if I keep having

00:25:18.860 her on, eventually she's just going to take over the show, because she has such an incredible way 1.00

00:25:22.780 of distilling down these things into understandable terms. But I wanted to switch to the political

00:25:28.820 side of this for a moment here, because one of the things that's easy to forget for a lot of people

00:25:33.300 is how much of a tectonic shift in politics there was at the time of the Freedom Convoy.

00:25:40.960 And we had Aaron O'Toole, who was the leader of the Conservative, well, leader is questionable,

00:25:45.600 but who nominally led the Conservative Party of Canada at the time, who was very weak on the Freedom Convoy,

00:25:53.120 would not say whether he was going to meet with the truckers, wouldn't say if he was supporting it,

00:25:57.700 would say that we need to get more truckers vaccinated and that's how we're going to solve the trucker vaccine mandate.

00:26:03.300 And his lack of support for the Freedom Convoy was a big reason that Aaron O'Toole was ousted.

00:26:07.920 And the rapid pace at which things then evolved with his replacement with Candace Bergen,

00:26:14.220 who was the interim leader, had been O'Toole's deputy leader,

00:26:17.720 but broke ranks with him to support the Freedom Convoy in a statement that was published.

00:26:22.840 I can't remember the exact night.

00:26:24.500 I believe it was on the eve of the convoy's arrival in Ottawa, if memory serves.

00:26:28.300 and then Pierre Paulyev who famously turned around on the steps on the way into that one

00:26:33.600 fateful caucus meeting and said that well in his own way that he was supportive of the convoy and

00:26:39.020 wasn't going to let the media malign those who were individual bad actors because he said in

00:26:44.280 aggregate this is a peaceful protest. Well Candace Bergen who is now retired from politics had a

00:26:51.380 line on X formerly Twitter that was actually somewhat moving. She says I recall vividly and

00:26:57.960 with pride when our Conservative caucus made the collective decision to oppose the Emergencies Act

00:27:03.260 being used against peace-loving Canadians protesting liberal overreach. We decided in

00:27:08.020 that moment that we wanted to be on the right side of history, and that we are. Candice Bergen,

00:27:14.200 I have plucked her out of political retirement for the next 10 minutes or so. She joins me on

00:27:19.460 the line now. Candice, wonderful to talk to you. Thanks so much for coming on today.

00:27:23.800 Great to see you again. Thanks for asking me.

00:27:26.560 You had, I'll say it was actually quite a moving post you made to social media yesterday,

00:27:31.480 where you talked about how proud you were when the Conservative caucus banded together

00:27:36.420 and decided to oppose the Emergencies Act.

00:27:39.620 And I've made the point in the past that this is not, you could oppose the convoy and also

00:27:43.900 oppose the Emergencies Act, although I know many of the people in your party and yourself

00:27:48.280 were supportive of this protest and large parts of it.

00:27:51.400 But why were you and your caucus so firmly against the Emergencies Act when this first came up?

00:27:58.240 Well, Andrew, you have to remember the context of the moments that we were in.

00:28:03.320 And you're right. Many of us supported the reasons that the convoy were there, that the people were there.

00:28:09.240 Many of those people were our constituents.

00:28:10.880 But we also knew that they needed to head off the streets.

00:28:14.820 They needed to go home. That was our wish.

00:28:17.740 But we wanted the Prime Minister to listen to them.

00:28:20.220 That did not seem to be happening. So when the Emergencies Act was invoked, we had to make a decision. And there was a lot of pressure. You'll remember the media, the mainstream media, not all media, but most of the media was saying this was the right thing to do. And we had to support it. And so we came together as a caucus, which is what I find these MPs that I've been so privileged to have worked with, we do so well.

00:28:44.160 We came together. We had a really good conversation in our caucus, heard all sides, and we heard, should we support it? Should we be fully against it? Should we ask for an amendment? And, you know, without breaking any kind of cabinet or caucus confidentiality, I can just tell you what an incredible conversation and discussion we had as a caucus back in February 2022, talking about freedom, talking about our constituents,

00:29:13.160 and what we needed to do as parliamentarians.

00:29:17.020 And we talked about history and where we wanted to be

00:29:19.480 when all of this was said and done in five years, 10 years, 50 years.

00:29:24.480 And we decided overwhelmingly and we were very proud

00:29:29.160 and very strongly supporting working and fighting

00:29:32.860 and speaking against the Emergencies Act.

00:29:36.280 That history aspect is incredibly important.

00:29:39.060 I made the point a while back on my show that, you know,

00:29:41.180 at one point, William Lyon McKenzie was a traitor who was in exile. And then you fast forward a

00:29:46.300 decade and he's a member of parliament. I mean, things can change. And with the benefit of

00:29:50.000 hindsight, even the judge said this in the ruling yesterday, you can get a more full picture of

00:29:54.800 things. And that seems to be happening here as well. We're in the moment you had a lot of anger,

00:30:00.000 of course, in many directions. But the further away we get from this, that there's this surreal

00:30:04.800 aspect when you think, wait, did the government actually freeze people's bank accounts? And that

00:30:10.120 was the emergencies act that's what was what they did here so when you talk about being on the right

00:30:14.500 side of history I know it's thankless being in politics and you had to bear a lot of the

00:30:19.260 criticism from the media and the left for this but I do think you're going to get that in the end

00:30:24.280 well you know and that's gratifying absolutely but what I'm thinking about today and my heart

00:30:29.480 just goes out to the people the people who are still suffering because they were part of that

00:30:34.420 convoy they supported supported the convoy the fact is that the government's position on the

00:30:39.900 protesters, most of the media's false portrayal of what happened in Ottawa, have really set a lot

00:30:48.600 of Canadians who were not in Ottawa against the protesters. And, you know, I know even when I

00:30:54.360 would go home and talk to people and I would say, listen, yes, they need to leave the streets of 1.00

00:30:58.860 Ottawa, but these people are happy. They are peaceful. You know, you look at the protests

00:31:03.080 that are going on right now supporting Hamas and how different those protests are being portrayed.

00:31:09.040 trade. And yet people throughout the country were being told that these were violent, hateful

00:31:15.720 protests and that the Emergencies Act had to be invoked because they were so dangerous.

00:31:21.500 These are the people, my heart goes out to the people who have been lied to by their own

00:31:26.740 government and the media, and then the people who are so falsely maligned. So, I mean, I'm really,

00:31:32.780 really proud and glad our caucus took the stand that we did. But, you know, we need to learn from

00:31:38.540 this, Andrew, and if we don't learn from this, I'm afraid that the whole agenda of wedge,

00:31:45.520 stigmatize, and divide Canadians will be won by Trudeau. If we don't learn from this, which

00:31:52.660 thankfully I believe that we are, I see what our leader Pierre Polyev is doing and caucus is doing,

00:31:59.320 but I do worry about our country as far as the media. You know, I honestly, Andrew, I'm glad

00:32:04.400 that you've had me on, I would love to ask some members of the media, you know, I was grilled by

00:32:09.760 Evan Solomon. I was absolutely grilled. How dare you not support the Emergencies Act? And how dare

00:32:15.500 you support these people? You know, what does he have to say for himself now? You know, how about

00:32:21.100 some of the writers in the Globe and Mail, for example, where's their accountability? And I feel

00:32:26.300 that unless there is some real reckoning, government will be held to account, Andrew,

00:32:30.880 this government will be held in terms of the vote they will be held to account uh at some point

00:32:37.520 but there are many people elites academics you know the ottawa bubble we know the ottawa bubble

00:32:44.160 so i'm really happy proud that we were on the right side i'm so proud of the caucus that i

00:32:49.280 served with incredible members of parliament but we better learn from this you are right i mean the

00:32:55.120 media malfeasance throughout the entire protest and i i mean i'd say the entire covet era what

00:33:00.000 was quite something. I mean, there was one Globe and Mail reporter that posted online that there

00:33:04.940 was a wrecking ball outside Trudeau's office, but it was actually the weight holding the Canadian

00:33:09.600 flag there that was, you know, like the size of, you know, my fist or something. And then you also

00:33:13.880 had CBC musing that this was all some foreign Russian financed operation. And there hasn't

00:33:20.160 really been ever a reckoning, let alone an apology from these people. And I think a lot of folks have

00:33:25.800 really expected this could all just be kept in the past well and i guess in what in a sense

00:33:33.360 their reckoning has come and that most of the media in canada has lost all credibility especially

00:33:39.100 with i would say 40 and under uh they have no credibility and uh and so 40 and under are using

00:33:47.240 their dollars to show where where they want to get their news from and it's not the cbc's uh it's

00:33:53.260 frankly not the CTVs, probably not the, not none of the mainstream. So I guess there is that

00:33:58.360 reckoning. But, you know, I do, I do remain hopeful, Andrew, as much as I'm, I'm frustrated

00:34:03.360 as I look back. And I think that there still is a false malignment of actually peace loving

00:34:10.220 Canadians who came to Ottawa, asking, just asking for their prime minister to say, I hear you. And

00:34:18.060 yes, we are not going to continue with these mandates. There will be an end. And this is all

00:34:23.020 we were asking from him, and I know this is what these Canadians were asking for, they were falsely 1.00

00:34:27.780 maligned. So although I feel a real sense of injustice was done for them, I am hopeful for

00:34:34.720 our country. You know, when you speak to people one-on-one, people are good. People in Canada,

00:34:41.200 I believe, are genuinely good people. And what they're looking for is leadership. And that's

00:34:47.280 what I think we're all hoping is going to happen after the next election. We're going to have

00:34:51.960 leadership that will make decisions in the best interest of the entire country, not just to wedge,

00:34:59.340 stigmatize, and divide for his own or their own political game. Were you surprised that the NDP

00:35:05.520 went the way they did on this? You know, the party of Tommy Douglas, the party that has

00:35:09.860 put itself in protests more times than anyone could count. Were you surprised that they ended

00:35:15.080 up, I mean, Jagmeet Singh has tried to do a bit of revisionism here and said it was only reluctantly,

00:35:19.420 But they were quite supportive of this at the time. And I'm curious if that, when you were in the thick of it there as leader of the opposition, if that shocked you in any way.

00:35:28.240 Well, we'd seen Jagmeet and the NDP just placate the Liberals and basically follow along for so long. You know, Andrew, the irony is the Liberal Party has strayed so far from what it was. It is not the party of Jean Chrétien, you know, even Paul Martin, John Manley. It is not the party that most traditional Liberals knew. And I would say the NDP have very much strayed from what they were as well.

00:35:55.080 they are not the party of Tommy Douglas. And, you know, maybe that's a good thing. Maybe

00:36:00.060 times are changing and we're all changing and adjusting. But the center seems to have moved.

00:36:07.240 And the people who thought we were in the center now see that many who were left liberals,

00:36:14.400 but more in the center have moved far, far to the left. And then the NDP are, we don't even

00:36:20.700 know where they are actually they're they're not they're left but they're not left in terms of

00:36:25.200 supporting workers or protesters unless the protesters are protesters that they support

00:36:31.280 you know they haven't and I mean that's the other thing we haven't even really talked about

00:36:35.020 when you compare the protesters that were in Ottawa in early 2022 versus the protests the

00:36:42.360 anti-semitic protests and the hateful protests we have seen gone going on across the country

00:36:49.500 in support of the terrorist hamas organization you look at the comparative of the two and the

00:36:57.060 media coverage and the government response to the to the two different types of protest

00:37:02.500 so what what does that tell you yeah i know that's very well said and this court ruling is i think

00:37:08.620 vindication for a lot of people yourself included but it's not the end of the story certainly when

00:37:13.240 you talk about the media and the fact that the government has still been unrepentant about this

00:37:17.740 So we'll hopefully see a similar reaction to the Court of Appeal and all the way to the Supreme Court.

00:37:22.460 But I realize I've plucked you back into the political world here, and I'm so grateful you did it, Candice Bergen.

00:37:28.420 We always get people saying how much they miss you in politics, but I hope you're doing well.

00:37:32.460 And I thank you so much for joining me today.

00:37:34.780 Thanks so much, Andrew. Great to be on. Happy to do it any time.

00:37:39.720 That was Candice Bergen, the former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

00:37:45.020 up. Now, one thing I want to make a point of here, and I asked Candace near the end about Jagmeet

00:37:50.100 Singh's role in all of this. The NDP has been incredibly weak. No, that was the sentence.

00:37:55.240 They've just been incredibly weak. But on this in particular, and that revisionism from Jagmeet

00:37:59.680 Singh is kind of fascinating. Here's him saying yesterday that it was only reluctantly that he

00:38:05.340 backed the use of the Emergencies Act. From the beginning, we've said we said and we maintain

00:38:11.760 that the reason we were in that crisis was a direct failure of justin trudeau's leadership

00:38:16.640 and also other levels of government that failed to act to take the the challenge presented seriously

00:38:22.880 their inaction resulted in a serious crisis where we reluctantly supported the indication of the

00:38:28.720 emergencies uh measures we said that that was uh something that we reluctantly supported

00:38:34.720 uh and then uh we also were very open to the ruleau commission and the work and the

00:38:39.600 accountability measures to assess whether it was the right decision and what needs to be done

00:38:43.600 differently in the future the ruling has been passed down i understand there will be an appeal

00:38:47.840 of that ruling and we will follow closely to see the outcome of that appeal reluctantly okay uh

00:38:54.800 here's jagmeet singh two years ago when he was announcing his support for the use of the

00:38:59.920 emergencies act with the war measures act uh you know then ndp leader tommy douglas said it was

00:39:07.280 like using a sledgehammer to create to crack a peanut now of course today in ottawa i mean the

00:39:13.520 we we have seen a bunch of aggressions of all sorts but no one has been kidnapped no one has

00:39:19.600 died up to now so i guess my question is how will history uh you know remember you as ndp leader

00:39:27.680 with this emergencies act um and all the uh entrenches to uh civil liberties right now

00:39:33.280 I think it's really important to reflect on the War Measures Act for just a moment.

00:39:38.360 The War Measures Act was a sledgehammer, and that's why there were serious problems of its application,

00:39:45.640 because it was a very broad and overly powerful piece of legislation.

00:39:50.940 That's why it was repealed and a new legislation was brought forward.

00:39:55.980 The Emergencies Act is nothing like the sledgehammer of the War Measures Act.

00:39:59.180 It's not at all the same.

00:40:00.680 It doesn't even include the powers for the military.

00:40:02.380 it doesn't include military at all it's a very different piece of legislation and it is much

00:40:07.100 more targeted and specific and so it's a very different time oh it's different it's no big

00:40:14.380 deal it's not like it's the war measures act i'm not hearing that reluctance that mr singh speaks

00:40:20.900 so fondly of yesterday about the emergencies act and let's go back to 2021 now this is a visual

00:40:27.780 a visual display here. I have written to Justin Trudeau asking him to consider using the Federal

00:40:34.460 Emergencies Act to help Ontario. This could help make sure vaccines are getting to people who need

00:40:39.480 them and help sick workers get paid when they stay home. We must do everything possible to keep

00:40:45.100 people safe. And then there is a letter there. I'm not going to read the letter because I understand

00:40:50.260 some people listen to the show when they're driving and I don't want you to veer into the

00:40:53.140 ditch because you've fallen asleep by me reading the dulcet tones of Jagmeet Singh to you.

00:40:57.780 But here we have him saying it's a national emergency that warrants the Emergencies Act

00:41:02.500 because the federal government isn't getting enough vaccines to Ontario.

00:41:07.960 And he wants us to believe that it was only reluctantly that the NDP

00:41:11.460 backed the use of the Emergencies Act two years ago.

00:41:14.420 So Jagmeet Singh has once again shown that he has no spine.

00:41:19.760 As I joked when I saw him riding his bike,

00:41:21.800 it was a feat of physical brilliance that I still don't quite understand.

00:41:24.840 how the kinetic movements were even possible without so much as a backbone

00:41:29.940 to allow him to steer that bicycle down Wellington Street.

00:41:33.360 But Singh says, oh, no, no, no, I only kind of sort of iffy-ish sort of went along with it.

00:41:38.820 But the record shows something else there.

00:41:41.640 I played a Chrystia Freeland clip yesterday.

00:41:44.160 I had two more of them today, but again, I'll spare the audience and won't do it here.

00:41:48.700 But I did mention at the beginning of this program, something had made me chuckle.

00:41:52.780 This was a graphic that apparently was made by one of the members of our team here.

00:41:57.880 This is now, this is now, it's actually a hate symbol.

00:42:00.400 Yeah, the show is going to get canceled by the CRTC podcast registry before long.

00:42:04.480 That is like a new Canadian flag.

00:42:06.480 If you're listening to the podcast, it's got a bouncy castle in place of the maple leaf.

00:42:11.640 So the Canadian flag was already enough of a hate symbol.

00:42:14.280 This one is even more so.

00:42:16.080 So be careful where you fly that thing.

00:42:18.140 You never know what might happen to you.

00:42:19.920 But what's fascinating here is that we have a government that has been so utterly unrepentant

00:42:27.140 about this. A finding from the federal court that the constitutional rights of Canadians

00:42:32.160 were not respected. Now, it's interesting to square that with a comment Justin Trudeau made

00:42:38.480 on Valentine's Day 2022. Take a look. We're not using the Emergencies Act to call in the military.

00:42:47.000 We're not suspending fundamental rights or overriding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

00:42:53.160 We are not limiting people's freedom of speech. We are not limiting freedom

00:42:58.600 of peaceful assembly. We are not preventing people from exercising their right to protest legally.

00:43:08.840 Okay, we're not ignoring your charter rights. Do I have that right? I'm just looking at the

00:43:15.320 Yeah, no, he said that.

00:43:16.620 Okay, so here we have a leader doing what I had at the time remarked as being a little

00:43:22.200 bit odd.

00:43:22.540 And I said, if a government has to like pinky swear and promise to you that it's not trampling

00:43:26.760 on your constitutional rights, there's a good chance it is trampling all over your constitutional

00:43:32.380 rights.

00:43:32.740 And now a judge has at long last agreed.

00:43:36.220 So we're going to continue to follow this along.

00:43:38.580 As Christine Van Gein said, it's likely to be six months until there's even a hearing

00:43:42.660 on this, and then another six months to get a decision, and then you may have beyond that a

00:43:46.700 Supreme Court. Here's a question that I want to put to Conservative leader Pierre Paulyev next time

00:43:51.220 I speak to him. If you form government and this appeal is underway, will you commit to dropping

00:43:58.120 the appeal? That's a question that I have for the Conservative leader, and I would love to hear an

00:44:02.480 answer. So if you run into him at one of those photo lines he does, please ask and report back

00:44:07.160 if you get an answer. I'll send an email off to his office once I get off air as well. I just

00:44:11.160 thought of that question but it seems like a good one. I wanted to shift from one trampling of your

00:44:17.500 rights to another here. We have on an ongoing basis here the federal government going after the rights

00:44:23.500 of law-abiding gun owners in this country. We have a so-called buyback plan in which the government

00:44:29.300 is going to buy things back that it never once owed in the first place. They're still trying to

00:44:33.680 find a vendor to manage this buyback program. This was announced, just to put this into perspective

00:44:39.500 here just shy of four years ago. And still, there is no program in existence yet. And the fact that

00:44:49.800 they haven't found a vendor yet, normally I would accuse governments of dragging their heels and

00:44:54.020 slowing things down. In this case, I'm going to say go as slow as you want to, guys. I am in no

00:44:58.720 rush to have my property confiscated. Rod Giltaka is the executive director of the Canadian Coalition

00:45:04.980 for Firearm Rights. It's always good to talk to him. And he joins us now. Rod, welcome back, sir.

00:45:10.060 Your video looks better than mine. You've got that good podcast set up there. Welcome.

00:45:14.700 Well, thank you for having me, Andrew.

00:45:16.580 So again, I mean, normally I never want government to be mired in bureaucracy. In this case,

00:45:23.020 I'll kind of make an exception for it here. But legitimately, what is the holdup here? Because

00:45:27.160 originally, this was supposed to not just be in motion, but done by 2022. By May of 2022,

00:45:34.160 there was supposed to be every one of these guns picked back up by the government. We're now

00:45:38.620 two years beyond that, and not a single gun has been confiscated.

00:45:43.380 Well, the holdup is that the challenge to doing a national buyback in a country like Canada,

00:45:48.840 unlike, let's say, New Zealand, Canada is 10 million square kilometers. So there's a lot of

00:45:53.820 challenges there. The government has tried a lot of different things, ended up being headed off at

00:45:59.920 the pass, a lot of dead ends, right? First, they wanted Canada Post to do it. Well, first,

00:46:04.040 they want the RCMP to do it. And they're like, ah, no thanks. Uh, we have to, this other thing

00:46:07.660 that we're doing called policing. Uh, then they want a Canada post to do it. And they're like,

00:46:11.260 you want people in, in, in Canada post outlets to be sitting on hundreds of apparently assault

00:46:18.000 style firearms and our employees are the only thing thing between these firearms and the criminal

00:46:23.840 element. Um, and now they're asking gun stores to do it, which gets really, really tricky.

00:46:28.700 yeah and i mean you obviously have i mean gun stores as you and i have spoken about it as i've

00:46:34.720 spoken about on the show have been among those most directly harmed by this because they've been

00:46:39.520 saddled with inventory that they've been able to do nothing with very little communication from the

00:46:43.740 government very little confiscation or well consultation there's a freudian slip but the

00:46:48.620 one point that i would stress there is that they're also generally opposed to this so they

00:46:52.920 don't want to be agents of this confiscation regime. Well, it puts them in a really, really

00:46:59.000 terrible position. If you think, you know, they can't sell handguns anymore. Handguns and handgun

00:47:03.320 ammunition was, was big business for a lot of gun stores. They can't sell a wide variety of,

00:47:09.800 of semi-autos that they used to. So their, their, their inventory, their possible inventory or the

00:47:15.960 products that they can carry has been drastically, dramatically reduced. And then the government

00:47:20.320 says, hey, you know, here's a revenue stream for you in helping us helping people comply with the

00:47:25.920 law. So I think that on one hand, you have a lot of gun store owners going, you know, I could really

00:47:31.280 use the business. On the other hand, it's like, well, do I want to destroy my business by giving

00:47:35.400 in and being an agent of confiscation on behalf of the liberals against the people who I want to

00:47:40.600 be my customers? I'm glad I'm not in that position, but I would not be surprised if the overwhelming

00:47:46.100 majority of gun store owners decide they want nothing to do with this. Yeah. And I think one

00:47:51.100 thing that was really, really encouraging to see is Alberta and Saskatchewan take the stand they did

00:47:56.720 and say, you know what, you may control the criminal law, but we control how police resources

00:48:01.020 in our province are deployed. And we are not going to allow police to engage in this function.

00:48:06.700 I was hoping, you know, just magically cause this national ripple effect and every province was

00:48:11.800 going to do it that hasn't happened though so right now if the liberals had their way we would

00:48:17.900 still in the majority of the country see this brought to fruition whenever this program comes

00:48:22.440 with you know legal appeals notwithstanding well yeah um if the liberals had their way i mean

00:48:28.200 but i think they're handling it like they handle most things right they'll come out with a big

00:48:31.800 press release full court press this is what we're doing and this is exactly what we said we were

00:48:36.620 going to do and that's exactly what we're doing and we're keeping canadians safe and doing all

00:48:40.820 this garbage that they've done for eight and a half years. And then when reality shows up,

00:48:45.780 they completely fold like a cheap suit. Like that, that is, that is, that is exactly what

00:48:50.160 the liberals have done, I guess, other than pot. But if you think of it, only the liberal government,

00:48:56.120 the liberal party of Canada can lose money, money selling weed. But it's, it's all been about press

00:49:01.960 releases. And, you know, I, I don't know, gaslighting, I guess you could say. But this

00:49:07.340 time, it's different because this time the challenge is so great that it would take a

00:49:12.040 highly competent group of people to make this happen. And lucky, I guess, for gun owners for 0.79

00:49:16.780 now, that doesn't exist in the Liberal government. So I guess we're going to have to see where it

00:49:21.120 goes from here. I just wanted to get you to give an update if you could on where the legal side of

00:49:26.780 this is, because I know there were a couple of challenges going on. I know you've had some

00:49:29.780 unsuccessful rulings, but is there still a glimmer of hope on that path? Well, we are appealing and

00:49:35.600 And I can't claim to say I'm not envious of what happened yesterday, but I think if anything,

00:49:44.840 what an interesting time in Canadian history to even just be monitoring the judiciary.

00:49:50.420 On one hand, the government comes in because of an unrelated event, which was the impetus

00:49:58.000 for the assault style weapons ban, which was Nova Scotia, where this perpetrator had smuggled

00:50:05.140 all of his firearms that were used in those shootings from the United States illegally.

00:50:09.320 And then Trudeau's like, we need to ban guns in Canada. And then you have a court saying, well,

00:50:15.640 you have no property rights. You have no rights of self-defense. That's another charter question

00:50:19.300 that we asked. And we had a question that was very clear, and we still believe we clearly should

00:50:24.740 have won on that, which is the government, it was the OIC, the Ordering Council was ultra varies.

00:50:31.200 It's very similar to the ruling that came out yesterday. The government didn't have that

00:50:34.380 authority. So they slap us all down on, on all counts with a very scant decision. And then a

00:50:41.460 month later, a federal court decides that it is unreasonable to unconstitutional for the government

00:50:46.520 to ban plastic shopping bags and plastic straws. I mean, that was a line too far. And then we've,

00:50:52.680 we have this ruling, you know, yesterday, right? So it's the judiciary is all over the place.

00:50:58.920 the the moral compass in this country in so many corners is spinning can't find you know north

00:51:04.780 anywhere apparently so um i hope that we'll be successful on appeal because um again property

00:51:10.280 rights self-defense issues and the role of government in our society all at stake in that

00:51:15.520 case well and the one point that i i think has always remained important here is that a political

00:51:20.540 solution is always available it's always possible for the government to one day snap its fingers

00:51:25.860 and say we're no longer proceeding with this.

00:51:27.580 Now, that's unlikely under this government,

00:51:29.080 but if this process is delayed and delayed and delayed

00:51:32.440 until past the next election,

00:51:34.780 another government, I mean, let's be real,

00:51:36.760 the Conservatives are the ones most likely

00:51:38.480 at this point to form government,

00:51:39.840 could still say this is not happening

00:51:42.040 and put it dead in its tracks, could it not?

00:51:44.400 Well, it's going to take legislation on some,

00:51:46.720 it's really complicated how the Liberals have done

00:51:49.380 their OIC and Bill C-21 and C-71 before that.

00:51:54.840 The order in council, that could be struck down.

00:51:57.280 But anyway, it gets quite complicated.

00:51:59.900 So it may require legislation, which will require a conservative majority government.

00:52:04.480 But yeah, in Canada, as I've said ad nauseum, in Canada, using the British parliamentary

00:52:10.580 system, our government can do pretty much whatever it wants to anybody it wants.

00:52:15.600 The courts are, I'm not going to say powerless, but they have a lot less power than they have,

00:52:22.480 say, in the United States.

00:52:24.060 then of course they're influenced i think we can all agree on that at some level um but the yeah

00:52:29.820 the whole system gets gets gets pretty complex but what one government does another government

00:52:37.900 can undo is really the rule of thumb in our system even though those powers are pretty dramatic but

00:52:42.700 that's a political solution is uh one easy the easiest way the easiest path i guess you could say

00:52:48.140 to canadian gun owners just being left alone and getting their property back

00:52:52.220 Rod Giltak, head of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights.

00:52:55.740 Always a pleasure, sir.

00:52:56.660 Thanks for coming on today.

00:52:58.040 Thanks, Andrew.

00:52:59.160 All right, that does it for us for today.

00:53:01.420 We will be back tomorrow to close out the week here on Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show.

00:53:05.600 Thank you, God bless, and good day to you all.

00:53:08.720 Thanks for listening to The Andrew Lawton Show.

00:53:11.260 Support the program by donating to True North at www.tnc.news.

00:53:21.420 We'll be right back.

00:53:51.420 We'll be right back.

Juno News - January 24, 2024

It's official： Trudeau broke the law

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript