Bill C-22 Unconstitutional? John Carpay Breaks Down Canada's Most Dangerous Surveillance Bill!

Añadido: 2026-05-27

[00:00:01]I want to be very clear about what C-22 is not.

[00:00:04]It is not about the surveillance of honest, hard-working Canadians going on about their daily lives. It is, [clears throat] however, about keeping Canadians safe in the online space.

[00:00:16]It ensures that law enforcement can obtain timely, lawfully authorized communications or information when they need it, and only from select electronic service providers.

[00:00:35]Finally, finally people are talking about Bill C-22. It's about time, and even tech companies are complaining about it.

[00:00:45]Welcome to the Political Orphans. My name is Nico LaHood, and tonight I'm joined by the president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, John Carpay, to speak about the legal implications of Bill C-22. John, always a pleasure to have you on.

[00:01:01]Glad to be with you and with your viewers and listeners.

[00:01:05]So, we're going to talk about what Gary said in a moment, especially from a post that they made online.

[00:01:14]But, first, I want to speak about Big Tech. What do you think about Big Tech companies like Apple and Meta publicly saying that creating backdoors into their system will weaken their security.

[00:01:33]>> [gasps] >> When people who are directly affected, which includes these companies, I mean, ultimately it includes all 40 million Canadians as well. But, when the big companies are saying this legislation is going to weaken our own security, I mean, this is what's in the bill is that the federal government can force private companies to set up their internal systems. I mean, that's pure socialism. It's it's state regulation.

[00:02:03]Bear in mind that these companies already are highly motivated to keep everything secure. If you know, a big giant meta, Apple, Telus, Rogers, if if any of these large companies, if they don't properly do their job of protecting the confidential information of millions of people, the customers will be horrified. They will leave, right? You pick one of them.

[00:02:32]You pick any any one of those companies.

[00:02:34]If they screw up, people will say they will lose confidence. They will go elsewhere. And so these these companies are already motivated, you know, in the same way that you would not want a federal or provincial law requiring store owners to say "Hello, good day, please and thank you."

[00:02:51]to their customers. I mean, they're they're already doing that. They're already motivated. It would be foolish to to pass that kind of a law. But this is not just foolishness of my hypothetical law of of forcing store store owners to be polite to their customers. This is much worse because the federal government's going to force these companies to to structure in in the way that the government wants and which we know the track record of government. It it's it's dysfunctional. It performs poorly because bureaucrats get paid the same amount of money whether they do their job well or not. It's the same salary. There's no motivation there. There's no motivation that the taxpayers are going to go to the competition because there is no competition, right? If the government screws up, taxpayers, they have to keep on paying taxes. You can't go to court and say, "I'm not paying taxes anymore because the government is wasting my money and is screwing it up and and, you know, misallocating, misspending."

[00:03:50]The court will say, "Well, I'm sorry then, you know, vote for a better party next time, but you still have to pay your taxes. So, this is just insidious, uh particularly interesting signal says that they will have to withdraw from Canada if we if the parliament passes Bill C-22.

[00:04:08]Well, that we going to talk about it for a second, but that's why I separated Apple and Meta from other companies because we're talking also about some of the biggest corporations on the planet.

[00:04:20]Like, don't be fooled. Apple and Meta are massive, massive corporations. But, one thing we that that needs to be addressed, and this is something most Canadians don't realize, but at the end of the day, Apple and Meta don't care about your protection. Like, they care about the safeguard of their own infrastructure because if you understand the technology, basically, Bill C-22 is asking them to create a backdoor within their system, meaning they're opening a door to a third-party to take advantage of it, to be hacked.

[00:04:53]So, they don't want that to happen. It has nothing to do with them providing your information to governments because Apple does it all the time with the US government, does it all the time with the UK government. They do share personal data information of their users. They just don't want the government to be involved in their systems because at the end of the day, it's their technology. They spent a billions of dollars in it.

[00:05:24]And also, let's be very honest, they do use the metadata. They use our metadata when we are on their network already.

[00:05:33]They just don't want to give that information directly to the government. But, as you said, Signal is a very different story.

[00:05:40]Nord VPN is a different story. Wine Windscribe, I don't know if you heard what they said, but I have I'm going to quote them here, but Signal said they would rather pull out of the country than to be compelled to compromise on the privacy promises we have made to our users. NordVPN said they would consider leaving Canada if the bill requires them to compromise its privacy protection. But the best one of all of them has to be Windscribe. They said, "We pay an ungodly amount of taxes to this corrupt government, and in return they want to destroy the entire essence of our service to basically spy on its own citizens. Not happening.

[00:06:29]We'll move HQ and take our taxes elsewhere."

[00:06:35]What do you think about companies like Signal, NordVPN, and Windscribe that seems to be speaking up for us, the little people, the users, instead of just this defending their infrastructure like Meta and Apple are doing?

[00:06:55]Well, maybe the government will take that more seriously than the voices of ordinary citizens like you and me and the people who are listening and watching. I think it's fantastic that they are speaking out. I guess you could say, you know, maybe they should have spoken out louder, earlier. And maybe they did and it just wasn't registering. I I'm not judging them. Maybe they've been speaking out about this, you know, for for for weeks and weeks and it's only coming into the media, the the the mainstream, the government-funded media now.

[00:07:27]But um W- when these large companies are saying, "We're moving out of Canada for the sake of protecting our customers and and we want to keep our promise to our customer to protect their privacy. Bill C-22 is going to force us to break our promise to our customer, so we're moving out. Uh, you know, and and of course as a Canadian, I I don't like it if if a company is going to be pressured out of Canada by stupid laws. But, it's worse than stupid because this is a building block of the surveillance state.

[00:08:00]That's the problem. And just because you don't see effects immediately, right? If Bill C-22 is not amended in committee where it is right now, and if it gets passed into law, you might not see the difference in the first few days or weeks or even months, but the infrastructure is there to conduct more surveillance, maybe not total surveillance, but more surveillance.

[00:08:23]And it's such a departure from a long-standing principle that we have developed over centuries, which is to protect, to respect and protect both the the privacy and the property rights of individuals. That's the starting point.

[00:08:37]Now, if police having a legitimate interest in catching criminals and enforcing the law, if they want to violate the privacy or property, if they want to barge into your home and seize your computer because they have reasonable and probable grounds to suspect that you're dealing in child pornography or you're working on a terrorist plot to blow off the Parliament buildings, police can go to court and get a warrant, and that's how it should be.

[00:09:02]That's how it's been for centuries. So, we have this compromise that has has been working well with the starting point is we have privacy rights, we have property rights, we have a right not to be subjected to state surveillance, not police surveillance. You know, in the 1970s, some people said sometimes, well, we could catch a lot more criminals if police could listen in on everybody's telephone conversations. And sensibly, the majority felt like no. I mean, even if it's true that they could catch more criminals, which I'm I'm not sure of, this is not an excuse for saying that police should have access to everybody's telephone conversations in the name of fighting crime. And we see the same rhetoric now from the minister, oh we got to keep everybody safe.

[00:09:44]Safety, safety, safety.

[00:09:47]treacherous It's always that, huh? As Churchill said, uh those who trade freedom for safety deserve neither.

[00:09:55]Yeah. Well, I I hope Canadians can prove themselves to to be better and to rise above that standard because yeah, if you if you give up your rights and freedoms, uh then uh you know, for this false promise, then then yeah, you don't deserve the freedom or the security.

[00:10:14]What do you say to the Canadians out there that believe that because they have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about Bill C-22, Bill C-9, Bill C-8, a potential Bill C-63?

[00:10:29]Well, saying that you don't care about the government listening in on your phone conversations and and viewing your your texts, your emails, your internet searches, your AI searches, that's like saying uh I don't care about free expression because I have nothing to say.

[00:10:47]That misses the point. Maybe right now you don't have anything to say, but maybe tomorrow you will. And even if you have nothing to say, why would you not cherish that that freedom to speak freely without getting punished for expressing the wrong opinions, which is the hallmark of every repressive regime, whether it's uh fascist or communist or national socialist or theocratic, it doesn't matter what the external coating is. A repressive regime does not want you to say certain things, and so they will use the force of the state. So, freedom of expression is super valuable, even if you're somebody that's very quiet, you you you don't use social media, you don't write a letter to the editor, you still cherish, if you're smart, you still cherish freedom of expression. So, it's the same analogy.

[00:11:32]You could say, "Well, I have nothing to hide." Well, why would you You don't want your Would you be a Here's what I would say to Canadians who are skeptical.

[00:11:43]Would you be okay with your next-door neighbor knowing everything about you?

[00:11:48]How for How many texts per day you send and to whom and at what time and your emails, your internet searches, your AI searches? Do you want your next-door neighbor to know everything about you?

[00:11:57]And most people will know.

[00:11:59]I You probably don't even want your best friend to know everything about you, right? So, we have that sphere of privacy, which we need to function as human beings. So, that's why it's important to be free from the the the state surveillance even if you have nothing to hide. Why would you not cherish your own privacy?

[00:12:18]If you don't want your next-door neighbor to know everything about you, if you don't want your best friend to know everything about you, why would you be okay with the government knowing everything about you?

[00:12:28]The part that I find very ironic is that our government right now is going off camera during important House Committee and yet they expect us to share our information. They They want to have access to everything that we do, yet they work for us, not the other way around. And they get to turn off cameras whenever they feel like it because they now have a majority in all House Committees. This is the irony. Like, they don't even live by their own principles and they expect us not to question.

[00:13:03]Yeah, it's it's a sad state of affairs and I hope that uh I hope more people wake up before it's too late because once the surveillance state is fully in place, and Bill C-22 is a partial step towards that. It's not the full step. You would need another half dozen bills to do set up this and establish that and create this and open up certain doors and close certain doors. You would need another half dozen bills before we get into complete tyranny. But, you know, why why consent to even one bill that takes us in that direction?

[00:13:38]And the reality is, as we've spoken about you and I many times, it's a massive bill. Bill C-2, C-8, C-9, C-12, C-16, C-22, C-25, the new C-63 is are all part of the same bill. They're all interconnected. They call on each other.

[00:13:55]And that's the issue is that they knew that they couldn't pass one single bill. They had to pass multiple cuz it would have been way too obvious. But, in order for bill C-22 to make sense, you also need Bill C-8. Bill C-8 needs Bill C-22 in order to function. And they're all interconnected. And this is the thing that blows my mind about the so-called independent media in Canada and even the conservatives, they're not talking about this. They're not talking about all those bills being interconnected. They're really addressing them like they're just regular independent regular bills. Yet, Bill C-9 defines hate, so criminalizes emotions. Bill C-22 allows the government to record basically everything that you do, save it up to 1 year in case you said something because Bill C-9 has no limit of what you said online has no limit. And Sean Fraser made it very clear that what you Bill C-9 doesn't just apply in the real life in the real world, it applies online as well. So, Bill C-9 connects to Bill C-22. Bill C-8 allows the government uh allows the Minister of Industry to cut you off the internet and prevent telecommunication companies from selling you services because you're a threat to the telecommunication network.

[00:15:19]They would never have that information if Bill C-22 doesn't exist, they would have no way to call you a threat if Bill C-9 didn't exist.

[00:15:28]It's when you start looking at all those bills, why are people not connecting those bills together? Cuz I've been connecting them since Bill C-9 was tabled back in September, and we're still talking about Bill C-2.

[00:15:42]I think the reason why two things come to mind. One of them is that Canadians tend to have a lot of trust in government and that that stems in part from ignorance of history. If you study even a little bit of history informally, casually, you will know that in the 20th century more people were murdered by their own government, by state-sponsored genocide against ethnic minorities, against the wrong class under communism. So, you add up the the the tens of millions of people killed by the National Socialist tyranny in Europe, Mao's Communist China, the Soviet Union under Stalin, Cambodia under Pol Pot, and on and on and on.

[00:16:30]So, there's more people murdered than there are the number of soldiers killed on the battlefields, which of course is also is is tens of millions. So, if people understood history, they would understand that government is made up of people. People have a mixed human nature, a mixture of good and evil.

[00:16:47]We're capable of very good things, great acts of kindness, heroism, generosity, courage. People are also capable of great evil. So, government is is is a group of people and it can do even more good and even more harm than a single individual.

[00:17:05]So, people don't have they're ignorant of history. They don't have a healthy understanding of government's capacity for killing millions of people or simply enslaving them in a totalitarian nightmare like in communist China. If you criticize the government on Facebook, you will find yourself unable to board an airplane or take a bus or subway or a train.

[00:17:29]So, even if it's not genocide per se, you have you can have absolute tyranny imposed by government. So, the reason some people are not paying attention is they have this naive uh kindergarten level fairy tale understanding of government seeing only the good things the government can do like build some roads and bridges and you know, run uh court system, national defense. They see only the good things of government and they don't understand that >> [laughter] >> power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[00:18:04]To your point, this is a post that the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom made on X a few days ago where you highlighted that the Public Safety of Canada Department, so what Gary runs, got community noted on their post where they said that part two of Bill C-22 would not create new authorities for police and CSIS and would ensure electronic service providers have the technical capabilities to respond to court orders or warrants to get specific info to help an investigation.

[00:18:48]Readers added context they thought people might want to know. Bill C-22 may not formally create new warrant powers, but part two would impose new lawful access and technical capability obligations including metadata retention, privacy experts argue this expands the practical surveillance framework if warrant standards remained unchanged.

[00:19:16]How are people still sleeping on this when even X corrects the official account of the Public Safety Department of Canada.

[00:19:33]Now, it's it's disgusting.

[00:19:35]So, it's it's one it's it's a excessive unhealthy trust in government being God-like, being all good and and all wise and government can do no wrong.

[00:19:47]Therefore, you can give them as much power as they might want and that's okay because they're good and they're wise and they will never abuse the the power.

[00:19:55]Well, that that's simply naive. It's based on ignorance of history. The other big thing is that people So, people trust government too much and secondly, people are busy, especially in tough economic times. People are working hard to put food on the table. I I heard on the radio today and I have not researched this, but it was it was 10% of Canadians living below the poverty line and something like 20 or 30 or 40% finding it I living paycheck to paycheck. So, they're just narrowly getting by.

[00:20:30]Um so, I can that I have more sympathy for.

[00:20:34]They ignorance of history and having this naive trusting attitude excessive trust in government, I don't have sympathy for that. I do have sympathy for people who are so busy just trying to make make ends meet and put food on the table. They don't have time for politics because everything is work work work, earn money, look after the kids, barely keeping their head above water. Some people honestly don't have the time.

[00:20:59]But, there's 50 60% of the population does have the time and a lot of those people are naively having an excessive trust in government.

[00:21:11]Yet, the reason they're struggling is because of government policies. This is so ironic.

[00:21:16]>> There's no reason why we can't be the wealth if we if we start selling our oil and gas rather than buying into this claptrap that plant food is a pollutant, which is not. CO2 is not a pollutant.

[00:21:27]It's it's natural. Plants need it to survive.

[00:21:31]If if plants don't get their plant food, then everything else dies because meat eaters like like like us or or vegetarians for that matter, either way, everybody depends on on the plants. So, we've bought into this claptrap that mankind controls the weather, which is not true, and that plant food is a pollutant, which is not true. And on the basis of those lies, we have this well, we we have to shut down our oil and gas industry, so we're not building pipelines, we're not exporting to to Asia. The former prime minister told the German prime minister that there's no business case for natural gas to being sold to Germany.

[00:22:11]It it's so um I don't know.

[00:22:15]Truth is stranger than fiction. The claptrap that people will buy into is is astounding, amazing in a bad way.

[00:22:25]Especially considering that Canada produces less than 1%, arguably 1% of the world's CO2, yet we have one of the biggest forests in the world. So, So, if you take that into account, we probably create a world negative of CO2. This is the truth that they don't want you to talk about, but if we go back to I would I would I would slightly disagree. I I don't I don't think it's a powerful argument to say that we only produce 1% of the world's CO2 because if doing it is inherently wrong, if it's really killing the planet, if it's going to lead to a climate holocaust, then we should do our part whether we're producing 30% or 1/10 of 1%, that shouldn't make a difference.

[00:23:10]I think the more powerful argument is that plant food is not a pollutant.

[00:23:14]Mankind doesn't control the weather short-term or long-term. Uh we a thousand years ago during the medieval optimal, we had uh the the Earth was 4° warmer than what it was today. And now we're being told that if the if the world's temperature rises by 1.5%, this is some catastrophe, which it isn't. Uh in fact, uh when you have warmer climates, you have more agriculture and there's more places in the world where people can live and you have more prosperity. So, the global warming is is not a bad thing and we're not even close to coming to where we were a thousand years ago.

[00:23:52]There's a great book by now deceased Dr. Tim Ball. I don't know if you know the if you've heard of him. He's a I've heard of him.

[00:24:00]He was a climatologist. This book right here called uh human-caused global warming the biggest deception in history. If you guys have never read this, it's not a very long book. It's probably Yeah, it's 120 pages, but he shows how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC, which is the main driver of the data that supposedly were on a path to world end. He shows you how all the data that they have collected is wrongly collected and he speaks exactly about that. He shows you the charts how a couple uh not even a thousand years ago, it was warmer than it is now. And then guess what? We didn't have all the machinery that we have today. So, it's quite ironic. But I want to bring it back to Bill C-22 cuz I had a very interesting conversation today with a very trustworthy anonymous source. So, it was off the record, but he mentioned something that I found to be very very interesting when it comes to telecommunication companies, electronic service providers, and Bill C-22.

[00:25:12]He One of the questions that they're asking themselves is how are they going to pay for all of that equipment?

[00:25:18]Because in order to implement the metadata, most people don't understand because they don't know the technology, but they have to install what we in the business call sniffers. They need to install devices that would it de-encapsulate all of the traffic in order to look at the raw data to obtain the information that the government is looking for, re-encapsulate, re-encrypt that information, save it, store it for up to 1 year in case the government needs it. Those pieces of devices are and obviously extremely invasive to their customer data. But what he said was very interesting is that they are considering not complying because it would be cheaper to get fined than it would be to implement the equipment required to comply with Bill C-22. So that could potentially be the way electronic service providers get away with it is just, you know what?

[00:26:29]No, we're not going to install it. How are they going to know that it's installed or not unless they make a request?

[00:26:36]And then they might rather get fined because it's going to be a lot cheaper than paying for the equipment that the government is asking.

[00:26:47]I hear you. I hear you.

[00:26:49]Well, you know, non-compliance is sort of your your plan B. I mean, plan plan A has to be to to defeat the bad legislation and then uh But it's it's it makes me sad, you know, to see companies leaving Canada, not just because of uh Canadian economic nationalism, although, you know, that that's a component as well, but just that that uh these companies are saying publicly, we cannot keep our promise to our own customers to maintain their privacy and confidentiality if Bill C-22 uh comes into force.

[00:27:27]Uh Companies often they don't usually mm I I'm not saying we should have a naive trust in corporations anymore than we should have a naive trust in in government. But I I just find it hard to believe that, you know, the head of Shopify and we have Windscribe, uh NordVPN, Signal. You have these companies are saying publicly, we will pull out. Uh there is also uh senior American government officials um just looking at my notes here, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Brian Mast have written to Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree warning that Bill C-22 would drastically expand Canada's surveillance and data access powers in ways that create significant cross-border risks to the security and data privacy of Americans.

[00:28:21]So, >> [gasps] >> you know, why why poke the bear in the eye or maybe not a bear, but it's it's just so absurd to um to to to pass legislation that the United States are going to take some kind of retaliatory action uh in regards to that. You know, I don't even want to don't that looks like. And and they're let's face it, the fact is they're much more powerful than we are.

[00:28:49]They have 10 times the population, more than 10 times the wealth. So, >> [snorts] >> not smart. The other one, too, I don't know if you saw that, but ProtonVPN came out as well saying we'll defend our Canadian user and never compromise them.

[00:29:07]We will fight C-22 application by every means available. That was a comment by ProtonVPN general manager David Peterson.

[00:29:20]So, you are seeing those companies left, right, and center. And the only reason I was bringing up what my source was speaking about is it doesn't even need to be a moral decision. You can literally just say you don't even need to defend us if you don't want to. Like a Meta or a Napple, they don't have to defend us.

[00:29:44]But, they have a way to kind of get out of it just cost-wise. So, that's why I was bringing it up cuz I found that to be very interesting cuz they are talking about situations where they don't need to be moral defenders of us. I would much rather they would be as ProtonVPN, as Windscribe, as Signal, as NordVPN. But, let's be realistic here. They're They're most of those companies, if not all of them, are all about making money. Right?

[00:30:15]You know, if we get this bill defeated, I mean, that's that that that's the important thing, right? And different people will have different motivations. That's true for That's true for any bill, right? You could You could be against Bill C-9.

[00:30:26]Maybe you're coming from a religious perspective and you don't want to see your pastor or your rabbi or your Catholic priest locked up or or prosecuted criminally because they said that homosexuality is is sinful in the sight of God, right? But, you could come at Bill C-9 from all kinds of angles.

[00:30:45]The The important thing is the opposition, which unfortunately for C-9 was not strong enough and it's now before the Senate. Interesting point on Bill C-9, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has said that the Communist hammer and sickle should be banned as a hate symbol.

[00:31:01]And I think it's a fair comment. It is hatred towards capitalists. It's a hatred towards businessmen, towards capitalism.

[00:31:11]But you know, this is the This is the twisted thing about it. If Once the government says, "Well, we're going to ban the Nazi swastika and we're going to ban certain Hamas and Hezbollah their symbols, well, then, you know, why stop there, right? So, quite understandably, legitimately, you've got the Ukrainian Canadian Congress saying, "You should ban the Soviet hammer and sickle because it is also a hate symbol."

[00:31:39]And whether you say yes or no, you lose, right?

[00:31:42]Government shouldn't be banning symbols, you know, let let each let each person decide for themselves what's what's true or false, right or wrong, hateful or not hateful.

[00:31:52]And the funny part about the swastika is that Hitler stole it. It is a Buddhist symbol that's been around for thousands of years. He angled it. That's it. But if you look at old Buddha statue, I was a Buddhist for over a decade. The swastika is stolen. So, is it all It's not The swastika's not okay, but is the Buddhist symbol okay? Do you expect the same population that doesn't know the difference between right and wrong anymore to know the difference between the swastika and the Buddhist the original Buddhist symbol? The government should stick to what they do, fix roads, and they can even do that properly. So, that's how much extent the government needs to be involved in our lives.

[00:32:35]But one of the things Yeah, but they got to keep you safe. They got to keep you safe from this horrible Nazi swastika, but they don't have to keep you safe from the communist hammer and sickle. If you wanted to measure uh the number of people murdered under the banner of the of the Nazi swastika and the number of people murdered under the banner of the communist hammer and sickle, it's the latter where more people died. I mean, it shouldn't even really matter. Uh they're both very evil symbols, right?

[00:33:03]But, if you're going to ban uh if you're going to ban one, you ban both. But, then, you know, you start where where does it stop on on the symbols that you ban under this phony pretext of keeping us safe.

[00:33:17]So, in your opinion, do you think the bill Bill C-22 should be withdrawn altogether?

[00:33:26]Well, of course it should, but that's not realistic. What is realistic, however, is that if today, tomorrow, uh this week, you know, by Friday the 22nd, if Canadians contact their member of parliament and say uh vote against Bill C-22 or I will vote against you. And just keep it simple. Uh you would be amazed at how you'd be amazed at how few Canadians contact their MPs on on issues.

[00:33:54]Uh another piece of the puzzle the Justice Centre is delivering the petitions with the signatures of close to 50,000 Canadians. I think we're at 49,000 something, but we're we're getting more and more signatures. It'll probably probably be over 50,000 by Friday. We're presenting that to Minister Ananda Sangari on uh Friday in uh in Ottawa. Uh one of the members of our board of directors lives in Ottawa, so he's going to uh he's going to take charge of that.

[00:34:23]Good for them cuz I wanted to ask you. I definitely signed that petition.

[00:34:27]>> [snorts] >> But, you know, you and I last time you were on, we we were speaking about uh Bill C-9 and I was saying that the Conservative Party did not do enough to explain to regular Canadians what the problems were with Bill C-9.

[00:34:42]They really made it about religion when it had nothing to do with religion. A part of it was about religion.

[00:34:48]But the whole aspect of Bill C-9 was criminalizing emotions, deciding what is okay to be said and what needs to be have consequences, criminal consequences for for words. And that was my biggest problem is that instead of really hammering it to the average Canadian, they really focused on the religious aspect. So they dropped the ball. You didn't agree with me and that's great.

[00:35:12]That's why love to have you on. We always can have those debates and I think we're going to have another one right now. So what do you think about Bill C-22 when the Conservatives, all the comments that I'm hearing from the Conservatives right now are talking about amendments?

[00:35:27]I want that bill to be withdrawn as a whole. I don't care about amending it.

[00:35:31]That bill should not exist if I know for a fact coming from that world and it's still the case today. I confirmed it with my source that if the government, the RCMP, ceases, police needs information on a specific Canadian telecommunication companies will start tapping, if you will, if I can use the old school tapping your phone analogy, they will tap your internet in order to get the information that you need. But Bill C-22 is all about tapping everybody's internet, saving it in case the government ever needs it. So why, in your opinion, are the Conservatives still trying to amend the bill instead of really hammering it to Canadians that the whole thing is unneeded, unwelcomed because those laws are already in place and the government can already get access to that information if they have a court order.

[00:36:32]Well, two points. One is that there's a problem that some conservative MPs, apparently Frank Caputo, unless he's changed his mind in the last week or two, but he is the co-chair of the Public Safety and National Security Committee. And Frank Caputo, who I think is a very good man, uh last I heard was not opposed to Bill C-22, so that's a problem. And there's other conservative MPs.

[00:36:57]Uh the government has been very clever.

[00:36:59]They appeal to the law and order uh dimension and emotion, which is legitimate because Canadians are legitimately upset over uh murderers and rapists who are not even They don't even have to stand trial because 30 months have elapsed. And so, somebody accused of murder or rape, there's not even a trial taking place because more than 30 months have gone by because the uh prosecutors ostensibly are underfunded. Although, they have lots of money to go after uh Tamara Lich and Chris Barber on a mischief charge.

[00:37:33]So, there's a legitimate concern about public safety. There's a legitimate concern where people accused of very serious crimes are back on the street the next day awaiting trial rather than being locked up while awaiting trial.

[00:37:47]And so, when the government comes along and says, "Well, Bill Bill C-22, it's to help the police." And I've I've heard as well, and I apologize, I I haven't like everybody else, haven't had a chance to research everything, but I've I've heard that the uh some police associations are saying, "Oh, we need Bill C-22 for law enforcement." Well, that appeals to conservatives in particular, their law and order.

[00:38:11]So, there we need more conservative MPs to to oppose Bill C-22. In terms of why they're only proposing amendments, it's because they're in a minority situation, they don't have the votes to force a withdrawal.

[00:38:26]Now, amendments can work. One of the worst features of Bill C-9 was a feature to get rid of the review process whereby if the pros- if the police and prosecutors want to go after commence a hate speech prosecution, they need the permission of the justice minister of the province where that's taking place.

[00:38:45]And the Conservatives persuaded the Liberals to get rid of the provision that would have scrapped that review process. So, that was good. So, um I think the Conservatives the best they can do under the circumstances because Mark Carney has his treacherously acquired majority in Parliament. So, the only thing they can do with Mark Carney and his majority is to propose amendments and I don't think uh you can't expect the Conservatives to force a withdrawal when they don't have the votes.

[00:39:17]And I'm not in disagreement with you when it comes to that, but the point I'm trying to make is it goes back to what you were saying that you're very I don't know if you said surprised, but I'd be surprised or we'd be surprised how very few Canadians actually consult with their MPs.

[00:39:37]But can you imagine the Conservative Party with all the money that they make and all the influence that they have on Canada Life understood that you know what? Sure, because of the the corruption of this government that was able to obtain a majority through floor crossing and reorganize the House Committees, now they have no power. They have seven Liberal for every four Conservative and one block. So, there's nothing that they can do to prevent it from passing. Nothing. It's it's literally just a show now. But instead of trying to fight the government directly, imagine if they spent all of their time, all of their money educating Canadians like I do every day to say guys, this is what the real problem is with Bill C-22. Those are what you need to be worried about.

[00:40:23]This is why it's a problem because it connects to Bill C-8, it connects to Bill C-9, it will eventually connect to a new Bill C-63. The more the Conservative don't do their jobs of educating the public because that is their job. Their job is to show us what the problems are because I would happily do it if they would allow me to be in those house committees. I will point you out what all the problems are because unlike what seems to be our MPs, I read bills. But they don't seem to understand the bills they're debating. They don't seem to to even have the technology information. They don't have to have the knowledge. I'm a sales engineer by trade. I come from that world. I've eaten this stuff since I've been a young boy.

[00:41:10]They don't seem to understand very simple principle of telecommunication services and technology like AI. Yet and on top of that they're not doing their jobs of educating the public because probably they don't even read the bills or they don't understand it. This is my problem. Imagine if they did their jobs to actually know that information, maybe that would change how many people would call their MP to say, "Hey, you need to do something about Bill C-22, Bill C-9, Bill C-8 because this is a problem and I don't want this. I never voted for this."

[00:41:48]Look, uh Stephen Covey uh wrote a great book uh 20 30 years ago called The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and he pointed out that we have a sphere of concern, things that we're concerned about, but and then we have a sphere of control, what is within our own control. You and I cannot control the the conduct, the behavior of the Conservative Party or their strategies, their tactics, whether or not they spend some money, which they can do. Political parties uh are well, certainly the Conservatives and the Liberals are well funded.

[00:42:22]The NDP and the Bloc, I don't know, but they could spend money on some advertising against Bill C-22 and raise public awareness and and uh But, you know what? That's that's beyond my control. So, we've got the independent media like yourself, YouTubers, podcasters, uh we've got groups like the Justice Centre. We got Professor Michael Geist at the University of Ottawa who has been writing about this uh for for weeks and and uh I think very effectively. He's well respected. Uh the the Liberals often will take seriously what a university professor has to say.

[00:42:57]And there aren't uh to my knowledge, I haven't heard of any law professors that are saying that Bill C-22 is a good thing. So, the only ones we hear from uh there's Robert Diab at the uh Thompson Rivers University uh law school in uh Kamloops, British Columbia. Uh so, we have these law professors that are saying this is a serious threat to civil liberties. So, you know, we can I guess I'm saying it's pointless to about the Conservative Party and what, you know, what they could be or should be doing.

[00:43:25]That's beyond our control.

[00:43:27]But, I think this week uh as as these companies and this is making its way into mainstream media now. Even the CBC had uh some coverage on people saying that Bill C-22 is uh is a serious threat to civil liberties. So, you know, we we have to use the resources that are within our own control. And and we can't uh I I respectfully suggest it's futile to complain about the Conservative Party or any other party.

[00:43:56]The thing is that I get your point. I fully understand that I cannot change them, but at the same time, I will still blame them for not doing their jobs cuz they work for us.

[00:44:07]They are my employee.

[00:44:09]They are our employees and guess what?

[00:44:12]When my employees didn't do their job, you know what I did? I fired them.

[00:44:17]And that's that's the point I'm trying to make because as much as again, I get it.

[00:44:22]And I keep on hearing all the time that there are good people in the conservative Now that is interesting getting kicked off Uh hi Cesis. Hi police. Hi. I are Cimpi.

[00:44:55]I guess they're paying attention.

[00:44:57]But I was making John is is is really the they work for us. They're our employees and if we let them get away with this stuff all the time, they will continue doing what they're doing. That's the point I'm making cuz it's not true that I'm going to keep an employee on payroll because I'm not like I can't change them. If I can't change you, that's fine.

[00:45:21]Bye-bye. But it's a bit different because the the employee doesn't have a four-year or five-year contract where they are immune to firing for the five-year period and you can only fire them at the end of the five years. So that's the difference.

[00:45:36]It's not within it's not the same degree and extent of control. What the what the long-term solution is and I I've said this many times. I say it whenever I get a chance is we have to change the culture to a point where the overwhelming majority of Canadians understand with their minds what our charter rights and freedoms are and cherish in their hearts uh that that we love these rights and freedoms and if we we that cultural change, it will trickle up. We can If we change our party, we will come to a point where every political party in Canada supports freedom of expression.

[00:46:09]Every political party in Canada supports our privacy rights. And maybe they they they will still have their differences about, you know, whatever, foreign relations or trade deals or economic policy or taxes. You will still have different parties with different beliefs. That's fine. But that on these core things that are so important like our our freedom freedom of of conscience and religion or freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, our travel and mobility rights.

[00:46:36]When we change the culture, that will trickle up. We are at a We are reaping the consequences of decades of neglecting our education system. So, the I think the majority of Canadians of all ages, maybe worse amongst the younger, but Canadians of all ages are are ignorant of the totalitarian nightmare that we experienced in the 20th century with more people being murdered by their own governments, murdered by their own governments. More people than the number of soldiers killed in the battlefields.

[00:47:10]And so, what what you and I are are working on, which is within our control, is a gradual transformation of culture. When we transform that culture, it will trickle up to the politicians, the political parties, the police, the prosecutors, the law schools, the lawyers, and yes, even the judges will be part of that culture.

[00:47:30]I agree with you on that one, too, because unfortunately for us, this took decades for us to end up where we are right now, and it will take a long time to get back to a more sensitive a sensible place.

[00:47:44]And unfortunately, it's going to get worse before it gets better cuz the average Canadian is still not paying attention. It's not a hurting them enough.

[00:47:53]But, we're 10 minutes We only have 10 minutes left. I wanted to ask you something that's kind of connected to Bill C-22, connected to Bill C-9, obviously.

[00:48:04]What are your thoughts on social media bans for the people under the age of 16? Because this is something that all parties seem to be pushing right now. Doesn't matter where I'm looking, I found some conservatives that agree with it. Pierre Poilievre's open to the conversation. We got NDP member We got NDP leader uh Wab Kinew that said he proposed it. Carney obviously been speaking about it for months ever since he was in Japan.

[00:48:34]But what are your thoughts on social media bans for teenagers under the age of 16?

[00:48:41]Well, I I'm embarrassed to admit it, but the bad news is I don't have insights.

[00:48:46]It's a topic I have not yet researched.

[00:48:49]I will say though, and this is important, that the the biggest responsibility is with uh parents to actually monitor and supervise what their kids are how much time their kids are spending on the internet, including social media, and what their kids are watching.

[00:49:08]And I suspect uh that that the there are too many parents.

[00:49:14]I don't know if that's 80% or 50% or 10%. Doesn't matter what the percentage is. There's It could be even if it's 10%, it's too many. Too many parents that let their kids just kind of run wild, run free, and look at whatever they want. That's the number one solution. And I will say in I I said this during the Online Harms Act that was introduced in in early 2024. It died with the election in April 2025. The federal government keeps uh dropping hints that they want to reintroduce it.

[00:49:43]They say we want to keep We want to keep kids safe from online harms, okay?

[00:49:48]Yes, it's a laudable goal. Parents are the only ones that can really do that.

[00:49:52]because if parents are not doing their job, what is stopping your your 15-year-old or your 10-year-old son or daughter from looking at pornography? If parents are not doing that, I you know, my understanding, I'm I'm not a pornography watcher, but I'm told that it's click click click, it's it's one, two, three clicks away. You can instantly access it free of charge, privately. Uh you don't have to walk into you know, 40 years ago you had to go through the embarrassment of walking into a store that sold this kind of stuff, right? But now it's it's anonymous, in your own home you can go click click click and access it. If parents are not stopping that by monitoring and being a parent, uh you monitor and supervise what your kids are watching online. You you you should be.

[00:50:41]If parents are not doing their job, then uh it's kind of creepy, you know, that the government's coming in there to say, "Well, we're going to keep your kids safe." So, but I apologize narrowly on the narrow question you asked, social media bans for minors, I I have not yet researched the issue. I'm sorry.

[00:50:59]No, that's okay, because the the reason I wanted to bring it up is I wanted to see what your moral compass was on. I had an idea where you would sit on this.

[00:51:08]But just to go back to what you were saying, it's 70% as per a poll that just came out, 70% of parents with ch- parents with children, that's kind of funny cuz you need to have children to have parents. I'm actually reading it here, but 70% of parents with children at a home support a full-blown ban on social media use for anyone under the age of 16. 70% of Canadian parents with kids at home. And uh you're 100% right on the moral side, it is up to the parents to be to take responsibility and accountability to control what their children are seeing.

[00:51:45]That is the job of a parent. And there's something called Net Nanny, super simple app that's existed for probably 30 years that you can install on all your phones and you can choose what they can and cannot see. But the reason The also the other reason is, you know, it's very emotional. Let's think about the children. Let's protect the children. That's what Gary is saying. Oh, it's for your safety online.

[00:52:06]It's always the same speech. But the reality is that for your information, in order to implement a social media ban, that means that everybody needs to prove their age. Absolutely everybody would need to connect all of their social media accounts to a government-approved ID. So the government would literally be implementing a digital ID by implementing social media bans. And that is the That is the the reason why I speak about this all the time. Again, I come from that world. I understand how those type of policies are implemented in the real world. And the only way to make it happen is to force 100% of Canadians are on social media to prove who they are with a government-approved ID.

[00:52:53]Well, the way that you've described it, I would say that it's a bad move to legislate this because I It's not It's not worth the price. If parents are not doing their job in the first place, then, you know, nothing's going to work because then some kids they might come up with a fake ID to get in. In the same way that, you know, people have been using fake IDs to to buy alcohol for decades, right? This is So it would happen electronically as well. But if if parents are not stepping up to the plate and doing what they should do, then the solution is not to say that the government should uh you know, have a centralized digital ID on everybody. It's the same thing applies to the horrible shooting of the kids in Tumbler Ridge in February.

[00:53:38]There's a transgender person who a a boy or a young man who thought he was a woman, mentally ill, uh kills his mother, kills one of his siblings, goes to the school, kills people, and interestingly, the police had taken away this kid's firearms in 2024, but returned the firearms to the shooter uh in January 2026, a month before he did the shooting.

[00:54:09]He had looked at AI to do queries about mass shootings, and AI said, "Okay, we're kicking you off of our platform.

[00:54:17]You can't use it anymore." That was 8 months prior to the shooting.

[00:54:23]And so, you know, 50 years ago, there was a much higher rate of firearms ownership amongst Canadians and probably other countries, and there were no mass shootings because there was more respect for human life.

[00:54:34]Now, we have a rotten culture where there is less respect for human life.

[00:54:38]That's what is the underlying problem of the mass shootings is is you don't have this respect for human life that that permeates close to 100% of the population.

[00:54:49]And what's the first thing they do? Do they talk about loneliness, isolation, mental health, family breakdown, fatherless homes, loss of respect for human life? No, no, no, no, no. None of that. No, we're not going to talk about that. We're going to talk about nationalizing AI and giving government the power to to to monitor and regulate everybody's AI searches, which again, it's it's a cure worse than than the disease.

[00:55:17]The funny I don't want to say funny cuz it's not funny, but the irony of what you just said about Tumblr is cuz that is something that I heavily heavily covered.

[00:55:27]Not only was the kid mentally ill, but the young man, I can't call him a kid cuz he was above 18 when he committed his crime. The man was seriously ill. He had been brought under the uh Mental Health Act of British Columbia years prior to the shooting. As you mentioned, the firearms had been seized by police {slash} RCMP. They belonged to his mother or his father. It didn't belong to him cuz he did not have the proper um the the the proper How do you call it? Um Uh he wasn't certified. He didn't have the right certification. He didn't have the right to own them. And they were owned They were owned legally. But six firearms were used in the shooting.

[00:56:16]Three of them are some of the five Three of them are firearms that were given back to him.

[00:56:23]Given back to the family 1 month after.

[00:56:25]So, the RCMP, the uh even Solomon, our AI minister, has met with ChatGPT and blamed them for not telling them about flagging him when his own government knew about this man years prior. So, again, the government dropped the ball.

[00:56:47]The RCMP, the police, and the woke judge that decided to give those firearms back should be held accountable for their actions, criminally in my opinion. Yet, they blame AI and they will use that in order to gain control of AI in Canada.

[00:57:06]Yeah. The Justice Centre released a report on this uh earlier this month. It was on May 5th.

[00:57:12]Um The government's uh Let's see if it if it's up here. Yep, we seized it. The dangerous government-controlled artificial intelligence, how state-controlled AI threatens our privacy, autonomy, and free expression. How Bill C-22 paves the way. This is May 5th from a little while ago. That's on our website, uh www.jccf.ca.

[00:57:34]So, we have to just keep on working at at educating the public. But, it the the mass shooting thing, I mean, obviously, it's it's it's horrific, and it's the result of a rotten culture, family breakdown, loneliness, isolation.

[00:57:49]Loneliness is a bigger problem, and of course, the technology facility Technology can be wonderful. Here, you and I can have a live chat, Calgary, Montreal. Uh it's great. But, the technology also isolates people. People are staring at their phone rather than saying, "Hey, do you want to do you want to get together for a cup of coffee?"

[00:58:08]Right? Uh you know, the kids uh are just texting instead of talking to each other on the phone. And the these are the cultural issues that are the cause of the mass shootings. And we have to address these cultural issues. If But, then the you know, the government says, "Well, we got to keep you safe. We We need to have the government monitoring everybody's AI searches."

[00:58:35]Wrong solution.

[00:58:36]Like Vesperian Rose is saying, "All of them were on SSRIs." If you start looking at all the mass shooters, literally every single one of them was on some type of mood-controlled substance. Do you think that's a coincidence? So, you're absolutely right. We are not addressing the root problems. We're trying to use the symptoms. And this is one of my favorite saying as Derek Zeidler is saying, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

[00:59:06]And this is exactly what I'm seeing with Tumbleridge. John, it's 8:00. We are done for today. I really appreciate your time, as always.

[00:59:15]It always goes super fast. I appreciate your time. Thank you for what you're doing. I don't know how you get sleep, cuz I was a lot of comments [snorts] are were saying, "Does John even sleep? He seems to be everywhere right now." So, we appreciate what you do, John.

[00:59:31]Well, thanks for having me on your show.

[00:59:33]I I am taking I'm taking a 4-week holiday starting next week and into June and but yeah, I know the view I I put in a lot of hours, but it it's worth it, you know, I my wife and I have four kids and we want to have a good future for them.

[00:59:51]And so, you know, you keep on fighting and believing that that that ultimately truth is going to vanquish the lie and justice is going to crush injustice.

[01:00:04]And so, we're going to keep on fighting till we win. Thanks for having me on your show.

[01:00:08]John, you don't look a day over 70. So, good for you.

[01:00:11]>> [laughter] >> I have no idea how old you are.

[01:00:16]But, thank you thank you for doing what you do and for the people out there as bad as it may seem, it's not too late for Canada.

[01:00:24]But, it's up to us, the people that know to inform others, to have those hard conversations like the one that we're having right now and it starts with your circle of influence, your friends, your family, your co-worker.

[01:00:36]You need to be ready to have those hard conversation and tell them the truth because the way we change Canada is one conversation at a time.

[01:00:44]Tomorrow, 7:00 p.m.

[01:00:47]We will see you then. Until then, as I always say, peace.

[01:00:57]>> [music]