The Candice Malcolm Show - 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?

00:00:04.420 What can we do and what should we be doing? I'm Candice Malcolm and this is The Candice Malcolm Show.

00:00:12.620 Everyone, thank you so much for tuning in. So the conflict continues in Ukraine,

00:00:17.940 the bloodshed is horrific and the humanitarian situation is getting worse by the day. I wanted

00:00:23.280 to bring in someone who knows and understands the region and NATO better than anyone I know,

00:00:28.240 my friend Garnett Janis. Garnett is the MP for Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan. He currently

00:00:32.280 serves as a conservative critic for international development. He also sits on the Foreign Affairs

00:00:36.600 and International Development Committee, as well as being a member of the Canadian NATO

00:00:40.720 Parliamentary Association. Actually, Garnett, I think the last time I spoke to you, we'd just

00:00:44.240 gotten back from a trip with NATO in some capacity. I think it was to Latvia. Correct me if I'm wrong,

00:00:50.800 I think it was in January. And you sort of talked a little bit about how this was unfolding and it

00:00:56.100 seems like, you know, the situation's gotten so much worse in obviously in the last couple of

00:01:00.540 days here, but obviously since then. So can you just set up what's going on, what's happening and

00:01:06.840 help us make sense of the situation in Ukraine? Yeah, Candice, thank you for the opportunity to

00:01:11.260 speak to you. And a lot has happened in Canadian politics and in international affairs since we last

00:01:17.480 spoke. But it was right after I had gotten back from a trip to Latvia and Sweden, pairing with the

00:01:24.220 Minister of Foreign Affairs, and it was in the context of the NATO summit that was taking place

00:01:28.120 in Riga in the sort of late fall. You know, at the time, I was certainly struck by the fact that

00:01:34.360 people were talking very seriously about the fact that it was important for the world to get ready

00:01:40.640 for the possibility of various moves that Putin could be making against Ukraine. And really, right up

00:01:47.720 until this latest attack, and I think it's important to acknowledge that the invasion of Ukraine began

00:01:53.780 in 2014. But this renewed invasion, this further invasion that took place right up until that

00:02:00.380 happened, there was a number of possible scenarios that were considered in terms of the action he might

00:02:06.380 take, trying to consolidate the Russian position in eastern Ukraine, seeking certain territorial

00:02:16.200 expansion, kind of jumping off from some of those existing points of occupation. But what we've seen

00:02:23.400 is really the worst possible scenario, which is a full on assault at all points coming in from

00:02:31.020 from Belarus, which, unfortunately, has more and more fallen under the the effective control of the

00:02:38.340 Putin regime. So so attacks from from eastern Ukraine, previously occupied areas, as well as

00:02:45.260 as amphibious attacks on the Ukrainian coast and incursions from from from Belarus. So are really bloody

00:02:53.920 violent all out assault on on Ukraine. It's been it's been tragic to see. It's also been inspiring

00:03:00.840 to see the courage of the Ukrainian people. The, the, the kinds of, of things we often see and

00:03:09.480 associate with politicians, being being that very negative perception. And yet the the remarkable

00:03:14.680 courage that Ukrainian political figures have shown the President of Ukraine saying I don't want to ride

00:03:20.200 I want, I want support and staying with his people. The the the resilience, the the resistance,

00:03:27.160 the courage of the Ukrainian people has just been been inspiring to see in the midst of this. It's

00:03:31.800 also been inspiring to see how everyday people in Russia have come out, taken to the streets. I was at

00:03:39.320 a rally in Edmonton just just on the weekend with people of of Russian and Belarusian origin who were

00:03:47.960 coming with Ukrainian flags out to specifically show that they stood with Ukrainian people against the

00:03:53.880 Putin regime as well. And when when people in Russia do this, when members of the Canadian Russian

00:04:00.920 community who may have family members back home, that's inspiring to see as well. So it's a it's a dark

00:04:06.520 time. And it's also a time in which we're seeing these bright lights of of courageous individuals and

00:04:13.080 communities of people that are standing up against the the aggression of the Putin regime.

00:04:16.840 That's great. Yeah. So what do you how do you see this playing out, Garnett? What do you what do you see

00:04:22.760 happening next? What do you think the proper role of NATO is? And how do you think we can get through and get

00:04:27.560 out of this conflict?

00:04:30.360 Well, what we have said as a Conservative Party, and I fully support the approach we've taken here is to is to try to

00:04:38.520 engage and work with the government to to to have a be particularly emphatic about the need to have a

00:04:45.160 constructive tone here to put forward proposals that we think should be should be undertaken.

00:04:50.360 We support the action the government has been taking to date. And we also have been calling for

00:04:55.640 further action. I, I had been at the Foreign Affairs Committee specifically highlighting the

00:05:01.800 benefits of sanctioning individuals tied to the Putin regime, investing Vladimir Putin's own money

00:05:08.920 abroad, and using Navalny's list, Alexei Navalny, a key Russian opposition leader, has put out a

00:05:15.000 list of people who he thinks should be sanctioned. So using that list as the basis for for sanctioning.

00:05:20.200 Now, I was calling for that prior to the invasion. I thought that the the the previous invasion, which

00:05:26.200 started in 2014, the other acts of violence that the regime has been responsible for justified

00:05:35.160 those sanctions being put in place prior to an invasion and as a deterrent step. There was a

00:05:40.440 failure of deterrence here. I mean, there's there's no doubt about it. If, if possibly if further steps

00:05:46.520 had been taken that could have deterred the invasion in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation

00:05:50.600 as it is. But in any event now, given where we are, those those those tough sanctions are really important.

00:05:57.240 And, and, and I was pleased that just today, the Prime Minister announced that they would be applying

00:06:06.280 sanctions to individuals based off Navalny's list. So it does, it does show that opposition matters,

00:06:11.560 that when we repeatedly say something in committee, using Navalny's list as a guide, and then it shows up

00:06:17.800 in the Prime Minister's own talking points later, it's encouraging to see that's, that's what we want

00:06:21.640 in opposition. It's not to just be able to criticize the government, it's to actually see them take our

00:06:25.640 suggestions from time to time. So what we want to see NATO do, Canada and our partners is to have

00:06:33.560 sharp, debilitating sanctions targeting the Putin regime that, that forced the Putin regime to,

00:06:41.800 to reconsider the approach they've taken. Significant support to the Ukrainian people in the form of

00:06:49.560 humanitarian and lethal, lethal weapon support, and debilitating sanctions targeting the

00:06:55.400 Putin regime. That that combination can, can help tip the balance, hopefully, and support the work 0.56

00:07:02.680 that Ukrainians are doing. So I mean, when I hear sanctions, it seems to me like that's, that's 0.56

00:07:08.520 something that you take against a hostile regime sort of early on, not in the midst of a hot war,

00:07:13.320 right? Like we, we have you debilitating sanctions against Iran, and the Iranian regime gets sort of

00:07:19.320 weaker and weaker over time. But they also sort of strengthen their totalitarian grip on their own

00:07:24.280 people. I wonder if there's, like, like, another not non sanction related efforts that can be made.

00:07:33.320 I mean, I mean, you're, you're part of the committee with NATO. What do you, what do you think when you

00:07:38.360 hear people talk about expanding NATO into Ukraine, or the whole idea of a new fly zone? Do you think that

00:07:44.200 would that that that's going to be necessary at some point? Or do you see this sort of ending,

00:07:50.280 you know, with a peace negotiation? Do you think that this conflict can end with peace with a

00:07:55.000 negotiation? Or do you think it'll just continue until it hits a hot war or one side surrenders?

00:08:02.680 Well, I mean, it's, it's a bit of a cliche to say that all conflict ends with talks, you know, in some

00:08:08.200 form, but, you know, the, the circumstances of any negotiations, I think, would, would have to be

00:08:16.440 ones in which the Putin regime was, was so able to see the costs to itself associated with ongoing

00:08:25.480 conflict, that it, that it lost the will to perpetuate the, the ongoing acts of violence. So,

00:08:32.280 the, the conversations that that that might happen under those circumstances matter, of course,

00:08:38.920 but the, the circumstances that happen in the lead up to that are critically important as well.

00:08:45.080 I mean, let's, let's state the obvious that Russia is a nuclear power, that there are significant risks

00:08:50.760 that have to be taken into consideration in the form of, of points of, of escalation, like, like would be

00:08:58.360 involved in a, creating a no-fly zone. I mean, that does, that does imply pretty clearly that we would

00:09:04.680 be, we would be shooting down Russian planes and that, and that's, I mean, that would be a very 0.84

00:09:10.040 significant escalation, obviously. I mean, I think, look, the, the goal for the NATO alliance is to

00:09:18.760 be effective in deterrence, first and foremost. And, and I think, I would argue that NATO expansion has

00:09:27.240 been successful in deterrence in the cases where NATO has expanded. There, there has not been aggression

00:09:33.880 like this against the Baltic states, against Poland. I think the, the reality that aggression against

00:09:40.600 those states would automatically mean a hot war between Russia and NATO. That's a significant, significant

00:09:47.960 deterrent. And the Putin regime went into Ukraine in a context in which the, the, you know, the, the American

00:09:56.600 administration in particular had already made clear that, that there would be sanctions and there

00:10:01.560 would be other forms of retaliation, but when it came to fighting, Ukraine would be on its own. So,

00:10:07.640 so there was, there was, I think, in retrospect, clearly there was a failure of deterrence there.

00:10:13.720 You know, retrospect is what it is though, as you say, I mean, we have to deal with, with what we're

00:10:18.760 dealing with right now. And, and I, I would say it's, it may not feel like enough, but strong coordinated

00:10:26.360 sanctions can have a, a really powerful impact in terms of starving the Putin regime of the capacity

00:10:33.720 to rate, to wage war. So, and there's, and there are so many more things we need to be doing.

00:10:39.800 Conservatives have been talking, for instance, about the oil and gas sector and the fact that,

00:10:43.800 that Europe's dependence on Russian gas has limited their ability to impose sanctions and in

00:10:50.120 response to past events. And so we need to step up as a country in terms of being able to supply

00:10:54.920 Europe with alternative sources of, of energy. So it's not as dependent on, on, on Russia.

00:11:01.560 These kinds of measures do have a significant impact. And, you know, I, I look at what's going on

00:11:08.040 and I, I think, man, I wish we could do more. And we should always look for ways to do more.

00:11:14.200 In a way that's, that's prudent and that, and that, that leads the Putin regime ultimately to,

00:11:21.960 to, to back away or to other actors within Russia to, to say enough is enough.

00:11:27.480 Well, I'm glad to hear you, you say clearly and unequivocally that, that you don't want this to

00:11:33.560 turn into a hot war between NATO and Russia, because that would be like you, like you mentioned and

00:11:38.600 alluded to really terrifying with a nuclear power. I was going to ask you about Canada's oil and gas

00:11:42.840 sector and the part it plays, but you kind of pivoted there yourself. So I'll, I'll move on

00:11:46.520 to a question I wanted to ask you about our prime minister, Justin Trudeau. So he was in London

00:11:51.160 today. He had a meeting with, sorry, London yesterday. I think he's still there today.

00:11:54.680 He's in London, had a meeting with Boris Johnson at 10 Downing Street. And what we saw were people

00:12:00.440 protesting him to the extent that he couldn't even get to the front door and he had to go

00:12:04.840 into the back door. So I'm just wondering if you think that Canada and Justin Trudeau's

00:12:10.280 reputation have taken a hit over his handling of the trucker convoy. I know you were critical of,

00:12:16.600 of his, of his use of the emergency powers. How do you think Canada's reputation has changed?

00:12:21.400 Well, I think the use of the emergencies act was a big mistake. I spoke against it in the

00:12:27.720 House of Commons. I think it raises significant questions about the health of our democracy,

00:12:31.720 about the government's commitment to civil liberties. And these are, these are arguments

00:12:35.720 that we're, we're going to continue to make. And obviously this also informed my private members

00:12:43.000 bill, which I know we're going to, we're going to talk a little bit about later, trying to provide

00:12:46.520 greater legislative protection for people on the basis of their political views in Canada.

00:12:52.200 It is noteworthy that countries around the world, that, that peoples around the world,

00:12:57.160 media outlets paid some attention to what was happening. And you know, I, it's sort of interesting

00:13:03.560 for me. I, I'm always listening to some, some podcasts and, and news items from around the world,

00:13:08.520 obviously to get perspectives from around the world. And there was a period of time when

00:13:12.600 everybody was talking about Canada and, and, and not, not in a good light. I think people, centrists,

00:13:21.960 progressives, people that weren't invested in the partisan dynamics here in Canada,

00:13:26.680 even from the center left, were very surprised by the heavy handed illiberal approach that Justin Trudeau

00:13:34.200 was, was taking. And, and I think that that's in the context where people generally have a very

00:13:40.360 positive view of Canada. They see Canada as a, as a great country, uh, characterized by freedom and

00:13:45.560 pluralism. Uh, and, um, and, and so it was kind of this, this moment of dissonance for a lot of people

00:13:51.960 in terms of looking, looking at what, what happened. And let's acknowledge that there was some, some

00:13:55.880 hyperbolic commentary about what was happening in Canada from, from external sources as well. Um, but, uh,

00:14:03.000 but look at, I don't think it helped us in terms of projecting a positive image around the world.

00:14:08.600 And I don't think it helps us, uh, when we try to, uh, speak to other countries about what, how they're

00:14:15.640 responding to different protest movements that happen in, uh, in other places. Um, so, so this was, this was,

00:14:22.520 I think, part of the dynamic and, and I think it will have some, hopefully it won't have, have lasting

00:14:26.920 implications for Canada's brand, but I think it will certainly have lasting implications for the prime minister's

00:14:30.760 brand.

00:14:31.500 Yeah. I think one of my favorite videos that came out from the Tucker convoy and so much of it, you know, in today's

00:14:37.720 era, you don't have to go through intermediaries like the CBC and the Globe and Mail. You can see

00:14:42.200 for yourself what's going on, uh, in the news. And there was this one clip that people were circulating

00:14:47.720 on TikTok and it made it onto Instagram and it was Justin Trudeau characterizing, uh, the protests as,

00:14:54.360 uh, you know, people waving intolerant flags, uh, people stealing from the homeless, people

00:14:59.800 desecrating monuments and, uh, people being like racist and hateful, something like that. It was,

00:15:04.200 it was a Trudeau speech and someone had taken a Trudeau speech, like the sound and laid it over

00:15:09.560 images of the exact opposite, like the exact opposite of those that, uh, characterization

00:15:14.360 was what was happening. It was like, people were feeding the homeless. There was free food for

00:15:17.620 everyone the entire time. Uh, people were cleaning the monuments and keeping the streets clean. And,

00:15:22.180 and, you know, you had this like impeccable, uh, you, whatever it was, captains, street captains that

00:15:27.860 were making sure that the sidewalks were shoveled and that there was no garbage. Uh, you know,

00:15:31.860 you had people of all these different backgrounds. So, so everything that Justin Trudeau said,

00:15:35.140 it was the exact opposite that was playing out in real life. And I think that that was

00:15:38.740 pretty powerful. Okay. Garnett, I do want to talk to you about your private members bill

00:15:42.420 because, uh, it's, yeah, it's, it's really interesting. So you, you introduced private

00:15:46.420 members bill to amend the Canadian human rights act to protect those who are discriminated against

00:15:51.860 because of their political beliefs. So why don't you explain to us what you seek to accomplish with this?

00:15:56.820 Yeah. So, uh, the Canadian human rights act, uh, prohibits discrimination on the,

00:16:03.300 on the basis of various criteria, uh, race, sexual orientation, um, uh, national origin, uh,

00:16:12.180 marital status, religion, uh, age, gender, uh, and my proposal is to add, uh, political beliefs,

00:16:19.140 uh, and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination, the Canadian human rights act. Um,

00:16:24.180 I guess a couple of things just to say, uh, off the top on this number one, uh, there is an

00:16:29.380 important distinction between discriminating with among ideas and discriminating against

00:16:33.460 individuals based on the ideas that they hold. Uh, clearly it's legitimate to think some political

00:16:38.580 ideas are superior to other political ideas or to think, um, and that, and that's already an issue with,

00:16:44.660 uh, with other criteria. For instance, uh, you can't discriminate on the basis of religion,

00:16:48.260 but you're allowed to think, Hey, my religion is, uh, it represents the fullness of truth and

00:16:53.460 someone else's, uh, doesn't, um, there's, there's a difference between discriminating about ideas and

00:16:58.500 discriminating against individuals. So in terms of prohibiting discrimination against individuals

00:17:02.740 on the basis of their political beliefs or activities, it's about saying that, uh, that,

00:17:07.860 that governments or banks, uh, shouldn't be able to fire someone or deny someone service

00:17:13.540 on the basis of their political beliefs, uh, that if you're, if your employer finds out that you're

00:17:19.140 a conservative, they can't fire you because of that, um, uh, that, that, uh, government, uh,

00:17:26.260 cannot say we're going to treat different groups of people differently on the basis of their political

00:17:31.780 beliefs or their, their involvement in, in, in political activity. And, um, and I think this

00:17:38.740 intuitively makes sense. It respects the freedom of individuals to be involved in, in political speech

00:17:43.780 and activity without fear of reprisal. I think many Canadians would actually be surprised to find

00:17:48.900 that it wasn't already a protected. Um, but we are seeing cases and, and, uh, the government's

00:17:55.140 response to the convoy is one example where I think a lot of people saw, uh, political, political

00:18:00.660 discrimination, uh, happening, um, in terms of maybe the, the tone and the approach being taken to

00:18:06.260 one group of protesters that was different than, uh, what had been applied in, in the past and analogous

00:18:11.540 cases where people were, were, uh, were protesting with respect to, uh, to different, uh, causes.

00:18:16.980 But this is something that I was working on long before, uh, this, this particular incident. And,

00:18:22.500 and, um, it's in part, uh, inspired by, um, by some of the work just being done looking at, uh, so-called

00:18:29.940 woke capitalism when big corporations are trying to push political agendas. Uh, there's, um, there's a book

00:18:36.820 called woke Inc that, uh, that I would, I would recommend by, uh, an American tech entrepreneur

00:18:41.700 named Vivek Ramaswamy. And, um, you know, his, his insight is that we are seeing this phenomenon of,

00:18:48.340 of companies that, uh, have political objectives that are, are using their corporate power to advance

00:18:54.820 those political objectives and have, uh, the protections that were invented as being for, uh,

00:19:00.580 for private sector companies to encourage innovation, but they're actually now using the,

00:19:05.060 the, the power and the protection that comes with being a private sector corporation

00:19:09.060 to advance political objectives. And that's really out of step with what the purpose of

00:19:12.980 a corporation should be. And it undermines a democracy. It allows, uh, corporations to, uh,

00:19:18.020 by, by influencing their employers, by, uh, by controlling, uh, content within their platform

00:19:24.100 to be able to advance a political agenda. So, um, kind of looking at it from, from the perspective

00:19:29.380 of government discrimination, as well as, uh, the way that certain corporations may try to,

00:19:33.780 to, uh, exercise corporate power through discriminating on the basis of political views.

00:19:38.740 Uh, this is something that I think needs to be addressed. Uh, and I'll just make one,

00:19:42.820 one final comment about that. And it's, uh, that, that, although this is a, a new idea at the federal

00:19:47.940 level that responds to new, new emerging realities and challenges, it's not particularly radical. I mean,

00:19:53.700 most provinces and territories have some degree of protection, uh, in their, in their human rights,

00:19:59.300 uh, legal frameworks for, uh, some political belief, or they use similar terms. So, uh, this is, um,

00:20:06.740 this is not unprecedented. I mean, many Canadians live in jurisdictions where in terms of, uh, of

00:20:12.020 provincial jurisdiction, they already have these protections, uh, but some provincial jurisdictions

00:20:17.380 and federal jurisdiction, these protections, uh, do not exist. So, uh, so I'm putting this out there

00:20:22.340 as an amendment to the Canadian human rights act. And, uh, I've gotten a lot of positive commentary

00:20:27.540 on it, uh, so far. And, um, uh, so it's, this is, this is where we're at and, uh, and hoping to

00:20:35.540 continue the conversation, get this bill passed at some point.

00:20:38.820 I think so many Canadians were just sort of dismayed and beside themselves to see the doxing of people who

00:20:44.740 had donated to the, uh, trucker convoy, give, send, go campaign. Uh, so many people ended up losing

00:20:50.900 their jobs. Uh, well, at least, at least a handful of high profile ones. People, some people were, uh,

00:20:55.700 intimidated, uh, stores had their, you know, vandalized and protested. Uh, would, would your

00:21:00.660 private members bill, uh, protect those people? Uh, would, would it, would it like retroactively

00:21:05.700 help them, uh, get, get their jobs back if it were to be passed? Uh, how, how would, how would it work in

00:21:10.580 that situation? Well, I don't think a bill like this would apply, uh, retroactively. Um, uh, and

00:21:17.700 there is a distinction between someone facing discrimination and someone just having people,

00:21:22.260 uh, be mean to them, right? Um, there, there, uh, if, if somebody, if somebody wants to boycott a

00:21:30.500 business on the basis of the political activity of the owner, uh, there's no, um, there's no good,

00:21:37.860 good mechanism for, for dealing with that legislatively. I mean, I would, I would generally

00:21:41.860 tell people, you know, if you, if you're looking at what restaurant to go to do so on the basis of,

00:21:46.100 of what food you like, not who the owner votes for. Uh, I think, I think, uh, you know, we,

00:21:51.940 we promote a better, more harmonious society if we don't seek to, uh, to punish each other for

00:21:57.380 having the wrong political views through, through commercial means. But, um, but it, I mean,

00:22:02.260 a bill like this couldn't, couldn't and wouldn't address those kinds of boycotts,

00:22:05.700 but it would address the case of, of somebody, um, firing an employee or denying someone service

00:22:11.300 on the basis of their, their political views. Let's say, uh, somebody had, uh, made a small

00:22:16.340 donation to, uh, to the convoy and their employer found out about it. Um, this, this bill would,

00:22:21.620 I think provide some protection, uh, from that person being fired and it would apply across the

00:22:27.460 board. I mean, you could imagine a case theoretically where there's a, a conservative employer who finds

00:22:32.180 out that his employee is, uh, is volunteering for, for the NDP on their time off and says,

00:22:36.980 Nope, that's not, that's not how we vote at this grocery store. You're out. Um, and I think most

00:22:41.620 people would say that that's, that's unreasonable just to someone shouldn't be fired, uh, because of

00:22:45.620 their religion, because of their sexual orientation, because of their marital status, uh, someone shouldn't 1.00

00:22:50.180 be, uh, be fired for engaging in political activism that reflects their, their sincere convictions.

00:22:55.300 Uh, there would be, would be one area of exception, and that would be where it's a bonafide

00:22:59.860 occupational qualification, where it's, where it's actually necessarily related to the work

00:23:04.260 being done. So, uh, if a, if a member of parliament, who's like, I, as a conservative

00:23:10.180 member of parliament, parliament, my, I hire staff that generally share my worldview. And that's

00:23:15.460 reasonable because it's a political workplace. Uh, there, there may be situations like for, for

00:23:20.340 election workers, where people, uh, part of the criteria for hiring someone is political neutrality.

00:23:26.260 And, and that is a case where it's legitimate to take into consideration someone's

00:23:30.500 political activity. Um, but in the case of, of most workplaces that are not political by nature,

00:23:37.540 where the activity is, uh, is not political advocacy, but it's just, uh, commerce making

00:23:42.820 things, selling things, uh, people shouldn't face employment related consequences, uh, for, for

00:23:48.180 engaging in political activity that reflects their sincerely held beliefs.

00:23:52.100 Well, I absolutely agree with that. I think that's a great initiative, Garnett. Uh,

00:23:55.460 good for you for proposing that and hopefully, uh, it gets passed through. So, uh, Garnett,

00:24:00.500 I really appreciate your time. Thank you so much for joining us today.

00:24:02.820 Thank you, Candice. Always a pleasure.

00:24:04.420 Always a pleasure as well. All right. Thank you so much. I'm Candice Malcolm,

00:24:07.780 and this is the Candice Malcolm Show.

The Candice Malcolm Show - March 09, 2022

Protecting your political freedoms (ft. MP Garnett Genuis)

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript