The Candice Malcolm Show - Liberals push SCARY new censorship laws

00:00:00.000 Welcome to the Candace Malcolm Show here on Juneau. My name is Chris Sims. I'm the Alberta

00:00:07.200 Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Thank you so much for joining us today. We've got

00:00:12.980 a lot to talk about on this show, and we're thankful that we can still do that, that we can

00:00:18.920 still talk about things. Because right now, our ability to express ourselves freely in Canada

00:00:25.720 is on a slippery slope, and it's declining. Here's why. Remember back in shop class, or if you've

00:00:35.540 got a garage and you've got some tools in it, you know those table vices where you can put stuff

00:00:40.760 between them and crank it up, you know, making it loose or making it tight, and it's got two sides

00:00:45.640 coming together? Well, here in Canada, we have two sides of censorship, which are tightening upon

00:00:54.200 people. One side of it is the fact that the government is handing hundreds of millions of

00:01:02.440 dollars to media outside of the CBC. So yes, we know that the state broadcaster already takes well

00:01:11.180 over a billion dollars from taxpayers each year, and that the current liberal government is planning on

00:01:17.020 upping their stipend, thanks to the taxpayer, and giving the CBC more power. That's a given.

00:01:23.580 But what isn't understood by many is that much of the mainstream media is now also on government

00:01:31.880 payroll. There is a motley crew of really weird forms of subsidy, direct payment, tax credits out the

00:01:41.820 wazoo, and there's even a panel, a government panel, that decides what is a real journalism outfit

00:01:51.240 and worthy of government money. As a long-time journalist and someone who values free expression,

00:01:58.220 and I need to for my job at the Taxpayers Federation, this is all deeply disturbing. Because bluntly,

00:02:06.580 journalists cannot be paid by the government. Government-funded journalism should be a

00:02:13.660 contradiction in terms, and it is. The moment a journalist is on government payroll, that's

00:02:20.700 propaganda. The sad thing here is that even if there's a journalist, and I've met many, who's still

00:02:27.660 working like the dickens to be as balanced as possible and as careful responsible as possible with

00:02:33.120 his or her reporting, the very fact that their paycheck depends in some way, shape, or form on the

00:02:39.960 government compromises them, no matter what they do or how hard they work. As in ethics, okay, where

00:02:48.360 there's a perception of corruption, same goes for journalism. Where there's a perception of a conflict

00:02:54.720 of interest with the government, trust falls down. And this is exactly what we're seeing with journalism

00:03:01.580 in Canada. Now, a very healthy majority of Canadians believe that journalists are deliberately trying

00:03:10.780 to mislead them with statements they know to be false. That is very alarming, because we need to be

00:03:17.120 able to trust the information that we're being given. Further to this point on the censorship vice.

00:03:22.660 So again, one side of it, we've got government dumping millions of dollars into journalism in Canada.

00:03:30.080 That was perfectly illustrated just before the election, where you saw, I think it was a national

00:03:38.380 post or a post media journalist saying something about the government, like criticizing it mildly and

00:03:44.980 pointing out a discrepancy. And a member of parliament of the government basically saying, pipe down, and

00:03:52.560 this is why we give you a subsidy. Perfectly proving the point of people who are concerned about

00:03:58.800 government funding journalism in Canada. To the reporter's credit, she shot back pretty good.

00:04:04.400 And there's also the scene that happened during the last election. We had a situation where

00:04:11.040 candidate A is saying, hey, CBC reporter standing there on the sidewalk scrumming me,

00:04:17.240 I'm going to give your employer more money. And candidate B saying, hey, CBC reporter standing there on the

00:04:24.920 sidewalk scrumming me, I'm going to defund your employer. How is that supposed to be reported on straight?

00:04:33.480 How is that not an obvious, almost embarrassing level of a conflict of interest and an affront to a free press?

00:04:41.640 Because the term free press might conjure up images of some old timey newspaper stand in, you know, New York City

00:04:50.200 somewhere, where a paper boy is, you know, handing out free newspapers. That is not what a free press is.

00:04:58.120 That wouldn't be super important. A free press is free from government. And we do not have that in Canada

00:05:07.240 at all right now. The other side of the censorship vice is the censorship itself or the potential of it.

00:05:14.280 And that is through legislation laws that are passed by our legislators in Ottawa. Bill C-11 has already

00:05:21.540 been passed by the Trudeau government previously. It's now working its way through the CRTC. And you

00:05:27.800 need to stay on top of that because it's eventually going to start trickling down and affecting what kind

00:05:33.720 of podcasts you can see and hear and share online. It's going to eventually alter the visibility of what

00:05:41.400 you're even seeing on YouTube, for example, here in Canada. We're already seeing pressure coming from

00:05:47.100 the government in that direction. And the reason why this is really important, of course, is because

00:05:52.000 if you want to express yourself against the government, for example, the Canadian Taxpayers

00:05:57.420 Federation, we just finished handing out golden pig statues to government and bureaucrats who waste your

00:06:03.840 money. We criticize the government all the time for jacking up your taxes and wasting your money.

00:06:10.020 If that ability of speech is eroded, then your rights are being eroded. So Bill C-11 has already

00:06:18.880 passed into law. Now currently on the table is something called the Online Harms Act. And this

00:06:25.700 is a doozy. So right off the top, there's a big portion of this bill that any decent person would be

00:06:31.700 fine with strengthening. So that's where, you know, monsters who are targeting children online are going to

00:06:38.220 jail for longer or there's more restrictions on them. Like everybody accepts that that is fine to do.

00:06:44.700 Unfortunately, there's a strange Trojan horse element of this proposed legislation. And that is

00:06:51.400 the ability for anonymous people to make complaints about your expression online that makes them

00:06:57.480 uncomfortable or feel unsafe. Those are all such variable terms, right? Define what you mean by

00:07:05.520 uncomfortable, right? Because a lot of our discourse can get uncomfortable in politics. And here's the

00:07:10.640 kicker. Folks under this legislation could be fined for it. Or if they don't take it down, they could even be

00:07:17.220 put on house arrest, some of the language in this law. Now this gets pretty extreme. And people start

00:07:22.300 imagining things like what's happening over in the UK. If we are going to be able to speak truth to power and hold

00:07:28.340 government to account, we're going to have to be able to speak freely and express ourselves freely.

00:07:34.820 So this is what's at play right now. And that's why it's really important to speak with Peter Menzies

00:07:41.060 about this. What does he have to say about it? Let's find out. Joining me now is Peter Menzies. Mr. Menzies

00:07:47.780 is a fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, past editor of the Calgary Herald, and now a writer and

00:07:55.940 founder of the rewrite that is on Substack. I would encourage anybody who values serious journalism

00:08:02.920 to go subscribe to it. I just did. And I'm very happy with my decision. I wanted to get into a few

00:08:09.980 things with you. I often describe in my talks about censorship in Canada, as we're facing two sides of

00:08:17.020 a vice, similar to what you would see in a metal shop. On one side, we have the fact that much of the

00:08:23.740 mainstream media is now unfortunately on a form of government payroll, either through direct payment

00:08:29.460 or through massive amounts of subsidy. On the other side are laws, things like Bill C-11, which has

00:08:35.660 already passed, and the looming Online Harms Act. I just wanted to get your bird's eye view first.

00:08:42.580 As a long-time journalist who writes about this quite clearly, where would you rate our state of

00:08:49.820 journalism and free expression in Canada? Are we at a C? Are we at a B-plus? Where are we at?

00:08:56.840 Probably the C range. I think that the real issue has been this sort of decline in the willingness to

00:09:04.080 stand up for freedom of speech at all costs. There's been, I mean, we're just emerging right now

00:09:12.200 kind of from a cancel culture era. And what shocked me about it was that instead of media standing up

00:09:20.520 for people's right to speak and that sort of stuff. Now, I mean, there's always social consequences for

00:09:25.660 whatever language you choose to use. I mean, you're free to use it, but you're not free to use it

00:09:32.660 without consequences. But the consequences during this cancel culture frenzy that went on for a few

00:09:37.940 years were very severe, career destroying and that sort of stuff for the slightest little miscue.

00:09:43.860 Media didn't fight that. They went along with it. And that's really, I thought, sent a bad sort of

00:09:52.760 example for where we might be going when you see that media, being the ones who depend the most upon

00:10:00.220 freedom of speech. We're willing to get pretty mushy about it. So right now we're left with librarians

00:10:07.720 who are the only ones who are still really sticking up for free speech. That's so C, I maybe might even

00:10:16.260 slide it to a D, but I just want to leave room for next year's grade.

00:10:21.720 Oh, great point. We just finished releasing a report card on finance ministers. So I understand

00:10:26.460 needing to leave room for the next year's grade. To your point, just on purely, not with taxpayers'

00:10:33.720 money going to it, just on the pure free expression element. So the Taxpayers Federation, for example,

00:10:39.320 we often will do stunts that are annoying to people and politicians, even insulting in some ways. We

00:10:46.600 just finished handing out golden pig statues to politicians and bureaucrats who waste money. So

00:10:51.820 free expression from a taxpayer's perspective is essential to our work. If we can't criticize the

00:10:58.300 government, if we can't express ourselves freely, we're in some trouble here as a country. And so

00:11:03.640 this is one of the reasons why the CTF took a stand against things like C-11. To your point,

00:11:08.960 though, on the pure journalism element, because this is where I spent most of my adult life,

00:11:12.720 I agree. And for the longest time, it was journalists, at least I found, that always

00:11:19.500 defended free expression, that defended free speech. We've seen overseas, you know, what happened

00:11:25.460 with Charlie Hebdo, for goodness sake. You know, one of my most, you know, closest friends in journalism

00:11:30.360 still has, you know, a magazine cover from that magazine in France. And so I'm wondering where you

00:11:37.340 think this changed? Where, where did we take a turn to where what you were kind of made me think

00:11:45.000 of referencing? I'm going to be careful here because I don't want to upset people. A few years ago in the

00:11:50.120 before times, before lockdown, there was a huge cancel culture push that swept through media in Canada,

00:11:58.020 especially on what was then Twitter. And all that had happened was a couple of more high profile

00:12:04.080 journalists had kind of joked about the fact that now authors aren't allowed to write from a

00:12:11.200 perspective that they are not. Meaning, Jack London couldn't write from the perspective of a wolf,

00:12:18.020 for example, anymore. Or a woman writer couldn't write from the perspective of a man anymore, 1.00

00:12:24.280 because that was somehow appropriation. And so a lot of fiction writers were having a problem with this,

00:12:30.080 saying this is a little bit silly. And a couple of journalists had chimed in,

00:12:33.740 basically saying, yeah, this is a little bit silly. And all hell broke loose in their own

00:12:38.240 workplaces. They were attacked by their own employers and had their jobs threatened.

00:12:43.200 And I think I think we reached peak crazy cancel culture at that point. And it was just a few years

00:12:47.940 before the lockdowns. Yeah, it was about the mid 20 teens. I think it started emerging around then,

00:12:55.280 but it kind of coincides roughly with Justin Trudeau's election. Yeah. And I think his approach

00:13:03.760 to the to world affairs and domestic affairs seemed to give people permission to go a little farther

00:13:11.900 than they had been going. I mean, cultural appropriation, there were all kinds of, oh,

00:13:16.740 what do you call them? Social misdeeds that people could people could commit. But but it was,

00:13:21.340 it's one thing to sort of criticize people for it. But it was the full consequences of it. I mean,

00:13:27.420 what was that? The, the kids from the school in Kentucky in the States, who had the, I can't

00:13:35.560 remember their name right now. But, but that kind of went viral. And even though, I mean, the main kid

00:13:41.780 in that, I think probably doesn't have to work a day in his life with the settlements he got from the,

00:13:46.060 from the lawsuits he filed, but people were constantly trying to accuse each other. And it was very,

00:13:52.580 you know, Orwellian, in a sense, that word gets overused, but kind of Stalinist, where people are

00:13:58.920 even goes back to the French Revolution, when, you know, j'accuse, right? And people were,

00:14:04.880 there was sort of a terror going on. Ben Mulroney can probably speak to that. Yes, he can.

00:14:10.600 Quite a bit too. And I don't know exactly where it came from, other than there'd been this sort of

00:14:19.060 long march through the institutions that had been going on for about the previous 20, 25 years.

00:14:26.060 So young people were coming out of schools with this attitude, young people were graduating from

00:14:31.600 university, not, not all of them, I got to be careful not to be too sweeping with this attitude. And

00:14:37.020 like I said, the thing that disturbed me the most about media was that it didn't fight it. Yes.

00:14:43.080 Right. I mean, the National Post initially threw Rex Murphy under the bus

00:14:48.580 for, for saying, and if you go online, you can find that column, when he said he didn't think Canada

00:14:55.700 was an institutionally racist country, right? When he, it was like you, it even, he didn't just,

00:15:03.020 it wasn't like you just had, you, you weren't able to speak. You were compelled to speak only one

00:15:09.660 thing, right? You had to, you had to be in agreement. And the Post initially, you know,

00:15:14.920 threw Murphy under the bus, the, the, the note is still on that column online, but then they found,

00:15:22.140 they regained their balance, right? Which was a good sign there. And that, that gave me a little

00:15:27.740 bit of hope when I started to see that. And some of them you can see are slightly shifting back,

00:15:33.740 but it was scary that they fell for it in the first place. Because particularly if they're going

00:15:40.140 to get subsidized for being the defenders of democracy, you better frigging defend it.

00:15:45.540 Yeah. So let's take off from there. So I think you've really set the scene well

00:15:49.160 of this just didn't come out of nowhere. All of a sudden, this was already kind of growing and

00:15:54.160 bubbling before the money started flowing from government. Um, and I would also just to throw

00:16:00.420 in, sorry for the inside baseball. Um, but for those of us who've worked in journalism,

00:16:04.640 it wasn't just that it was a combination of that, of course, this cancel culture frenzy that was

00:16:10.220 sweeping, but also there's just so few journalists anymore compared to what it was 20 years ago.

00:16:17.000 There's just a lack of bodies. You know, there used to be so many journalists. I've told this story

00:16:21.660 many times that when I graduated J school from BCIT back in the nineties, there were two full-time

00:16:28.780 salaried paid reporters, like paying your mortgage level paid, who worked at the Vancouver Sun

00:16:35.500 only on softwood lumber. That's how much journalism we had. So we had city hall reporters. We had,

00:16:42.580 uh, we had consumer affairs reporters. We had court reporters who went to court every day

00:16:47.740 just to go find a story. And so there's so few of them now, and they're younger and younger and

00:16:53.660 younger and coming out of these universities with journalism degrees without a lot of experience.

00:16:59.520 So it kind of created this perfect storm for the government to back up the money truck and say,

00:17:05.640 okay, we're going to save you. And now a lot of them, unfortunately, either one way or the other

00:17:11.860 are dependent upon government funding, meaning they're getting paid by the government. Um,

00:17:17.480 where do you see this going? Do you see more people cluing into the fact that a lot of mainstream

00:17:24.000 media are getting paid by the government and rejecting them because of it? Or is it just a

00:17:28.200 by-product? Oh, it's hard to say because the mainstream media doesn't talk about it very much,

00:17:32.500 do they? They sure don't. No. So it's kind of like their dirty little secret. So, um,

00:17:37.320 which means that to me that they're embarrassed by it. Um, to be fair, it wasn't the government that

00:17:44.160 went to them that said, do you want some money? They went to the government and said, give us some

00:17:49.160 money. We're the defenders of democracy, blah, blah, blah, which is a lot of nonsense as far as I'm

00:17:55.740 concerned. Um, just because the Toronto Star or the National Post goes belly up, that doesn't mean

00:18:02.280 that journalism dies. It will find a way, right? It's, it's, it's, it's, it's mere, those are merely

00:18:07.980 the vehicles that carry journalism. There are lots of other ways to deliver journalism. And

00:18:13.600 the 21st century is discovering that there are a lot, like you mentioned, a rewrite. I can read,

00:18:19.980 I can go on Substack and read all kinds of good commentary, um, from experts in the fields, not

00:18:26.400 journalism's, you know, calm us trying to find expertise in them. I mean, God bless them for

00:18:32.080 that, but I can go straight to the horse's mouth there, for instance. So there's all kinds of

00:18:37.020 different examples of that, but they went to the government. Now, what gets me about that when you're

00:18:41.980 talking about the decline of journalism, there was a time not that long ago. And I'm, I'm kind of at

00:18:47.480 that age, right? I don't like saying back in the day or there was a time, but I kind of have to do it.

00:18:52.400 I mean, that's, that's what I can offer now. When no publisher, um, out of their own sense of

00:19:00.100 self-respect would ever link themselves to government with money, right? I mean, after the

00:19:07.700 Kent commission in the 1980s, the government proposed a whole bunch of things. The industry

00:19:12.100 stood up on its hind legs, snarled and said, get the away Satan, right? Stay away. We would never,

00:19:20.040 we would never, um, compromise their independence like that, but just like that.

00:19:27.480 I know.

00:19:28.240 They all did this time. So I'm not going to accuse them of pay for play because there's plenty of

00:19:34.980 evidence of some journalists still doing some good work. The fact of the matter is though,

00:19:40.020 you're going to have a tough time convincing the public of that. And that's, that's the core reason

00:19:45.260 for it. Once you build an association or a codependence like that, you're going to lose

00:19:50.620 public trust. And they're just not going to believe you. And there's some other practices

00:19:54.480 like the use of unnamed sources and that sort of stuff, which is very liberally applied these days,

00:20:00.200 which have declined. So there's been definitely been a decline in the ethics, um, and the application

00:20:06.720 of what, of what were the ethics of, uh, journalism organizations in the past. So going along with

00:20:14.180 the, that trend you're concerned about, censoring, censorship, um, I'm not sure that we can trust them

00:20:21.880 to defend our right to freedom of speech anymore.

00:20:25.100 And journalism, trust in journalism is plummeting. Uh, I read a recent, it was an Edelman survey on

00:20:32.760 trust. It was from a couple of years ago and trust in journal. I think it was something like

00:20:38.280 50, high 50%, close to 60% of Canadians believe that journalists are deliberately saying things

00:20:46.600 they know not to be true in order to mislead people. This isn't flubbing something or getting

00:20:51.840 a date wrong or accidentally mispronouncing somebody's name, which all journalists do.

00:20:56.540 Um, it isn't a typo. This is deliberately trying to tell people things they know not to be true.

00:21:03.220 Um, and once you erode trust, that's what journalists bank on. You need your audience to be able to trust

00:21:10.280 your work and what you're saying, because otherwise, what are you doing there? And the, the moment that

00:21:16.700 you are on some form of government payroll, that shows again, that is a direct conflict of interest.

00:21:24.040 Okay. I'll put it this way. It wouldn't matter if the dearly departed Rex Murphy, okay. We're

00:21:30.780 delivering the news and Don Cherry, we're delivering the sports. If they're on direct government payroll,

00:21:36.400 that's the problem. It's the perception of bias that destroys trust because it's a conflict of

00:21:43.640 interest. No matter how much they try to guard against it, it's an inherent conflict of interest,

00:21:48.900 very similar to ethics. The perception of corruption is what gets you. And so this is where, again,

00:21:55.220 I plead with every journalist who's in the field right now, who can actually have some influence

00:21:59.460 over their employers, get away from government funding, do it however you have to, but get away

00:22:04.900 from being funded by the state. Speaking of the state, I wanted to quickly touch on the other side of

00:22:10.260 the vice grip. And that is laws about free expression. Now, Bill C11 has already been put

00:22:16.080 through the machine. It's working its way through. I sometimes get updates, you know, from the CRTC,

00:22:21.780 which you were also a member of, I will point out. Again, folks, this is why you need to go subscribe

00:22:26.100 to his sub stack called the rewrite because he's got a lifetime of experience in this. When it comes to

00:22:32.260 the online harms act though, this is the current new law that is still in play. Now for folks who forget

00:22:39.180 what it was, it's kind of this double-headed law. One of them was what any normal person would want

00:22:45.880 to do, was to protect young people online from being disgusting imagery being shared, all that

00:22:52.120 stuff. Any reasonable person would say, sure, tighten all of those laws. But there's an element to it

00:22:57.920 about so-called hate speech or online expression of harm or intent that was really alarming a lot of

00:23:05.920 people who value free expression because it was punishing people for, think, tweets, right? Going

00:23:12.140 back and forth in time. I saw that it sounds like the minister responsible for this is going to be

00:23:19.720 Fraser going forward. Where do you see the current online harms act going? Do you think they're going

00:23:26.180 to split the bill and they're going to get rid of the online censorship element?

00:23:29.680 I don't think they will because, well, it depends. I guess it's too early to say. The last government,

00:23:35.660 Trudeau's government, was very susceptible to lobbyists. And the online harms act, and it's had

00:23:43.640 two or three different efforts to get through, was pushed for, some of the groups pushing for it a lot

00:23:52.820 were religious minority groups, Muslims and Jewish groups as well, who felt they were being subjected

00:24:02.800 to prejudicial statements online and wanted that to stop and that sort of thing. There are ways,

00:24:09.220 I think, to address those issues, civil actions and that sort of stuff if you behave. But what gets

00:24:15.520 really tricky, as you say, is when you get into this area of hate speech. So do you want to end up

00:24:21.680 where, and this is where I'm concerned about the Carney's sort of connection, you know,

00:24:28.960 admiration for things that are British, is that the rules in England right now, you can get arrested

00:24:35.860 or you can certainly get visited by the police if you say something that makes somebody feel

00:24:43.160 uncomfortable online, that they interpret it as racist or that. It doesn't even have to be overtly

00:24:50.180 racist. But I am hopeful that they will be practical and they will do things like deepfakes,

00:24:59.340 for instance, you know, turning women into online porn stars like that, that all they have to do is amend 0.89

00:25:05.460 section 162 of the criminal code, which is all about sharing of intimate images without permission

00:25:11.120 information to include deepfakes there. Done, right? If you want to protect kids from access to

00:25:20.020 online porn, there are ways you can go about that and work with the online industry on because

00:25:29.460 there have actually been

00:25:31.960 coordinated efforts. I remember this from my CRTC years between ISPs, internet service providers,

00:25:42.020 the police and others, like when it came to child pornography, for keeping a watch for it,

00:25:47.520 most of it, most of that crap gets hidden below, you know, in the dark web. But they find it and they,

00:25:56.480 where they find it, they seek it out and destroy it sort of thing. So if you're talking about main,

00:26:01.120 I guess what we would call mainstream porn, this day and age, finding a way to protect children from

00:26:08.260 that, or at least empowering parents to protect children from it with, I mean, my preferred solution

00:26:16.140 is actually having a sort of block that you can apply at home to your internet in terms, in terms of

00:26:22.980 that, so that nobody under that age can even access it, let alone get into it. But those are all going

00:26:29.880 to be contentious issues, which I think the government, I think it may address it, they may

00:26:36.440 decide, and a practical decision might be to just clean it up through amendments, as I said, and move on

00:26:44.900 with their bigger economic agenda. That's where I'm leaning, based on the fact they've now shifted it

00:26:51.740 initially, this was under heritage, which was super weird. And now they've shifted it over to justice,

00:26:57.480 which is an indicator that they're getting more serious about it. And I know there's been a lot of

00:27:01.900 advocacy, both from what I would describe as left wing defenders of free expression. And again, for the

00:27:07.840 obvious stuff, not, you know, against protecting children, any decent person wants to do that. So there was a

00:27:12.740 big push to split the bill, to get rid of the online censorship element and keep, you know, tightening

00:27:18.000 restrictions on people who seek to harm others, which is already illegal, by the way. Sharing images

00:27:25.460 of child sexual abuse is already illegal. Terror, you know, promoting terrorism online, all of these

00:27:31.260 things are already in the criminal code. To your point, all they would need to do is just amend them

00:27:36.860 that are already in the criminal code. And I know, for example, the Canadian Constitution Foundation

00:27:41.660 was speaking very vigorously against this. So I think because it's coming from kind of a bipartisan

00:27:46.980 grassroots element from both so-called left and right, I think there's a strong chance they will

00:27:52.660 drop that element. So to your point, they can roll on forward. We're out of time, sir. Is there

00:27:57.300 anything else you would like to mention? Or they could take a look at Michelle Rempel's bill that I

00:28:01.780 think she has tabled again. Okay. She came up with an alternative, which addressed some of the

00:28:08.000 concerns. And it's not perfect, but who knows, maybe they can work with that.

00:28:14.980 They might. And it is still technically a minority. And governments have absorbed opposition,

00:28:21.440 you know, proposed ideas into their own legislation before. So let's hope that wiser heads prevail.

00:28:28.660 Thank you very much for your time today, sir. Folks, head on over to the rewrite on Substack.

00:28:33.280 Subscribe to it because, of course, Mr. Menzies keeps up to date with the latest on censorship and

00:28:38.440 journalism. Thank you so much.

00:28:39.680 Thank you so much. Folks, if you want more original journalism that is independent and

00:28:46.220 thoughtful and hard-hitting, be sure to head on over to JunoNews.com and subscribe there. Thank

00:28:52.700 you so much for watching. Candace is back tomorrow.

00:28:55.200 You're watching Juno News, Canada's fastest-growing independent news network. Our team works day and

00:29:06.920 night to bring you nationwide coverage of the issues that matter, honest reporting of the stories that

00:29:14.940 put Canadians first. From far and wide, Juno is doing the work to turn the dial in the right

00:29:22.160 direction, bringing you the news from the field and in the studio. Wherever it takes us, we get the job

00:29:31.540 done for you and for Canada. Help us replace the CBC. Subscribe today at JunoNews.com.

The Candice Malcolm Show - July 07, 2025

Liberals push SCARY new censorship laws

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript