Juno News - December 12, 2025


Majority in BC ＂concerned＂ about private property rights


Episode Stats


Length

16 minutes

Words per minute

140.16919

Word count

2,364

Sentence count

116


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Health Canada contradicts its own officials' testimony and admits that Canadian tax dollars are used to fund the procurement of crack pipes at drug consumption sites. A new poll found that over half of British Columbians are concerned about their private property rights after a Supreme Court justice granted the Cowichan Tribe Aboriginal title to other private property held by citizens.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
00:00:00.000 Despite flagging concerns about political bias at Canada's, quote, anti-hate organization,
00:00:11.520 Liberals still approved $200,000 in taxpayer funds to the self-described anti-fascist group.
00:00:19.460 A new poll found that over half of British Columbians are concerned about their private
00:00:24.860 property rights after a B.C. Supreme Court justice granted the Cowichan tribe Aboriginal
00:00:30.720 title to other private property held by citizens.
00:00:34.320 Health Canada contradicted its own officials' testimony and admitted that Canadian tax dollars
00:00:40.440 are used to fund the procurement of drug paraphernalia, such as crack pipes, at drug consumption sites.
00:00:49.220 Hello Canada, it's Friday, December 12th, and this is the True North Daily Brief.
00:00:53.760 I'm Cosmin Jirja.
00:00:55.320 And I'm Melanie Bennett.
00:00:56.480 We've got you covered with all the news you need to know.
00:00:59.780 Let's discuss the top stories of the day in the True North exclusives you won't hear anywhere else.
00:01:08.780 Public Safety Minister Gary Ananda-Sandari's department privately flagged concerns about
00:01:15.320 political bias at the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, only to approve a fresh $200,000
00:01:21.860 in taxpayer funding for the controversial organization anyway, internal government records reveal.
00:01:29.820 Internal correspondences obtained by Blacklock's reporter, which first reported the story,
00:01:35.920 reveals departmental staff questioned whether past concerns about the Canadian Anti-Hate Network's
00:01:42.260 impartiality had been addressed before federal funding was renewed.
00:01:47.060 An internal memo released through Access to Information stated, quote,
00:01:52.400 In the past, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network has been accused of creating products that
00:01:57.520 were not free from bias.
00:01:59.280 Was this taken into consideration when providing funding?
00:02:02.780 The memo also noted that Minister Marcy Yen's office declined to offer any public comment.
00:02:09.080 One staff email reads, quote,
00:02:10.800 Of note, the minister's office is aware and has declined to provide a quote for this.
00:02:16.440 The grant, which expires March 31st, supports the network's research on the, quote,
00:02:22.320 far-right landscape in Canada.
00:02:24.800 The group has received a total of $908,000 in federal funding since 2020 through Public Safety
00:02:32.280 and Canadian Heritage.
00:02:34.080 Concerns about the group's approach have been raised in previous committee hearings.
00:02:38.460 Last year, then-Heritage Minister Stephen Guilbeau told MPs his department would, quote,
00:02:44.380 look at what has been done with previous funding, saying the government's role was to work to
00:02:49.640 unite people, not divide them.
00:02:51.980 Some conservative MPs have criticized the organization for what they argue is politically
00:02:57.220 skewed targeting under the guise of anti-extremism work.
00:03:02.020 You know, Melanie, I do recall that testimony, and I remember watching videos of it.
00:03:07.300 It's refreshing to see ministers pressed on these obviously hyper-partisan organizations
00:03:16.260 disguising themselves as anti-extremist, anti-hate, etc.
00:03:23.100 But I remember him saying he's going to have his department look at this organization and
00:03:28.980 the funding it received.
00:03:30.260 Has anything come out of that?
00:03:32.040 Well, Cosmin, what we've learned this week is that very little actually came of that promise.
00:03:38.560 When Stephen Guilbeau told MPs that he would, quote, look at what's been done with fund funding,
00:03:45.600 the implication was that there would be some kind of review or accountability check.
00:03:50.700 But when Conservative MP David Bextie forced the issue through an order paper question,
00:03:56.720 Guilbeau admitted that something surprising, his department wasn't tracking where the money
00:04:02.300 was going at all.
00:04:04.580 He revealed that Canadian heritage, quote, doesn't capture how much of the more than $700,000
00:04:10.840 given to Cannes, where it may have gone, or whether or not it would have gone to Antifa-aligned
00:04:16.480 activities, or even what guardrails might have been put in place to prevent taxpayer dollars
00:04:21.880 from being funneled into extremist networks.
00:04:25.580 In other words, there was no follow through on the promise to examine the group's use
00:04:29.960 of funds because the department wasn't keeping records in the first place.
00:04:34.360 That's especially significant because a small claims court ruling in 2022 actually found that
00:04:40.900 Cannes did in fact assist Antifa, a finding later left intact when the appeal was dismissed.
00:04:46.740 Now, Cannes disputes the characterization, but the point is that the government never verified
00:04:51.760 where the public money was going or how it was being used.
00:04:55.580 Now, public safety offered a more reassuring picture.
00:04:58.820 It said that the funding they administered included some strict rules against redistributing
00:05:04.680 money to other groups.
00:05:06.780 But the broader picture does remain here is that the ministry that gave Cannes the bulk of
00:05:11.780 its funding, that's Canadian heritage, had no system in place to track these
00:05:16.440 expenditures, even after Guilbeau publicly floated the idea of a review.
00:05:24.060 Nearly half of all British Columbians fear their private property rights are under attack
00:05:29.040 because of Indigenous land claims following a landmark court ruling that affirmed Aboriginal
00:05:34.460 title over a fully developed urban area, including privately owned homes.
00:05:39.860 The survey conducted by One Persuasion Inc. from November 27th to December 5th, found 57% of respondents
00:05:49.960 in BC are very or at least moderately concerned about current or future claims affecting their
00:05:55.980 property.
00:05:57.140 26% are not very concerned, while 31% are not concerned at all.
00:06:02.360 The ruling in Cowichin Tribes v. Canada, issued by BC Supreme Court Justice Barbara Young in
00:06:09.460 August, recognised the tribe's title over about 7.5 square kilometres in southeast Richmond,
00:06:16.700 BC, including areas with private holdings.
00:06:19.620 While the decision clarified that Indigenous title and private ownership can overlap without
00:06:25.340 automatic extinguishments, it has nonetheless sparked fears of uncertainty in property transactions
00:06:31.280 and values. It remains unclear how the decision will affect homeowners in the affected area.
00:06:36.680 Reports from both individual property owners and at least one business in the area indicate
00:06:42.180 the case's already derailed real estate deals, prompting a proposed class action lawsuit
00:06:48.820 accusing governments of misleading landowners. Poll breakdowns show regional variations.
00:06:56.960 Concern was highest in the interior region of the province, where 36% reported being very concerned,
00:07:04.360 compared to 31% in Greater Vancouver and 22% on Vancouver Island.
00:07:10.000 So, Cosmin, it does seem that many people in BC are very concerned about land title.
00:07:14.560 Were there any other notable revelations from this poll?
00:07:18.320 And how could polling like this affect future elections in BC?
00:07:21.960 Yeah, Melanie, there were a couple of really interesting nuggets in this poll that go
00:07:27.280 just beyond the headline number of a majority. So first, there's demographic splits. And these
00:07:36.420 show that concern over private property rights wasn't just limited to rural who tend to lean more
00:07:44.160 conservative. It wasn't just limited to those voters. It actually showed up across income levels,
00:07:50.340 across regions, across regions, and even among NDP supporters. Like, they're close to half of the
00:07:57.080 NDP supporters being concerned or very concerned that their private property is at risk. As for BC
00:08:05.660 conservatives, it was almost half of them saying they were very conserved, and they were well above
00:08:11.920 the 50% mark overall. So which isn't surprising at all. But what really jumps out is that 45% of NDP
00:08:21.320 voters also reported being at least moderately concerned about this. So it's clearly not a fringe
00:08:29.200 sentiment. It's bipartisan issue. If there's an election coming up, which some people seem to suspect
00:08:36.080 that this is going to be a major component, and it's going to be on a lot of people's minds.
00:08:42.780 But then you also have some regional differences. So people, as you mentioned, in the interior were the
00:08:48.080 most anxious. And I think it's because they are generally leaning more conservative. But also a lot
00:08:54.120 of this, a lot of these claims do tend to be in the interior as well. But even in Metro Vancouver,
00:09:01.980 where you usually see more NDP voters, more progressive views expressed, concern was still
00:09:08.560 above 30%. So it's not just an isolated reaction to one court case, it's something broader. And it's
00:09:16.700 starting to shape how I think British Columbians think about land rights, what they've taken for
00:09:23.280 granted with regard to their private property, and housing stability and the role the government
00:09:29.440 has played in potentially jeopardizing that. With regard to whether this could affect a future
00:09:36.640 election in BC, I think it's an absolutely yes, and maybe more than people currently realize.
00:09:45.360 Property rights are one of those sleeper issues that can move a lot of voters at once, especially
00:09:53.040 homeowners and people who feel like the system isn't giving them certainty.
00:09:58.120 But not only homeowners, because there's a lot of people who aren't in the market yet who don't
00:10:03.920 have a house who haven't bought land, etc. And maybe they grew up in British Columbia, maybe they were
00:10:10.520 born here, maybe they, you know, move their family here hoping to buy a property. And now all of that is
00:10:17.320 up in the air. And they probably feel like they have to abandon the province if there's so much
00:10:24.400 uncertainty. And it extends to the business community as well, right? Not only real estate,
00:10:30.520 which is a huge issue, but it affects banking, it affects businesses, leases, etc. So if the BC
00:10:38.980 Conservatives decide to make this a ballot question, which I think they definitely will, the poll suggests
00:10:47.120 they've got a real opening to capture quite a significant amount of the vote. If the NDP continues
00:10:55.700 to drop the ball on this. Health Canada finally admitted that yes, Canadian tax dollars are being
00:11:05.500 used to fund drug paraphernalia, like crack pipes, directly contradicting testimony given to a health
00:11:13.440 committee just weeks earlier. During a House of Commons health committee meeting, Kendall Weber,
00:11:19.800 the Department of Health's assistant deputy of Controlled Substances and Cannabis branch, admitted
00:11:26.320 the federal government provides funding used to purchase crack pipes, needles and drugs.
00:11:32.080 Conservative health critic Dan Mazier opened the committee meeting by asking Weber if she still
00:11:38.160 stands by her testimony that Health Canada funds the purchase of crack pipes.
00:11:43.440 During an October 2nd committee, Weber said Health Canada merely approved exemptions for drug use
00:11:49.800 to locations that supply syringes and pipes. Weber said she quote, really appreciated the opportunity
00:11:57.600 to clarify how the federal funds are used. On October 2nd, you testified at this committee that no funding
00:12:04.800 from Health Canada was being used to purchase crack pipes. Do you still stand by this answer today?
00:12:10.000 Is that good? Can you hear me? Great. I really appreciate the opportunity to clarify the funding that goes from Health Canada to harm reduction projects.
00:12:22.240 So while Health Canada does not directly purchase harm reduction supplies, Health Canada does provide funding to community organizations that do invest in prevention, harm reduction and treatment projects.
00:12:35.000 And that funding can be used for harm reduction supplies and that funding can be used for harm reduction supplies to minimize the transmission.
00:12:41.360 Sorry, Ms. Weber. Yeah, it was a pretty direct question. I said, does Health Canada, is any of the funding from Health Canada being used to purchase crack pipes?
00:12:50.000 It was just a yes or no answer. I appreciate the question. Yes, we do provide funding to community organizations for harm reduction tools, including pipes. Yes.
00:12:57.000 When Mazier asked if Health Canada funding has been used to purchase illicit drugs, Weber noted that for, quote, a period of time, Health Canada provided funding to three drug use sites for, quote, prescribed alternatives to drugs, but that in general drugs were funded by provincial or territorial governments.
00:13:19.000 Weber also noted that Health Canada doesn't require a licensed doctor or nurse practitioner to be present at drug use sites.
00:13:28.000 She said practitioners may be on site, quote, at different times and different shifts, but she would have to get back to the conservatives with a written answer to answer with certainty.
00:13:39.420 This nonsense about safe supply has really ruled the prevailing view from the liberal government for, you know, the past few years, almost a decade, I would say.
00:13:51.140 What are some of the arguments that critics are making and have been making about these drug consumption sites?
00:13:58.700 Well, it looks like health critics of these drug consumption sites like Dan Mazier point to a few major issues here, Cosmin, and you hear them clearly in this committee exchange.
00:14:09.700 So the first concern is honesty, obviously, and for weeks, Health Canada insisted that it wasn't funding crack pipes at all, and then suddenly admitted that the money does in fact go to these organizations that purchase the crack pipes, syringes, etc., even tinfoil for smoking fentanyl and meth.
00:14:28.960 They say that if the federal government isn't transparent about something as basic as where the funding goes, then there's not really much trust left in the program.
00:14:38.860 Another argument you hear a lot is that taxpayers are being forced to fund tools that actively enable addiction.
00:14:45.820 And so for many Canadians, buying drug paraphernalia isn't harm reduction.
00:14:50.000 It's really the government subsidizing the very behavior that people are trying to escape.
00:14:54.380 And when Health Canada acknowledges that it doesn't require either a doctor or a nurse practitioner to be present at these sites, critics are arguing that the medical side of the system has completely fallen away.
00:15:07.920 So you end up with a drug use facility, essentially, not really a pathway to recovery.
00:15:13.140 There's also a frustration that funding is heavily weighted towards harm reduction tools, but far less towards the actual treatment.
00:15:20.180 Conservative MP Burton Bailey pushed that very point, that millions are going into pipes and supplies, while far fewer dollars go towards recovery programs that could help these people get off the substances.
00:15:32.300 And for certain individuals on the street with substance abuse problems, possibly off the street as well.
00:15:37.260 And finally, once taxpayer dollars go into supplying paraphernalia, the government loses the moral authority, really, if you think about it, to talk about prevention.
00:15:45.060 It turns into a system where Ottawa is effectively normalizing addiction instead of helping people out of it.
00:15:51.400 Now, for a lot of Canadians, that really is the core objection here.
00:15:55.060 They don't really want their money purchasing the hardware for drug use, while overdoses continue to rise and treatment access remains scarce.
00:16:03.940 That's it for today, folks.
00:16:08.620 Thanks for tuning in.
00:16:09.600 You can stay on top of new episodes every weekday by subscribing to The Daily Brief on iTunes and Spotify.
00:16:16.740 Also, while you're at it, make sure to hit us with a five-star rating and please leave a review.
00:16:21.940 You can stay on top of new episodes every weekday by subscribing to The Daily Brief on iTunes and Spotify.