Thank you for listening to Pictures Media Radio. Welcome to Policy and Rights,
the show about the government, Policy and human rights. Welcome back to Policy
and right here in Depictions Media Radio. I'm your host, Michael Cloggs.
And you know, I guess we're talking about this again and we're and we're
talking about it again and again because it is important. It is very important
that we see human rights be upheld. And while the events that happened that
the Hamas perpetrated and I do mean perpetrated because they aren't innocent in this situation.
They did do things that has brought uh simply put hell fire onto the
Palestinian people and Gaza by way of the Israeli government. They did do things
and handle things in the less inappropriate ways that they didn't do things with the
intention of real negotiation. They didn't do things within good faith on October seventh,
twenty twenty three. But at the same time, while that is extremely
true and there needs there needs to be an accountability for what happened, we
have to say this also that at what point does defending your country, where
does the line draw between defending your country, defending your citizens, and genocide.
We have seen that the ICC has brought charges against via South Africa has
brought charges against the Israeli government and is investigating currently into sanctions and other types
of penalties for the acts of genocide that may or may not be occurring in
in Gaza and currently right now in Rafo the one of the last places where
Savilles could hide from the fighting. So it needs to keep being talked about
and talked about until we actually convince both parties to a cease fire and immediate
cease fire and unconditional cease fire where both sides just lay down their arms unconditionally
and then figured out the rest later on my rant on what is happening in
Palestine. Moving forward, though we are you are going to hear somebody talking
about one of the bills that is going to be moving through the US government
about anti Semitism and the effects that it could have as written that if you
criticize Israel, you're anti sematic, and you could lose government funding and be
sanctioned as a antismatic group or organization, and it will and eventually they could
find such organizations to be uh illegal, which leaves a whole host of things
that what about religious based schools that are based in Islamic teachings, is that
going to be found to be any somatic? And and for those parents who
want their children to be immersed in their faith while they're in school, there's
there's a whole host of human rights issues that go along with such a bill.
And we'll hear from uh A a person that that that has made a
statement about that on social media. You and we will have to look closer
into what the bill is actually saying, so UH to assure that we are
delivering you the best information about such legislation. With that from CNN, Biden
issues an ultimatium ultimatum to Israel on the Rapha incursion. And in a brief
statement here we have President Joe Biden told CNN on Wednesday he would halt some
shipments of US weapons to Israel if the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin not
I always have trouble saying his name Natia who who ordered a major invasion on
the southern city of Rafa. This comes as Interio continues to divide international pressure
to limit its campaign in the city, with Nati and Who this week saying
Israel will defend itself even if forced to stand alone. Separately, Biden,
in an interview, sought to refrain perceptions of the American economy tilting strong job
growth, while questioning polls showing voters are still pessimistic about the country's direction CNN
most recently most recent poll, Biden's approval rating for the economy at thirty four
percent and inflation twenty nine percent, remain starkly negative, as voters say economic
concerns high priority to them when choosing a presidential candidate this year. So there
we have it that people are looking very strongly at what's happening in their pocketbooks,
and it could have an effect on the presidential election overall. Okay,
the Biden administration on immigration, the Biden administration is expected to propose a rule
today that would crack down on immigrants ineligible to claim asylum. According to two
sources, The move comes as the White House has tried to toughen the position
on the US Mexican border and flip the script on Republicans who criticize President Biden's
migration immigration policies. And we're also going to talk. There is also a
C and M report on severe weather means in the southeast US are bracing for
possible severe weather today that could bring large hail, damaging winds, and flooding.
The Storm Prediction Center has issued as a Level three of five enhanced risks
for severe thunderstorms from East Texas to Central Georgia and as far as south as
South Carolina. At the same time, officials at the Central and Southern US
are assessing damage from reported tornadoes and powerful storms that could that killed at least
three people on Wednesday. So why don't we listen to what one gentleman has
to say about a possible anismatic UH legislation And they were going to listen to
debates on UH decriminalization or says should we say recriminalization in British Columbia of street
street drug use? And there's it's gonna be a a bit of a debate
between UH, the three kN three major Canadian parties about the handling of drug
addiction. Is it a health issue or a criminal issue? And how should
it be handled? And if it's handled as a health crisis, it could
look differently than if it is just a legality thing that we just need to
wrap up the criminals and throw them in jail. So there there is a
debate across Canada about how to handle the the opiate crisis and the toxic levels
of fentanyl that are being found in street drugs that could mean like instant death
for addicts. So there's some debate about that and how that that could actually
be handled. There is also we're going to hear more from Canadian officials about
UH Palestine and the pro Palestinian protests that are happening across Canada, and they're
actually going to name Miguel University specifically, where law law enforcement was asked to
just simply take down the encampments and again either disband or jail the protesters.
There's the there is again that narrative of either you support what Israel is doing
or you are committing some sort of hate crime against the Jewish people. So
again we're going to start with what a gentleman that actually has to say his
comments about a proposed antisemitic legislation in the United States, The Anti Semitism Awareness
Act is by partisanship gone bonkers. It says something that you can't get Republicans
and Democrats to agree on funding a bridge that was torn apart and cost people
their lives in the State of Maryland. And yet they can come together to
tell a Norwellian lie like this idea that to criticize Israel is inherently anti Semitic.
As a Jewish man, I find that abhorrent. I've been criticizing Israel
my whole life, douse. I mean, I've been anti Semitic, my
whole life. Was I anti Semitic during my bar minsmah, For goodness sakes,
it's a ridiculous position to take, absolutely ridiculous. It infringes on freedom
of speech. But even more than that, people don't realize how pernicious this
bill is because they can withhold. They're recommending to the Department of Education to
withhold federal funding to institutions that actually, as they put it, shelter anti
Semitic speech. Think about what that means. Think about Palestinian scholars at schools,
at state schools. They're brilliant ones across the country. Imagine those schools
losing state funds because of a critique of Israel, which is right now committing
a genocide. I mean, it's enough to make your head want to explode.
But anyone who's read there orwell knows what's going on here. This is
about them telling a lie often enough and loud enough for people to try to
think it's the truth. The Anti Semitism Awareness Act. So he refuses to
rule out repeating this disastrous experiment that killed twenty five hundred British Columbians because he
strongly supports dec and if he got a chance, he would do it all
over again in Toronto, in Montreal and anywhere else, mister speaker. The
final question, therefore, is even the radical NDP government in BC asked for
him to reverse his decriminalization, why did it take him ten days and sixty
six more deaths to do it? The right Honorable Prime Minister again, mister
speaker, we see the extent to which the leader of the opposition will make
attacks on the political attacks on the backs of the most vulnerable people in this
country. We actually only received the completed request from British Columbia Friday last week
and proved it the following Monday, three days later, mister speaker. We
will always respond quickly in a science based way when people's lives are on the
line. The leader of the opposition is continuing to spread falsehoods, mister Speaker,
in that of actually following the facts and caring for Canadians well with their
thoughts on the debate and Ottawa's decision. We're now joined by tal Of Nurmahammad,
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Heritage Minister, Melissa Lansman, the Deputy Conservative
leader, and Gore John's, the NDP critic for mental health and harm reduction.
Hello to all three of you. Hello, mister Murmahammad. I'll get
you to start us out here, because you know, not only are you
a parliamentary secretary, but you're also a Vancouver Airy MP. I hear the
Prime Minister say that it was only last Friday that the full paperwork was submitted.
But as you know, the province, your province was asking for this
scale back a week before that. So how will you explain that delayed timeline
to the voters in your writing? I think, first of all, it's
important to note what exactly this is about. This is about a pilot project
that the NDP government asked for several months ago. We acceded to that request.
They asked for that to be amended. We've acceded to that request,
and it's very important to understand that they made the request the specifics of the
request were received on Friday. That's what we were responding to. And so
now the real issue is to make sure that in this conversation we use a
science based, fact based approach rather than misrepresenting the facts. The fact is
that this program was put in place to save lives. The effort was made
by the Province of British Columbia. Now, there were other things that were
needed to be done alongside the decisions that were made around treatment, all of
those different important pillars, But the fact is that the reason for this was
to make sure that the fentanyl deaths that were happening as a result of unsafe
drugs in people's hands, that those were mitigated. The reality is that you
can't help people who have already died, and so the objective of this program,
as the BC government requested and noted, was to try and save lives.
They have recognized that there are challenges they came to us with this request.
That request has been met, ms Lands, But what do you say
to that, Because I hear your party hit the federal government on this one
hard. But at the end of the day, this is a program that
BC, as a provincial government wanted to try out with the intent of saving
lives. This is an ideological crusade by this government to legalize smoking, crack
smoking, meth, shooting up in playgrounds in public places. It is responsible
for the death of twenty five hundred British Columbians last year forty thousand since this
government came into place. This will go down as one of the most insane
policies that the government enthusiastically supported and then waited eleven days with some weird explanation
about when paperwork was done to turn back. Even the radical NDP NBC decided
that this was too radical for them, and the Prime Minister today could not
disavow decriminalization. So we want to know what he believes and what he's going
to do next and where mister Johns, what's your take of it, because
you have the two sides right there beside you, on the one hand arguing
that this is for an effort to save lives, the other saying that it
just doesn't make sense if you want to save lives. Well, first of
all, my heart goes out to all the victims and the families of the
loved ones that have died to this tragic crisis, and as we know,
in a health crisis, incrementalism cost lives, and the Liberals have taken a
slow approach in terms of responding to this health emergency. They still haven't declared
a national public health emergency. The conservatives disinformation also costs lives. I mean,
it's completely false that decriminalization is the cause of the toxic drug crisis or
the reason people are dying. We've heard from police that they wanted some tools
to be able to deal with public drug use, but they also said that
criminalizing people causes more harm and they don't want to go back to it.
We can look to Alberta where they don't have decriminalization, where they don't have
a safer supply. Now, as of today, when we saw the release
of the BC Corners report, that Alberta now has the highest death rate per
capita in the country. In fact, Lethbridge is triple that of British Columbia.
And they don't have decriminalization, they don't have safer supply. The things
that the conservatives like to cite when they point to the reason people are dying,
they're dying from poison drugs manufactured by organized crime. That is, according
to the police, to health officials, and this disinformation is harmful. It
creates more stigma and it creates a lot of hurt to the families of the
loved ones, when in fact, we need to come together, we need
to declare a public health emergency and have a robust debate how we move forward
together as a nation in the middle of this health crisis. It's important to
note, Michael that when this policy was requested by the government of British Columbia,
it was in partnership with the City of Vancouver, local police, local
law enforcement who came forward and said we support this. So when our government
looked at that request, we made the evidence based, science based decision.
And as Gore rightly pointed out, if you look at the magnitude the quantum
of deaths in a place like Alberta and the conservative government, the far right
conservative government in Alberta and Saskatchewan, the lives that are being lost there without
any openness to looking at ways to save lives. That speaks volumes for what
a paulf government would do, which is frankly, to put at risk more
and more and more Canadians and play politics with people's lives. We're not going
to do that. I think it's really important for Canadians to understand the rationale
for doing this, the rational for pulling it back, and the urgent need.
The urgent need to look at treatment of addictions, to look at safe
supply, to look at all of the elements and tools available in our arsenal
to make the right decisions in a four pillars approach to saving lives. Michael,
why don't you let me tell you what a pure paulf government do.
We will ban hard drugs, we will ban smoking crack in a hospital room,
we will ban shooting up in a playground next to schools, and we
will ensure that those who are affected by addiction get the treatment that they need.
We have two parties here arguing still the decriminalization is the way forward,
that these kinds of insane programs are the way forward, and we want to
make sure that to support healthcare, to keep funding, to tell us that
they won't do this elsewhere, that they wouldn't do this in Toronto, that
they wouldn't do this in Montreal. We have the right to know, and
Canadians have the right to know whether they believe in decriminalization or not. We
hear that Gored absolutely does, and we haven't heard the Liberals disavow legalization and
their failed experiment which has killed thousands of people and diverted drugs. It kills
thousands every year and it kills six people a day. Took them eleven days
to tell Canadians that this was not a plan that they were going to go
forward and they still can't say that it's not something that they're going to go
forward with in Toronto and Montreal and how effects and anywhere else? That asks
Ms Lensman if and this is picking up on what we heard from mister John's.
If the Vancouver police are in favor of trying a pilot program, if
the city the provinces, why not allow them to try to save lives best
they can by trying something different rather than just the status quo. The pilot
program has failed again. Even the radical NDP BC government who has been for
this, has come crawling to ask the Liberals to go back on this failed
experiment. We want to know if the federal government is in favor of decriminalization.
It's clear that the answer is yes, because it's not no, and
we want to know that if they're going to expand this program to places like
Toronto in Montreal. Canadians have a right to know that. Mister Murmuhammad,
how would you answer that question? Is the government prepared to expand this program
and try other pilots? Well, Miss Landsman is entitled her opinions, but
not to her own facts. What are the facts? The facts are the
Province of British Columbia, alongside the City of Vancouver and the VPD and other
law enforcement came forward and said we would like to try this. We reviewed
the application, we accepted their request. They came back and said, look,
this isn't working in the form that it's in right now. We said,
that's what you want, we will remove we will we will accede to
that request and we will grant the request that you've got. Those are the
facts. We are a science based, evidence based government. When provincial governments
come to us, regardless of their political stripe, with things that they would
like to try to save lives, we are going to assess those and evaluate
them on their merits. Ms. Lantskin can make Lantsman can make up whatever
narrative she would like, that's up to her. But the facts are the
facts, and what we have done and we will continue to do is to
do everything that we can in our power to save lives. How you are
so, you are well. You are open then as a government to try
this pilot elsewhere. What we have said and what we will continue to say
is if there are means that are brought forward that are evidence based, with
the backing of the relevant authorities, with the backing of the relevant data,
that show that we can save lives in this urgent moment in our history where
people are dying from toxic drugs, we should be open to looking at what
the science says, not making ideological decisions a misnumbered urgency. And again back
to urgency. What we're not seeing from this federal government is treating this as
a health emergency. They've spent less than one percent of resources that they applied
to COVID nineteen, yet we've lost more lives in my home province of British
Columbia. The province of BC's looking for a federal partner. We can look
at what the Conservatives will do when we look to Alberta at Saskatchewan, where
it's a disaster. The death rates from toxic drugs are skyrocketing. Their single
focused policies are a complete failure. And we look at even north to Alaska,
their death rates grew forty five percent a Republican state last year, and
that isn't a state that has safe supply or harm reduction or decriminalization. So
we've got to get away from this policy that British Columbia, it's decriminalization policy
or safe supply is responsible for what's happening. What we need is to scale
up rapidly treatment on demand, prevention, recovery education, and we need to
stop criminalizing people for using substances. Something we've heard loud and clear from both
the police and from health professionals, and we need to listen to them.
We know the Conservatives don't believe in evidence and they don't believe in listening to
the experts. But mister, mister John, how do you respond then to
the point that was being made by Ms Landsman here that British Columbia itself is
pointing to a failure and as a result is scaling back. Does that not
point to underlying problems with this program overall? I think with a trial,
you have to listen to the public and you have to be willing to adjust.
They heard loud and clear from the police that they needed to make sure
that they had tools to move people along, but they said only in extraordinary
circumstances what they arrest people. They also unequivocally clear they do not believe criminalizing
people who use substances will help. They said those days are gone, quote
right from the President of the BC Chiefs of Police. We need to listen
to them, and what we're doing is encouraging the provincial government and the federal
government to do just that. But Alberta and Saskatchewan they don't want to listen
to anybody. Their single focus is costing lives. Look at Lethbridge, they
close safe consumption sites and now their death rates are triple that of British Columbia.
What we need is the federal government to get on board open more safe
consumption sites. That's a call to action by the chiefs of police, by
the way, to make sure that people don't die when they're using substances and
they use them safely. And we've only had one death, you know,
in over a decade of safe consumption sites, so we know that they're important,
but they're also an important tool. So that people aren't using in public,
especially people that are marginalized or homeless, and Miss Landsman, you know,
is there a danger here that your party's leaning into much on criminal law
and not focusing enough on a health issue. Look, I think that it's
very clear, and Canadians have been very clear. British Columbians have been very
clear. It's exactly the reason why the BC government asked this government to stop
their insane project. People are dying. There are needles in soccer fields being
picked up by parents before their kids play. There is meth being smoked and
blown in the face of nurses in hospitals, which does not happen in Thornhill.
It happened in BC because you gave them a carve out to allow that
to happen. I'm sitting between two politicians that want to see more taxpayer drugs,
which we know have been diverted. We know that the Vancouver Police the
fifty percent of what they've seized from safe supply or unsafe supply as we would
call it, are from the hands of diverted drugs that end up in schools
with young people. Pharmaceuticals is nominal what they're getting, and I think that
both of these who want the criminalization go forward are going to pay for it
when they have to explain that to their constituents, who clearly want to see
something else. That the can unequivocally clear that the diversion of safer supply is
not what's killing people. It is toxic fentanyl. They've repeated that over and
over again, that pharmaceuticals is nominal at best, and hydromorphone is just a
fraction of that, never mind a version of them. To sit here,
it is okay in the schools, and it's not people nobody wants to see.
But that is well, this is exactly this is. But this is
exactly you know. Uh, the Conservatives failed to listen to the experts.
Even the Law and Order party will refuse to listen to the police themselves.
No, I go back to I go back to. UH. For those
of you that are watching the show, I would encourage you to read what
Ben Parent, who is a senior advisor to Stephen Harper, had to say.
Ben is one of the strongest advocates for taking the approach that says,
first of all, don't criminalize addiction, don't treat people who have a health
crisis who have a health challenge as criminals. He has been out there advocating
for an intelligent, thoughtful approach. Now, what we did is we looked
at BC's approach. BC's request, We agree to that request. They came
back and said there are challenges, we want this to be changed. We
accepted their request. What we have to be asking our as a country is
are we prepared to do things to save people's lives? Are we prepared to
look at science? Let me let me jump in, Let me jump in.
I'm sorry to interrupt it quickly running out of time, you know,
we have less than a minute here, So I want to go down the
line here, beginning with you, mister Normahammad. What what do you want
Canadians to do right now? Exercise patients be more critical at this point in
the debate. What do you want Canadians to do in reaction to this?
It's very simple, you know. I think Canadians need to look at the
facts. The facts are that BC made a request, We acceded to that
request. They came back. They said the pilot program that they had designed
didn't work as well as they would have liked. They wanted us to pull
back from that they wanted our permission to pull back. We've granted that.
But what I would like Canadians to be able to do is to think about
all of the tools available in our arsenal to deal with the opioid crisis.
To think about the question of how we address tainted drugs, all of the
challenges that we are seeing, and that's why we've put money forward to support
law enforcement in this effort. That's why we've put money forward into the healthcare
system, and we're going to keep working with provinces, who, by the
way, are the jurisdiction responsible for these challenges, to work with them to
ensure that we are saving lives across the way. Regardless of political party,
we have to be looking at the important work of saving lives and ensuring public
safety at the same time. Miss Landsman, same question to you. Well,
we are going to advocate for no taxpayer funded drugs that end up in
the hands of those who abuse them, and we want to make sure that
those who are afflicted by addiction get the treatment that they need and not more
taxpayer funded drugs. We want to hear from the Liberals an unequivocal denunciation of
the failed decriminalization policy of the failed legalization of smoking, crack and meth in
hospital rooms and finding needles because people are shooting up in parks next to kids.
It's very simple, are you against it? And if you're not against
it, when are you going to approve it? For Toronto, for Montreal,
for Halifax, and for anyone that asks, they should be able to
It's a simple, well, yes or no question. And what we didn't
hear on the panel today is that okay, and mister John's final word to
you. It's a health issue and they need to declare a public health the
national public health emergency. They need to rapidly work with the provinces and territories
and scale up treatment on demand, prevention, education, recovery and scaling up
safer supply of substances and stop criminalizing people. Also, they need to reinstate
the Expert Task Force to give the government expert advice, oversight and accountability.
And lastly have a first Minister's meeting. We had an auto theft summit,
but we haven't had a summit on one of the most deadly health crisis in
the history of our country. It's actually unbelievable not saying that auto theft isn't
an important issue, but this is clearly a much more important issue to all
Canadians. Okay, well, that is the time that we have a child
near Mohammed Melissa Lanceman, gorg Johns. Thank you. It's good. N
Governor Derevan mayor, service public down the mount a new continue on the libreala
service paule Canadia, a protege largent the country, sir se manejective Mama le
langer, the ebred down, the guvernment a down not service public sniper in
Martia, the negotia vac les Sandika Snipper, don les antain vac les Sandika,
Sir sit in this sision via the service public Le department elografier a o
c cit enchange mar the bourges, the de troj parks man at parks Man,
don't unper continue the Travai area in hybrid. He will see see to
a transition period the transition he see Leon von Travai, parks Man, this
isn't no dick, Sir Snipper, don't lose us Avec santi car see to
this sision. Let's sit to a young iybrid see to a key rested avec
MP the supply and confidence just be vi pari ve mp d s lordis de
seur I mean new Continuan the travai vecle san dieca ibec veca to Lemont to
les party renand poor like Canadian Canadian not rebu a mona abstractive com president,
the tra the cons and the continue the libre le service poor la Canadian Canadian.
Another one the mayor service public don le Mont city in change more uh
the com g d the de jour parks man are the tju parksman don't sas
city in situation no new Continuan darvois in a viral mont ibrid do not do
not service public just Kensoni whom dave cast politic who sees sela like. The
decision is fast down the sector co the sussiding decision carestvac les public in the
department lavelet acre more focused s not service for the Canadian Canadian. The news
are s per continuit theliver less service a protege large the country. There not
economy. There about excres about going back to work in the office three days
three days a week. They wanted to go back to two days a week
to be physically in the office. Thank you for the question. The most
important thing is to continue to deliver services for Canadians and to protect taxpayer dollars
and at the same time to recognize that we do have the best public service
in the world. The change that is contemplated by the Department, who executed
this change with the purp of the Privy Council is to work is to move
from two to three days per week to three days per week. So the
hybrid model continues to exist. A hybrid work environment continues to exist. There
is for many people a four month transition period and managers are going to be
required to be in the office four days per week. And so all of
that is within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada and it's executed by the
departments. And I will say that a hybrid work environment is not within the
collective agreements. It is something that at the time of negotiations, the Government
of Canada retained prerogative over to determine the scope of the hybrid environment. Thank
you about ques concerns about the building space. Obviously they need more support.
What else are you going to do to help bring down the grocery prices and
provide them some service. The grocery Code of Conduct that that's the number one
priority. I spoke again to the leadership of Blah Laws and told them in
no un certain terms, that's what Canadian expect. So all the pressure now
is on the grocery Code of Conduct. That's the best way to really had
more balanced and fair. When you talk to the independent grocer in the country,
they say today the way the market is structured with three companies which basically
control fifty percent of the market, their voice is not heard. So we
need to have a rebalance. And I've been very clear to them there will
be a code of conduct one way or the other. So we let the
industry process go. But like I said, we need to have something otherwise
we would be having to look at legislation to make sure that we achieve with
consumers and Kennin expect. So party political party fundraisers, do you think that
they are transparent enough? Could the government go forward? Well, I'm not
sure how they could be more transparent. I mean, everything I do there's
cameras, and there's journalists and there's people, so it is public. Everything
that I do is public. Everywhere I go there's journalists or there's people,
and there's videos and there's pictures. So the Ethics Commissioner says that the government
could if they wanted to go further and the best practices around lobbying and those
fundraisers, they could extend, make it the law and apply to opposition leaders
and opposition well, I think if the opposition wants to follow our leadership,
that would be welcome. I think Canada is one of the most transparent laws
that I know of, at least when it comes to the fundraising. I
do know that as the Liberal party, we have some of the most transparent
rules, and yes, it'd be a good thing if the others want to
follow suit in what we're doing here in the country. Another one by Japanski
sivida the compass when you always see the Grand bank the folks as fast as
the Laban coins netflix to be thin, mellow movement, the vaison littleicon for
us and partly development, not contrast say the land Simlan marriage and announcement jistra
prize per compa grand bank vers last judiqui lib preto confess conti the commody,
theo pill see the maintenir and certain so good with then some of the maintenant
price by focally country s contra to the new state Travis unpack your don't from
the Travai tammishpasker, the darvoi nom, theo jo bureau, system of worker
down dumin down. This is for the more talking about that normal have I
deposits et just names swift, but swift mon se Borda the company our company
s plus nigdot six chaps bad bat. The cond leads Fanance and can make
such short le ministry response reps. You see the most let's see, let's
do the s very governor piv mame just can man and dus the negotier man.
The log lock dal respe dally is a command mark on the robbers.
Why live one not fer sector your to Jo said, looking men the objective
come. She put you the chance the work to Saturday times. The con
could come over to the Alan Francis. It's not quite los Caro. This
did to the angle Erma lash like pacidic is the person Frances quality, but
the mefaked to day Anna le spasm the experience person she knowew Alferance Almazon to
d France Almson spars pork sermon. Does JEP impacts it says it should does
not? Lands most famous, it's okay to spars book on all the two
up or they found the fifth process. So certainly when they take your medium,
there's a that's a context to us personal two leads they founder and on
the book be the exff in person for example the passing in period and knows
and now do that maybe in ver state was posted the new wife of fund
if tax and young yourself? Why is the public sac back to worry to
talk about why it's important for public sector workers to be next week? Do
you want me to look at visit? No, sorry, you were asking
me, well, why what don't you please say why public sector workers to
be in the office for three days? Well, I think what I was
saying is that if you look at at the number of companies in the country,
whether it's banks, whether it's enturance company or more and large a number
of companies in the country, I think people have brought back and their employees
for you know, a couple of days in the office. I think it's
important also for the culture that you're trying to develop. But that needs to
be done in the within the context of uh, you know, accommodating those
there will always be special cases. We brought a lot of people in different
regions of the country, so making sure that we can be accommodating those who
need to be accommodated, making sure that we bring people for a number of
days, and at the same time doing that, We're going to work with
the unions as we always do to make sure. But I think if you
want to build a culture, you need to bring people together from time to
time. Set on the tagere the psalm flag of parts and them and skid
the the functional to seek left in the start and customers up. Memore the
minside gramm minister like the media must prom the very mail function right and really
what ConA f and as men are adapted he adopted man, yeah, appropriately
and functioning Consyder three's just another monk Netflix the nouvelle links Chris, he looks
that on Sati and Felix is becoming. Then pascaliundre nostre is on that what
isgn kids you know they can really places becomes so the bigger the confider exists.
I said, con look, come in in pass your part country going
up the fly they fed the kid for the costom showing dispute the kid,
but fed the fire the one they bruce. That's up. Well, look
what I think we've got to described as back work. The people who would
work back back to the office. I love this. It's being taken by
the seven Service to serve the office, pans of departments to serve Canadians prey
downs office and the Public Services determined that this is required in order to maximize
the performance that the government a lot of the Canadians. Then I think it
makes sense. But this is an operational decision, not a potable one,
and I think it's important that we listen to the advice of those who are
running the system from the clear. Yes. Sorry, Look, generally speaking,
I think transparency and all things is a good thing unless there's some national
perative around security, coal propriety or other factors. When it comes to our
politics and where people raise money, I think transparency is generally a good thing.
I think Canadians deserve to know a that they can participate in the democratic
process within the rules that are set, but b that the Canadians will understand
where political parties are raising their money, what interests made me informing physicians as
the party stake in a democracy. The transparent doesn't work with that transparency and
Canadians deserve to know who's funding the campaigns of all parties. Excellent, thank
you noon, that's almost save up on that much as young as on a
scay Saints going to banks. So yeah, pad on the road they pad,
so I'm gonna sacree or Tom Smith President most propole most work that this
is young like the praise from Shai, the o from Snai the Giant he
pulled at the end of the part of Man the Cornelli, the just Snai
to the casual person Man say see thee Skre in Nedew Marco Books for Refined
Virtually Young, You're a prosposition of Apollo exposition of praise must black, sir,
which we uh day degrees that the Mountain Who Committee excuse because kick Kick
kicks Quebec proposing manders in the shows the Johnando marial A party in study they
found Frances she and there's academic pro poke with the zipp tem Silly Sound VX,
the instrument Exclusive promos Sender Manmands Party and Medissa Party. It was in
March, but Acadaic propokeing withal mop planymity and the concretion of the left purposes
and la pose like a sa compared with the vancomte excuse me see silly person
so some person s person some instution excuse that's something that is quebec with VX.
Just the propos come out possibly shows who was partic don't know silly do
person being so do les parf come attack he blessed, doorga sillly do m
B and sour bessage excuse report to pocis la dame and the see on extra
pos exactly the found Alan Francis. She suited maybe okay before many person now
exactly she PoID the communication of your person problem to non p person when you
do persons of webs sur he some vex perscu excuse nothing man like okay because
up now she quite so she put romantically come to present the dova, the
committee perman and the unanimity the community key you see phone is it to mess
present like what the party lastem compared with the com determenter and repose like a
just cont hans message. No let's start massage said please so the low if
this aglophone the consume that stuff ounds vannic and ugly, varnicle premier and ugly,
varic and ugly, the person and age and ugly. But it's a
key disc come well, Wash agrees Christian anglophon fan can not anglophone no stip
sur like Y didn't the compte u determinate party. I can don't the money
jointed the mona comb on the government and of the she probably was aim and
cat pology of my immediate match. Partis what I wanted to give it.
Actually the problem I feel a deep and actually done deeper in order to maximize
ye here because this maself okay, make supposing this case actually in your names
your problem context point. That's not the rock exactly because the perks blood so
the superstage if the readom, it's because the piece numb that the new letter
country you convince over the redom s B. God used to do that a
porpula that you macop give part h Q showed of spread brand anymore. Every
part is your conc partter coromotive love for Selt Company, France travel and b
the premier governs the France. The name be from one city of the country.
Fry what modern easy present partly or commented lands the man who will help
speed not that's more commenci and plays down the new it's p system of conversation
le Quebec and the litery fundraisers headlined some of them. Do you think there's
enough for all parties in terms of being done in terms of transparency? You
know that lobby's attend them. There's coda, there's a best practices in terms
of making sure there's no sort of perceived perceived look that lobbyists are getting sort
of any sort of preferential access. Is there more than used to be done
when it comes to transparency. Look, it's important for people to follow the
rules and for lobbyists to follow the lobbyist registry. I think it's all the
way back when Minister Gold was Minister of Democratic Institutions that we change the rules
related to fundraising. Media is invited. I haven't seen many media at the
fundraisers that I've hairded. So you're you're welcome to come and join us and
see what happens to these fund raisers is like arousing speech, some some food
and then people go home. So I haven't looked at those rules. I
follow those rules and they're working. From my perspective, I spent called the
large seal a prais la champ aintzik and tell the leader the chef Delta Sasit
and propos Spasco Siki Spaso Committee on Committee and Bunny sud the stitude policy temper
robust. A writer then was escorted after I wasn't there. What do you
think about I wasn't there. I wasn't there. I can comment, I
wasn't there. Support ectly misstander's role is see contre the regular, the university,
the did but La sent to university, the paracular police locale, the
Determini Army Madelefander jule Season complement son La on the the di reclar university in
his own and sus the security legal conference, the press dig The part of
Canada command is solo campus in anti sim is so compus Canada. Study this
people people, Sir for cost Cane, so Les Martel come from escape.
You see that for this, sirs, not down the minute shoulders so it
can security people is the qui. Yeah, did work in the retrospect in
certainly mentally accomplished, Yeah, directly directly respects respected, on the Kennedy what
if you've got down a paid security it's a k what just this is only
the point price miss City, certain media, Wellington. So do you want
to do you want to go back to English? And how okay? Thy
thanks everyone the grocery. Are you concerned the way you try to get them
to gill In cathel Sismantle is one of the witnesses of the Justice Committee hearing
on Anti semitisim too. I see as I have said, like in my
statement about that peaceful protests are really very important and these students are really concerned
about what's happening in Gaza. Now we are seeing that people like Rapha is
not even a safe place, like people were told to leave North to Center
to hand Urness and now in Rapha, so there is no safe place in
Gaza. So they have moved three times already. Will what do you think
that where will they move? There are six hundred thousand kids in Rapha.
People aren't moving, like about one hundred thousand people have got evacuation orders,
but there is no place for them to go. They are putting up tents
by the shows. Understand you're concerned about that situation. That is that is
what is like, should this person be tested before parliamentary committee if he's involved
for him which is based allegations about anti semitism, we should have been testifying
about anti semitism when there are concerns about some of the rhetoric that has been
said and has been going on at that camp See. The thing is that,
like everyone has a right to protest in a peaceful manner, and based
like who comes out as a witness, I think like that the justice,
like the committee, like the members of that. I leave it up to
them to see who will be the like witnesses. But I think it's important
that peaceful protests should be allowed, and it should be it is against the
Charter of Rights and Freedom. And at the same time everyone should feel safe
on the campuses. As a mother, my son has studied at McMaster,
so it is very very important that we make sure that people have a right
to peaceful protests. It's leg See. The thing is that, like there
needs to be a dialogue between what these students are asking and the universities.
So the people need to sit down and I'm a dialogue men. We can
resolve many things on the table. The City of Ottawa has canceled a ceremony
that they've had for many years to market Israeli Independence Day because of security said,
do you think that they should have done that? So we have seen
rise in anti semitism, we have seen rising on famobia. So this is
not what Canadians are I think canceling therapies it has a security friendly way to
make sure that I think it's real. It's really it's really very important that
everyone's right at productive and at the same time we need to make sure that
like we have to do the balance, like everybody's stages and victimized for seeing
what's happening at McGill University. One of the lawyers who was involved in trying
to get the McGill and Canton's dismantled is one of the witnesses that the Justice
Committee hearing on anti semitism. Are you concerned about that? I think it's
protest is a h I think it's a student. This is a part of
our democracy, a freedom of expression and freedom of speed. I think it's
a it's it's a fundamental right of an individual in in our democracy, and
but it has to be within limits. I personally think so I don't know
how they're how they came up with this, so I don't have that many
in depth information on that, but you know, but it turned with the
lawyer who's been involved in this very contentiously. Look, universities have their own
rules and they know how to deal with these things. So I have full
confidence that they will be dealing with it accordingly because we have We had written
letter to twenty seven university president. They responded to that that how they're dealing
with the anti Semitism and is samophob yees, But they have ruler and I
think that's how fully confident they will be dealing with the right way, okay
to these issues. All right, thank you so much, Thank you so
mister Anderson. I understand you want to make some statements on the Hill Times
Eric those three sure. Look, I think the content of those articles,
that particular article is absolutely incorrect. We will pass the time where the pedow
Garment makes decisions. You know only what we have with see fifty three.
It's a collaborative effort between the three making nations. We will continue to have
discussions with them and any decisions on the future. See if your three will
be in collaboration with the making of this time, you're going to be something
that's going to be all the work rate. I did a discussion and that
will lead to a decision that we can all agree on. So just to
clarify that was it was Bill SI fifty three discussed at cabinet yesterday or options.
I can't talk to the cabinet confidentiality as you know, so it's possible
it was. Is there a decision that going to be making on this or
any kind of announcement we can expect from you. We're having discussions. We
will continue to have discussion with the mating nation of Ontario the matination of our
birds on next steps making Saskatchewan have outlined their position on this, so we
will in collaboration with with these two making governments, will be making acre already
built. You know, it's steps if we haven't had a dict on it,
so we will wait further before you before sorry with respect to the House,
still it came back from with some moments. It hasn't been debated further
on third reading. Once we have a decision, we will figure out what
the next step is if it's a debate or if it's someone's off show.
So it's not dead farm. Well, I think I'm answering the question,
thank you. And yeah, we've seen women's organizations call on Canada's major banks
to take action on husband's partners using these transfers to target other spouses, just
like the industry did in Australia the United Kingdom. If no action is taken
by the banks, is your government prepared to get involved? David? We
have been involved when it comes to intimate partner violence for some time now.
And what I really want to reiterate here is this problem but so many others
as well. We have a national action planned to end gender based violence and
people say, well, that's just a title, and I say, the
title includes the word end, and we mean it. This is a five
hundred million dollar program. But even forget about the price, Tay, I
want to talk about the difference it's making. This is something that is being
done in collaboration with provinces and territories. We had to work out agreements.
Every province in territory has signed on. Quebec has a different deal. And
basically organizations, grassroots organizations are benefiting from these moneies, the women that you're
talking about. But no, no, no, but I would just say
the women that you're talking about here, there are organizations on the ground that
are supporting because of this money. Provinces as well are able to support because
of this money. But will your government get involved with the Bandstone Act?
This is something that we'll have to look at. Obviously, and I've said
before everything is always on the table, but this is something that we'll look
at. I just really wanted to bring home the point that this is not
just top of mind, but priority for our government when it comes to intimate
partner violence, when it comes to gender based violence, we know that women
across this country have been hurt in so many ways, and those that would
perpetuate this violence find different ways to do it as we're seeing here. So
you say your government will look at it, what does that mean. Are
you're going to be meeting with the banks? Are you going to be monitoring
the situation? Like? What are you going to be looking for? As
I said before, David, this is a cross government approach that we're talking
about. And as you know, you would know the leavers that I have
with regards to being the Minister of Women in Gender Quality and Youth. So
this would mean talking to my colleagues about this and coming together and then making
decisions forthwith. Thank you, thank you so much, thank you. The
show has been produced by Depictions Media. Please contact us at depictions dot media
for more information.