Juno News - Protecting your political freedoms (ft. MP Garnett Genuis)

00:00:00.000 What is the proper role for Canada and for NATO in the conflict in Ukraine?

00:00:04.380 What can we do and what should we be doing? I'm Candice Malcolm and this is The Candice Malcolm

00:00:08.000 Show. Everyone, thank you so much for tuning in. So the conflict continues in Ukraine. The

00:00:18.040 bloodshed is horrific and the humanitarian situation is getting worse by the day. I

00:00:23.100 wanted to bring in someone who knows and understands the region and NATO better than

00:00:27.600 anyone I know. My friend Garnett Janis. Garnett is the MP for Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan. He

00:00:32.040 currently serves as a conservative critic for international development. He also sits on the

00:00:35.920 Foreign Affairs and International Development Committee as well as being a member of the

00:00:39.820 Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. Actually Garnett, I think the last time I spoke to you

00:00:43.980 had just gotten back from a trip with NATO in some capacity. I think it was to Latvia. Correct me if

00:00:50.480 I'm wrong. I think it was in January and you sort of talked a little bit about how this was unfolding

00:00:55.380 and it seems like, you know, the situation has gotten so much worse in, obviously in the last

00:00:59.740 couple of days here, but obviously since then. So can you just set up what's going on, what's

00:01:05.900 happening and help us make sense of the situation in Ukraine? Yeah, Candice, thank you for the

00:01:10.600 opportunity to speak to you. And a lot has happened in Canadian politics and in international

00:01:15.560 affairs since we last spoke. But it was right after I had gotten back from a trip to Latvia and

00:01:22.220 Sweden, pairing with the with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. And it was in the context of

00:01:26.500 the NATO summit that was taking place in Riga in the sort of late fall. You know, at the time,

00:01:32.820 I was really struck by the fact that people were talking very seriously about the fact that that it

00:01:39.000 was important for the world to get ready for the possibility of various moves that Putin could be

00:01:43.980 making against Ukraine. And really, right up until this, this latest attack, and I think it's important 1.00

00:01:51.240 to acknowledge that the invasion of Ukraine began in 2014. But this, this renewed invasion, this further

00:01:57.660 invasion that took place right right up until that happened, there was a number of possible scenarios

00:02:04.580 that were considered in terms of the action he might take, trying to consolidate the Russian

00:02:11.360 position in eastern Ukraine, seeking certain certain territorial expansion, kind of jumping

00:02:18.120 off from some of those existing, existing points of occupation. But what we've seen is really the

00:02:24.420 worst possible scenario, which is a full on assault at all points coming in from, from Belarus, which, 0.72

00:02:33.500 unfortunately, has more and more fallen under the the effective control of the Putin regime. So, so attacks

00:02:40.880 from, from, from eastern Ukraine, previously occupied areas, as well as, as amphibious attacks on the

00:02:47.640 Ukrainian coast and incursions from, from, from Belarus, so are really bloody violent all out assault on,

00:02:55.760 on Ukraine. It's been, it's been tragic to see. It's also been inspiring to see the courage of the Ukrainian

00:03:02.360 people. The, the, the, the kinds of, of things we often see and associate with politicians, being, being that very negative perception, and yet the, the remarkable courage that Ukrainian political figures have shown,

00:03:17.360 uh, the president of Ukraine saying, I don't want to ride, I want, I want support and, uh, staying with his people, uh, the, the, the, the resilience, the, the resistance, the courage of the Ukrainian people has just been, been inspiring, uh, to see in the midst of this.

00:03:31.360 It's, it's also been inspiring to see how, uh, everyday people in Russia have come out, taken to the streets.

00:03:38.360 Uh, I was at a rally in Edmonton, uh, just, uh, just on the weekend, uh, with people of, of Russian and Belarusian origin, uh, who were coming with Ukrainian flags out to, uh, specifically show that they stood with Ukrainian people against the Putin regime as well.

00:03:55.160 Uh, and, uh, when, when, uh, people in Russia do this, when, uh, members of the Canadian Russian community who may have family members back home, uh, that's inspiring to see as well.

00:04:05.000 So it's a, it's a dark time, uh, and, uh, it's also a time in which we're seeing, uh, these bright lights of, uh, of courageous individuals and communities of people that are standing up against, uh, the, the aggression of the Putin regime.

00:04:18.020 That's great. Yeah. So, uh, what do you, how do you see this playing out, Garnett? What do you, what do you, what do you see happening next?

00:04:23.340 What do you think the proper role of NATO is, and, and how do you think we can get through and get out of this conflict?

00:04:30.240 Well, uh, what we have said as a conservative party, um, and, and I fully support the approach we've taken here is to, is to try to engage and work with the government to, um, uh, to, to have a, uh, be particularly emphatic about the need to have a constructive tone here to put forward, uh, proposals that we think should be, should be undertaken.

00:04:49.700 Uh, we support the action the government has been taking to date, and we also have been calling for further action.

00:04:56.560 Uh, I, um, I had been at the foreign affairs committee specifically highlighting the benefits of sanctioning individuals tied to the Putin regime, investing Vladimir Putin's own money, uh, abroad and using, uh, Navalny's list.

00:05:11.760 Alexei Navalny, a key, uh, Russian opposition leader has put out a list of people who he thinks should be sanctioned.

00:05:17.160 So using that list as the basis for, for sanctioning.

00:05:20.280 Now I was calling for that prior to the invasion.

00:05:23.040 Uh, I thought that the, the, um, the previous invasion, which started in, in, in 2014, uh, the other acts of, uh, of, of violence that the, the regime has been responsible for, uh, justified. 0.74

00:05:35.040 Those sanctions being put in place prior to an invasion and as a deterrent step, uh, there, there was a failure of deterrence here.

00:05:41.480 I mean, there's, there's no doubt about it.

00:05:42.900 If, uh, if, if possibly if, if further steps had been taken that could have deterred the invasion in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation as it is.

00:05:51.220 But in any event now, given where we are, uh, those, those, uh, those tough sanctions are really important.

00:05:57.580 And, um, and, and I, I was pleased that just today, the prime minister announced that they would be, uh, applying sanctions to individuals based off Navalny's list.

00:06:09.040 So it does, it does show that opposition matters that when we repeatedly say something in committee, uh, using Navalny's list as a guide and that it shows up in the prime minister's own talking points later.

00:06:19.660 It's, it's, it's, it's encouraging to see that's, that's what we want in opposition.

00:06:22.360 It's not to just be able to criticize the government.

00:06:24.460 It's to actually see them take our suggestions from time to time.

00:06:26.800 So, um, what, what, what, what we want to see NATO do, uh, Canada and, and our partners is to have, uh, sharp debilitating sanctions targeting the Putin regime, uh, that, that force, uh, the, uh, the Putin regime to, to reconsider the approach they've taken.

00:06:43.660 Uh, significant support to the Ukrainian people in the form of, uh, of, of, uh, humanitarian and lethal, uh, lethal weapon support and, uh, debilitating sanctions targeting the Putin regime.

00:06:56.200 Uh, that, that combination, uh, can, uh, can help, uh, tip the balance hopefully and support the work that Ukrainians are doing.

00:07:04.000 So, I, I mean, when, when I hear sanctions, it seems to me like that's, that's something that you take against a hostile regime sort of early on, um, not in the midst of a hot war, right?

00:07:13.000 Like we, we have, uh, debilitating sanctions against Iran and the Iranian regime gets sort of weaker and weaker over time.

00:07:20.000 Um, but they also sort of strengthen their totalitarian grip on their own people.

00:07:25.000 Um, I, I, I, I wonder if there's like, like another non-sanction related, uh, efforts that, that can be made.

00:07:33.000 I mean, I mean, you're, you're part of the committee with NATO.

00:07:37.000 What do you, what do you think when you hear, uh, people talk about expanding NATO into Ukraine or the whole idea of a no-fly zone?

00:07:43.000 Uh, do you think that would, that, that that's going to be necessary at some point, uh, or, or do you see this sort of, uh, ending, you know, with a peace negotiation?

00:07:52.000 Do you think that this conflict can end with peace, with a negotiation, or do you think it'll just continue until it hits a hot war or one side surrenders?

00:08:00.000 Um, well, I mean, it's, it's a bit of a cliche to say that all conflict ends with talks, um, you know, in, in some form, but, uh, you know, um, the, the, the,

00:08:13.000 the circumstances of any negotiations, I think would, would have to be ones in which, uh, the, the Putin regime was, was so, uh, able to see the costs to itself associated with ongoing conflict, uh, that it, that it lost the will to perpetuate the, uh, the ongoing, uh, acts of violence.

00:08:32.000 So, um, the, the conversations that, that, that might happen under those circumstances matter, of course, but the, the circumstances that happen in the lead up to that are, are critically important as well.

00:08:44.000 Uh, I mean, let's, let's state the obvious that Russia's a nuclear power, uh, that there are significant risks that have to be taken into consideration in the form of, um, of points of, of, uh, of escalation, like, like would be involved in, uh, creating a no-fly zone. 0.62

00:09:00.000 I mean, that does, that does imply, uh, pretty clearly that we would be, um, we would be shooting down Russian planes and that, and that's, uh, I mean, that would be a very significant, uh, escalation, obviously.

00:09:11.000 Um, I, I mean, I, I think, look, the, the, the goal for the NATO Alliance is to, uh, be effective in deterrence first and foremost.

00:09:21.000 And, um, and I think I would argue that, uh, NATO expansion has been successful in deterrence in the cases where NATO has expanded.

00:09:30.000 Uh, there, there has not been aggression like this against the Baltic States, against Poland.

00:09:36.000 Um, I think the, the reality that aggression against those states would automatically mean a hot war between Russia and NATO.

00:09:45.000 That's a significant, uh, significant deterrent.

00:09:48.000 And the Putin regime went into Ukraine in a context in which, uh, the, the, um, you know, the, the American administration in particular had already made clear that, um, that there would be sanctions and there would be other forms of retaliation.

00:10:03.000 But when it came to fighting, uh, Ukraine would be on its own.

00:10:06.000 So, um, so there was, there was, I think, uh, in retrospect, clearly there was a failure of deterrence there.

00:10:12.000 Um, you know, retrospect is what it is though.

00:10:16.000 As, as you say, I mean, we have to deal with, with what we're dealing with right now.

00:10:19.000 And, and I, I, I would say it's, it may not feel like enough, but strong coordinated sanctions, uh, can have a, a really powerful impact in terms of starving the Putin regime of the capacity to rate, to wage war.

00:10:35.000 Um, so, and there's, and there are so many more things we need to be doing conservatives have been talking for instance, about the oil and gas sector.

00:10:43.000 And the fact that, uh, that Europe's dependence on Russian gas has limited their ability to impose sanctions and in response to past events.

00:10:51.000 And so we need to step up as a country in terms of being able to supply Europe with alternative sources of, uh, of energy.

00:10:57.000 So it's not as dependent on, on, on Russia.

00:11:00.000 Um, these kinds of measures do have a significant impact.

00:11:03.000 And, um, you know, I, I, I look at what's going on and I, I think, man, I wish we could do more.

00:11:10.000 Um, and we should always look for ways to do more, uh, in a way that's, uh, that's prudent and that, um, and that, that leads the Putin regime ultimately to, um, to, to back away or to other actors within Russia to, to say enough is enough.

00:11:27.000 Well, I'm glad to hear you, you say, uh, clearly and, uh, unequivocally that, that, uh, you don't want this to turn into a, uh, hot war between NATO and Russia, because that will be, uh, like you, like you mentioned and alluded to really terrifying with a nuclear power.

00:11:41.000 I was going to ask you about Canada's oil and gas sector and the part it plays, but you kind of pivoted there yourself.

00:11:46.000 So I'll, I'll, I'll move on to a question I wanted to ask you about, uh, our prime minister, Justin Trudeau.

00:11:50.000 So he was in London today.

00:11:52.000 He had a meeting with, sorry, London yesterday.

00:11:54.000 I think he's still there today.

00:11:55.000 London had a meeting with Boris Johnson at 10 Downing street.

00:11:58.000 And, uh, what we saw were, uh, people protesting him to the extent that he couldn't even get to the front door and he had to go, um, into the back door.

00:12:06.000 So I'm, I'm just wondering if, uh, you think that Canada and Justin Trudeau's reputation, uh, have taken a hit, uh, over his handling of the trucker convoy.

00:12:15.000 I know you were critical of, of his, of his use of the emergency powers.

00:12:19.000 Uh, how, how do you think Canada's reputation has changed?

00:12:22.000 Well, I, I think, um, uh, the use of the emergencies act was a big mistake.

00:12:26.000 I spoke against it in the house of commons.

00:12:28.000 I think it raises significant questions about the health of our democracy, about the government's commitment to civil liberties.

00:12:33.000 And, uh, these are, these are arguments that we're, um, we're gonna continue to make.

00:12:38.000 And, uh, obviously, um, this also, uh, informed my private members bill, which I know we're gonna, we're gonna talk a little bit about later, trying to provide greater legislative protection for people on the basis of their political views in Canada.

00:12:51.000 Uh, it is noteworthy that, uh, countries around the world, uh, that, that, that peoples around the world, media outlets, uh, paid some attention to what was happening.

00:13:00.000 And, uh, you know, I, it's sort of interesting for me.

00:13:03.000 I, I'm always listening to some, some podcasts and, and, uh, news items from around the world, obviously to get perspectives from around the world.

00:13:10.000 And there was a period of time when everybody was talking about Canada and, uh, and, and not, not in a good light.

00:13:18.000 Um, I think, uh, people, centrists, progressives, people that weren't invested in the partisan dynamics here in Canada, uh, even from the center left, were very surprised by the heavy handed illiberal approach.

00:13:32.000 Uh, approach that Justin Trudeau was, uh, was taking.

00:13:35.000 And, um, and I think that that's in the context where people generally have a very positive view of Canada.

00:13:41.000 They see Canada as a, as a great country, uh, characterized by freedom and pluralism.

00:13:46.000 Uh, and, um, and, and so it was kind of this, this moment of dissonance for a lot of people in terms of looking, looking at what, what happened.

00:13:53.000 And let's acknowledge that there was some, some hyperbolic commentary about what was happening in Canada from, from external sources as well.

00:14:00.000 Um, but, uh, but look at, I don't think it helped us in terms of projecting a positive image around the world.

00:14:08.000 And I don't think it helps us, uh, when we try to, uh, speak to other countries about what, how they're responding to different protest movements that happen in, uh, in other places.

00:14:19.000 Um, so, so this was, this was, I think part of the dynamic and, and I think it will have some, hopefully it won't have, have lasting implications for Canada's brand, but I think it will certainly have lasting implications for the prime minister's brand.

00:14:31.000 Yeah.

00:14:32.000 I think one of my favorite videos that came out from the Tucker convoy and so much of it, you know, in today's era, you don't have to go through intermediary intermediaries like the CBC and the global mail.

00:14:41.000 You can see for yourself what's going on, uh, in the news.

00:14:44.000 And there was this one clip that people were circulating on Tik TOK and it made it onto Instagram and it was Justin Trudeau characterizing, uh, the protests as, uh, you know, people waving intolerant flags, uh, people stealing from the homeless people, desecrating monuments.

00:15:01.000 And, uh, people being like racist and hateful, something like that.

00:15:04.000 It was, it was a Trudeau speech and someone had taken a Trudeau speech, like the sound and laid it over images of the exact opposite, like the exact opposite of those that, uh, characterization was what was happening.

00:15:15.000 It was like people were feeding the homeless.

00:15:16.000 There was free food for everyone the entire time.

00:15:19.000 Uh, people were cleaning the monuments and keeping the streets clean.

00:15:22.000 And, and, you know, you had this like impeccable, uh, you, whatever it was, captains, street captains that were making sure that the sidewalks were shoveled and that there was no garbage.

00:15:31.000 Uh, you know, the people of all these different backgrounds.

00:15:33.000 So, so everything that Justin Trudeau said, it was the exact opposite that was playing out in real life.

00:15:37.000 And I think that that was pretty powerful.

00:15:39.000 Okay.

00:15:40.000 Garnett, I do want to talk to you about your private members bill because, uh, it's, yeah, it's, it's really interesting.

00:15:45.000 So you, you introduced private members bill to amend the Canadian human rights act to protect those who are discriminated against because of their political beliefs.

00:15:53.000 So why don't you explain to us what you seek to accomplish with this?

00:15:57.000 Yeah.

00:15:58.000 So, uh, the Canadian human rights act, uh, prohibits discrimination on the, on the basis of various criteria, uh, race, sexual orientation, um, uh, national origin, uh, marital status, religion, uh, age, gender.

00:16:16.000 Uh, and my proposal is to add, uh, political beliefs, uh, and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination.

00:16:22.000 The Canadian human rights act.

00:16:23.000 Um, I guess a couple of things just to say, uh, off the top on this number one, uh, there is an important distinction between discriminating with among ideas and discriminating against individuals based on the ideas that they hold.

00:16:35.000 Uh, clearly it's legitimate to think some political ideas are superior to other political ideas or to think, um, and, and that's already an issue with, uh, with other criteria.

00:16:45.000 For instance, uh, you can't discriminate on the basis of religion, but you're allowed to think, Hey, my religion is, uh, it represents the fullness of truth and someone else's, uh, doesn't, um, there's, there's a difference between discriminating about ideas and discriminating against individuals.

00:16:59.000 So in terms of prohibiting discrimination against individuals on the basis of their political beliefs or activities, it's about saying that, uh, that, that governments or banks, uh, shouldn't be able to fire someone or deny someone service on the basis of their political beliefs.

00:17:15.000 Uh, that if you're, if your employer finds out that you're a conservative, they can't fire you because of that.

00:17:21.000 Um, uh, that, that, uh, government, uh, cannot say we're going to treat different groups of people differently on the basis of their political beliefs or their, their involvement in, in, in political activity.

00:17:35.000 And, um, and I, I think this intuitively makes sense.

00:17:39.000 It respects the freedom of individuals to be involved in, in political speech and activity without fear of reprisal.

00:17:46.000 I think many Canadians would actually be surprised to find that it wasn't already, uh, protected.

00:17:51.000 Um, but we are seeing cases and, and, uh, the government's response to the convoy is one example where I think a lot of people saw, uh, political, political discrimination, uh, happening.

00:18:02.000 Um, in terms of maybe the, the tone and the approach being taken to one group of protestors that was different than, uh, what had been applied in, in the past in analogous cases where people were, were, uh, were protesting with respect to, uh,

00:18:15.000 to, uh, to different, uh, causes, but this is something that I was working on long before, uh, this, this particular incident.

00:18:22.000 And, and, um, it's in part, uh, inspired by, um, uh, by some of the work just being done looking at, uh, so-called woke capitalism when big corporations are trying to push political agendas.

00:18:34.000 Uh, there's, uh, there's, uh, there's a book called woke ink that, uh, that I would, I would recommend by, uh, an American tech entrepreneur named Vivek Ramaswamy.

00:18:43.000 And, um, you know, his, his insight is that.

00:18:46.000 We are seeing this phenomenon of, of companies that, uh, have political objectives that are, are using their corporate power to advance those political objectives and have, uh, the protections that were invented as being for, uh, for private sector companies to encourage innovation.

00:19:02.000 But they're actually now using the, the, the power and the protection that comes with being a private sector corporation to advance political objectives.

00:19:10.000 And that's really out of step with what the purpose of a corporation should be.

00:19:14.000 And it undermines, uh, democracy.

00:19:15.000 It allows, uh, corporations to, uh, by, by influencing their employers, by, uh, by controlling, uh, content within their platform to be able to advance a, a political agenda.

00:19:26.000 So, um, kind of looking at it from, from the perspective of government discrimination, as well as, uh, the way that certain corporations may try to, to, uh, exercise corporate power through discriminating on the basis of political views.

00:19:39.000 Uh, this is something that I think needs to be addressed.

00:19:42.000 Um, and I'll just make one, one final comment about that.

00:19:44.000 And it's, uh, that, that, although this is a, a new idea at the federal level that responds to new, new emerging realities and challenges, it's not particularly radical.

00:19:53.000 I mean, most.

00:19:54.000 Provinces and territories have some degree of protection, uh, in their, in their human rights, uh, legal frameworks for, uh, some political belief or they use similar terms.

00:20:04.000 So, uh, this is, um, uh, this is not unprecedented.

00:20:08.000 I mean, many Canadians live in jurisdictions where in terms of, uh, of provincial jurisdiction, they already have these protections.

00:20:15.000 Uh, but some provincial jurisdictions and federal jurisdiction, these protections, uh, do not exist.

00:20:20.000 So, uh, so I'm putting this out there as an amendment to the Canadian human rights act.

00:20:24.000 And, uh, I've gotten a lot of positive commentary on it, uh, so far.

00:20:29.000 And, um, uh, so it's, this is, this is where we're at and, uh, and hoping to continue the conversation, get this bill passed at some point.

00:20:38.000 I think so many Canadians were just sort of dismayed and beside themselves to see the doxing of people who had donated to the, uh, trucker convoy give send go campaign.

00:20:48.000 Uh, so many people ended up losing their jobs.

00:20:51.000 Uh, well, at least, at least a handful of high profile ones.

00:20:54.000 People, some people were, uh, intimidated, uh, stores had their, you know, vandalized and protested.

00:20:59.000 Uh, would, would your private members bill, uh, protect those people?

00:21:03.000 Uh, would, would it, would it like retroactively help them, uh, get, get their jobs back if, if it were to be passed?

00:21:09.000 Uh, how, how would, how would it work in that situation?

00:21:11.000 Well, I don't think a bill like this would apply, uh, retroactively.

00:21:15.000 Um, uh, and there is a distinction between someone facing discrimination and someone just having people, uh, be mean to them, right?

00:21:24.000 Um, there, there, uh, if, if somebody, if somebody wants to boycott a business on the basis of the political activity of the owner,

00:21:32.000 uh, there's no, um, there's no, uh, good, good mechanism for, for dealing with that legislatively.

00:21:40.000 I mean, I would, I would generally tell people, you know, if you, if you're looking at what restaurant to go to do so on the basis of, of what food you like, not who the owner votes for.

00:21:49.000 Uh, I think, I think, uh, you know, we, we promote a better, more harmonious society if we don't seek to, uh, to punish each other for having the wrong political views through, through commercial means.

00:22:00.000 But, um, but it, I mean, a bill like this couldn't, couldn't and wouldn't address those kinds of boycotts, but it would address the case of, of somebody, um, firing an employee or denying someone service on the basis of their, their political views.

00:22:13.000 Let's say, uh, somebody had, uh, made a small donation to, uh, to the convoy and their employer found out about it.

00:22:19.000 Um, this, this bill would, I think provide some protection, uh, from that person being fired.

00:22:25.000 And, and it would apply across the board.

00:22:27.000 I mean, you could imagine a case theoretically where there's a conservative employer who finds out that his employee is, uh, is volunteering for, for the NDP on their time off and says, Nope, that's not, that's not how we vote at this grocery store.

00:22:39.000 You're out.

00:22:40.000 Um, and I think most people would say that that's, that's unreasonable just to someone shouldn't be fired, uh, because of their religion, because of their sexual orientation, because of their marital status.

00:22:48.000 Uh, someone shouldn't be, uh, be fired for engaging in political activism that reflects their, their sincere convictions.

00:22:55.000 Uh, there would be, would be one area of exception.

00:22:57.000 And that would be where it's a bona fide occupational qualification, where it's, where it's actually necessarily related to the work being done.

00:23:04.000 So, uh, if a, if a member of parliament who's like, I, as a conservative member of parliament parliament, my, I hire staff that generally share my worldview.

00:23:14.000 And that's reasonable because it's a political workplace.

00:23:17.000 Uh, there, there may be situations like for, for election workers, where people, uh, part of the criteria for hiring someone is political neutrality.

00:23:26.000 And, and that is a case where it's legitimate to take into consideration someone's political activity.

00:23:32.000 Um, but in the case of, of most workplaces that are not political by nature, uh, where the activity is, uh, is not political advocacy, but it's just, uh, commerce making things, selling things.

00:23:44.000 Uh, people shouldn't face employment related consequences, uh, for, for engaging in political activity that reflects their sincerely held beliefs.

00:23:51.000 Well, I absolutely agree with that.

00:23:53.000 I think that's a great initiative, Garnett.

00:23:54.000 Uh, good for you for proposing that and hopefully, uh, it gets passed through.

00:23:59.000 So, uh, Garnett, I really appreciate your time.

00:24:01.000 Thank you so much for joining us today.

00:24:02.000 Thank you, Candice.

00:24:03.000 Always a pleasure.

00:24:04.000 Always a pleasure as well.

00:24:05.000 All right.

00:24:06.000 Thank you so much.

00:24:07.000 I'm Candice welcome.

00:24:08.000 And this is the Candice welcome show.

Juno News - March 08, 2022

Protecting your political freedoms (ft. MP Garnett Genuis)

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript