A grandmother is suing a B.C. school board she says violated her rights by shutting her down at a public meeting.
Lynda Di Armani is taking the Chilliwack Board of School Trustees to court after being interrupted and having her microphone cut off when she attempted to raise attention to a conflict of interest she said one of the board members had.
Di Armani, a grandmother and former school employee, began her time in the meeting by saying that trustee Teri Westerby had brought forward a motion about flying a pride flag during pride month, despite being the director of marketing for the local pride society.
Board chair Willow Rechelt and vice-chair Carin Bondar interrupted Di Armani and claimed her statements were “discriminatory.”
Di Armani was interrupted several times and her microphone was cut off, before she was eventually told to sit down before she had finished speaking, according to video of the meeting.
Di Armani alleges in a lawsuit filed by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) that the board’s treatment of her violated her Charter right to freedom of expression.
“Elected officials exercising government power must respect Canadians’ Charter freedoms. The Chilliwack School Board’s actions show a disregard for not only my client’s freedom of expression but also for the listening public, who have a right to hear diverse views at Board meetings,” said Marty Moore, Di Armani’s lawyer.
The allegation has not been proven in court and the Chilliwack school board did not respond to a request for comment from True North.
While the chair is authorized to cut off the remarks of speakers who don’t comply with their bylaw, the chair is not allowed to silence people simply because of disagreement with what they are saying, the JCCF says.
Di Armani is petitioning the court for a declaration that the board overstepped its bounds and violated her Charter rights. Additionally, she is seeking court orders to prevent similar behaviours in the future and to permit the public to record these meetings on their own devices.
Upon entry, Di Armani alleges she was mandated to sign a declaration confirming she would not record the session. This policy, Di Armani contends, means the board retains exclusive control over the meeting’s recordings, potentially allowing for selective muting or editing, thereby infringing upon the public’s right to fully hear, listen, and weigh alternative viewpoints.
A majority of Canadians and almost half of those who say they voted Liberal in 2021 would prefer if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau steps down as the Liberal Party of Canada leader before the next federal election.
Plus, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith had some harsh words for federal environment minister Steven Guilbeault, calling him an “ideologue” and “irritating.”
And the Ontario NDP abstained from a motion in the Ontario legislature expressing strong support for Israel and condemning Hamas.
Tune into The Daily Brief with Cosmin Dzsurdzsa and Noah Jarvis!
Canada’s highest court dealt a serious blow to the Trudeau government with its Oct. 13 ruling in the reference case that found the federal Impact Assessment Actunconstitutional. This complex law was introduced in 2019 and quickly nicknamed the “no more pipelines” law by opponents. This is because under the actit is highly unlikely any new pipelines will be built in Canada.
The effects of the lawwere not limited just to pipelines. The federal assessment process under the Impact Assessment Actreviews all kinds of projects – including those wholly within the borders of a single province, like mines, oil projects, or hydroelectric plants.
Alberta objected to this legislation, arguing – successfully – that the federal government was regulating in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The constitutionally controversial portion of the Impact Assessment Act related to “designated projects.”
“Designated projects” under the act are subject to a statutory prohibition on any activities that may cause adverse “effects within federal jurisdiction,” absent approval from the federal government.
How do projects get put on the “designated projects” list? That’s part of the problem. There is a list set by regulation, but the federal environment minister also has far ranging authority to unilaterally decide a project will be subject to the Impact Assessment Actbecause, in his opinion, it may cause “effects within federal jurisdiction.”
Once on this list, projects are subject to a lengthy years-long federal assessment on an exceedingly wide range of economic, social, health, environmental, and even gender-related impacts. The Impact Assessment Act essentially gave the federal government a “veto” power over natural resource projects, including projects wholly within a single province, if the project so much as glanced towards federal jurisdiction.
For example, most natural resource development projects will have some effect on greenhouse gas emissions, which, even if small, can cross provincial boundaries. Under the act,this would be enough to have a wholly provincial project placed on the designated project list, then indefinitely stopped or stalled by Ottawa.
In a 5-2 decision from the Supreme Court, the offending provisions of the Impact Assessment Actwere declared unconstitutional. The “designated projects” portion of the act was found to be ultra vires – outside the authority of – Parliament and thus unconstitutional.
The majority of the court found that the Impact Assessment Act is not directed at regulating “effects within federal jurisdiction” as defined in the act, because these effects do not drive the scheme’s decision-making functions.
The federal government claimed such broad authority in the first place on the sections of the Constitution giving Ottawa the power to regulate “Indians, and Lands reserved for Indians,” “Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries,” and the peace, order and good government (POGG) power. Recall that it was under the POGG power that the Supreme Court protected the federal government’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, a federal law establishing national minimum standards for carbon pricing in Canada.
This new Supreme Court decision in the Impact Assessment Actreference is significant and could have the effect of stemming some of the bleeding of provincial jurisdiction caused by the earlier carbon pricedecision of the same court.
It is worth noting that the Supreme Court holding is technically that the Impact Assessment Actis constitutional “in part.” There were other provisions that the Supreme Court took no issue with – for example, the federal government’s authority to regulate projects wholly on federally owned lands, or projects outside of Canada.
Don’t let so-called experts on Twitter fool you: this was a resounding victory for Alberta and for provincial rights. The regulation of projects on federal lands or outside the country itself is never what concerned the provinces: it was the federal government’s intrusion into their jurisdiction and the federal prohibition on provinces developing the bounty of their own natural resources that drew ire.
The question now is what will the federal government do next. In response to the decision from the Supreme Court, federal Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said he saw the need for only small changes in the law.
“The concerns that are raised by the Supreme Court… can be dealt with in a relatively surgical way,” he said the day the decision was released.
This is curious. The portions of the Impact Assessment Actwhich were declared incompatible with Canada’s supreme law are core to the function of the act itself. To address the court’s reasoning, the government will need to make significant legislative amendments. If the response is going to be “surgical” in nature as Wilkinson claims, it’s surgery on a fatally wounded patient.
The government no doubt wants to ensure that the projects it previously stopped or indefinitely stalled will remain so. It’s unclear now how it can achieve that.
It’s also important to acknowledge that while this case has been portrayed as a fight between environmental protection versus resource development, there is another important principle at stake: federalism.
The Fathers of Confederation made a deliberate choice to strike a delicate balance between centralization and regional diversity. Failure to adhere to Canada’s constitutional division of powers leads to an unwieldy patchwork of legislation which may adversely impact capital investment, resource development, and economic prosperity.
As Chief Justice Wagner wrote, “environmental protection remains one of today’s most pressing challenges. To meet this challenge, Parliament has the power to enact a scheme of environmental assessment. Parliament also has the duty, however, to act within the enduring division of powers framework laid out in the Constitution”.
Think tanks and pro-life groups are lamenting the defeat of a Conservative bill which would prevent the expansion of assisted suicide to those who suffer from mental illness.
Conservative MP Ed Fast’s Bill C-314 would have amended the Criminal Code in relation to assisted suicide provisions to not classify mental disorders as a “a grievous and irremediable medical condition for which a person could receive medical assistance in dying.”
On Wednesday, the bill was defeated on its second reading in the House of Commons with 167 MPs opposing it and 150 MPs supporting.
In a statement following the bill’s defeat, the non-partisan think tank Cardus called the result a “tragic mistake” that ignores where a majority of Canadians stand on the issue.
“Parliament should have listened to the unacceptably high number of Canadians who say they encounter barriers in accessing mental health care — or the 64% of Canadians who fear those with mental illness will become even more vulnerable when euthanasia and assisted suicide become available to them next March,” said Cardus Health Program Director Rebecca Vachon.
“By not even voting to send the bill for further consideration at committee, Parliament has demonstrated an unwillingness to listen to these very real concerns about providing death for mental illness when Canadians still have problems accessing proper care for life with mental illness.”
A recent poll conducted by the Angus Reid Institute in partnership with Cardus found that a vast majority of Canadians opposed expanding assisted suicide to the mentally ill. A whopping 88% said that those who suffer from mental illness should have other treatment alternatives.
On X, the pro-life not-for-profit group RightNow also denounced the result of the vote, pointing to Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s former pledge to bar the mentally ill from accessing assisted suicide should he be elected.
Conservative MP Ed Fasts's Bill C-314, to prevent assisted-suicide to expand to the mentally ill, has just been defeated in Parliament by a vote of 150-167.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre said that if C-314 fails, a government led by him would introduce legislation to… pic.twitter.com/zBlNBuSy1N
“Conservative MP Ed Fasts’s Bill C-314, to prevent assisted-suicide to expand to the mentally ill, has just been defeated in Parliament by a vote of 150-167. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre said that if C-314 fails, a government led by him would introduce legislation to repeal MAID for the mentally ill,” posted RightNow.
The disability rights group Inclusion Canada expressed disappointment with the vote on Wednesday, calling on Canadians to contact their MPs to prevent assisted suicide being provided to those who suffer from mental illness.
1/2 📢 We’re disappointed to see Bill C-314 narrowly defeated at Second Reading. Thank you to the 150 MPs from all parties who voted in support of reconsidering MAiD for mental illness as a sole underlying medical condition. It takes courage to change courses. pic.twitter.com/IKDPBnzGsA
“We’re disappointed to see Bill C-314 narrowly defeated at Second Reading. Thank you to the 150 MPs from all parties who voted in support of reconsidering MAiD for mental illness as a sole underlying medical condition. It takes courage to change courses,” posted Inclusion Canada.
“To those concerned with the legalization of MAiD for mental illness – we were 17 votes short today. Talk to your MP. You can make the difference.”
No word yet on whether he expects Canada to pay for it, but a Republican presidential candidate wants a border wall along the 49th parallel.
Vivek Ramaswamy, who is seeking the Republican nomination for the 2024 presidential election, has urged the U.S. to erect a wall along its northern border with Canada.
Ramaswamy said the wall would necessary to prevent illegal immigration and crime from spilling over from Canada, which he claimed is facing a border crisis of its own.
Ramaswamy’s statement came after New Hampshire Republican Governor Chris Sununu announced the creation of a Northern Border Alliance Task Force to patrol the 58-mile stretch of the state’s border with Canada.
It’s not “Build-the-Wall” anymore.
It’s Build *Both* Walls.
I visited the Northern & Southern Borders this month. This isn’t a technical challenge, the country that put a man on the moon can fix this. It’s a question of political will. https://t.co/Xg2UXuU65T
Sununu said the task force is a response to the federal government’s failure to secure the northern border, where illegal crossings have increased by more than 800% in the past year, according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data.
Ramaswamy, who visited the Canada-U.S. border earlier this month and posted a video on TikTok showing how easy it is to cross illegally, said he supports Sununu’s initiative and wants to extend it to the entire 5,525-mile border with Canada.
He said he also wants to finish the wall on the southern border with Mexico and deploy military forces there to stop illegal immigration.
At the State House, @GovChrisSununu announces the ‘the Northern Border Alliance Task Force.’
“We need all-hands-on-deck approach,” Sununu advocated.
He mentioned that there are more apprehensions along the northern border in just this past year than the last 10 years combined. pic.twitter.com/5GXu8t1agf
Ramaswamy’s proposal has drawn criticism from Democrats and some Republicans, who say it is unrealistic, wasteful and harmful to the U.S.-Canada relationship.
According to U.S. authorities, the number of people who cross the border from Canada to the U.S. without authorization rose sharply last year.
CBP reported that they encountered 625 illegal border crossers between October 2021 and March 2022, a 47% increase from the same period in the previous year.
Most of the people who tried to enter the U.S. illegally were not Canadian citizens. Only 63 of them had Canadian passports, while the rest came from various countries.
Some of the illegal border crossers were involved in criminal activities or human smuggling operations. In March, U.S. border agents rescued six Indian nationals who were trying to cross the St. Regis River from Canada to New York state. They also arrested a U.S. citizen, Brian Lazore, who was allegedly involved in smuggling them.
U.S. border officials said they have noticed a notable increase of foreign nationals with criminal history leaving Canada.
The number of illegal entries into the U.S. from Canada is still much lower than the number of illegal entries into Canada from the U.S., especially through the now shuttered unofficial crossing point of Roxham Road.
The Trudeau government’s plan to curtail the use of plastic packaging has received criticism from fruit and vegetable producers, who are calling it “unrealistic.”
Ottawa launched consultations for the pollution prevention planning notice to see how they could reduce plastic waste on primary food packaging in August.
Plastic currently contributes about 4.4 million tonnes of waste annually, according to CTV News.
“We hear it from Canadians from coast to coast to coast, that they hate seeing so much plastic wrapping,” said Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault.
According to the targets on the Environment and Climate Change Canada website, “Fresh fruits and vegetables are to be distributed and sold in bulk and/or plastic-free packaging” with a target of “75% by 2026 and 95% by 2028.”
These target timelines have some members of the produce sector concerned.
“It’s probably not realistic,” said Tilly Stewart, director of citrus at Star Produce in Calgary. “The way it’s currently written will change the entire global food system.”
Star Produce uses plastic to package fresh cut fruit to be sold in grocery stores.
Stewart said her industry is already looking into ways that they can reduce plastic but for the time being, biodegradable options are too expensive.
“The technology just isn’t there yet,” said Steward. “(The) biodegradable (plastic) industry is quite greenwashed right now.”
The government’s proposed plan to meet the plastic reduction targets will likely pass an additional 30% of cost onto the consumer, according to a report by the Canadian Produce Marketing Association.
The proposed targets will require packaging materials which are more expensive and will create a less efficient shipping system that also raises the overall level of food waste.
“Everybody gets upset about the wrap on cucumbers,” said CPMA President Ron Lemaire. “The challenge you have is you have two days at home with your cucumber, as opposed to 15 days.”
Senior program manager for plastics at Environmental Defence, Karen Wirsig, said the industry’s projections regarding food loss are false.
“There is absolutely no evidence that we’re seeing a reduction in food loss and waste through the whole supply chain, because of that single use packaging,” said Wirsig.
The industry is currently looking into how they can reuse plastic packaging and have it kept within the supply chain.
On Dec. 20, a federal ban on the sale of plastic checkout bags, cutlery and other single-use plastics will come into effect as part of the “zero plastic waste by 2030” strategy, implemented by the Trudeau government.
For two nights in a row, large pro-Palestine protests have taken over the Bloor-Yonge intersection in downtown Toronto, outside the Israel consulate. The protesters directed their ire toward Justin Trudeau, saying he and Canada has blood on their hands for supporting Israel instead of Hamas. The protests outside the consulate started because the protesters believe that Israel is behind an explosion at a hospital in Gaza. The Israel government has denied any involvement and blamed a misfired rocket from within Gaza.
On the latest episode of Ratio’d, Harrison Faulkner speaks with the pro-Palestine protesters to get their side of the story.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith had some harsh words for the federal environment minister over the federal government’s misplaced victory lap following its loss at the Supreme Court last week.
Smith said Steven Guilbeault was “becoming very irritating.”
Amidst a war of words with the federal government over the Supreme Court’s rejection of a bill Alberta dubbed the ‘no more pipelines act’, Smith expressed her frustration with Guilbeault at a press conference Thursday.
“I would say that Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault is an ideologue,” Smith said. “He’s always been going off announcing things unilaterally, and he’s, quite frankly, becoming very irritating to both me and my environment minister, Rebecca Schulz.”
When asked about the feds doubling down on its plan for net zero emissions by 2035, Premier Danielle Smith says Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault is "becoming very irritating." pic.twitter.com/HtAnh1igmU
Smith and Schulz have sharply criticized Guilbeault and the federal government for doubling down on their plans for a net zero electrical grid by 2035.
On Monday, federal officials conveyed confidence that their strategies for capping greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sectors and their proposed Clean Electricity Regulations targeting power generation emissions would remain largely untouched. This assurance comes despite the Supreme Court’s recent determination that the 2019 Impact Assessment Act infringes on provincial jurisdiction.
Smith has stood firm with Alberta’s goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. She said that her government has a constructive relationship with other federal ministers and her deputy ministers.
Smith said Guilbeault, in contrast, hasn’t acted in good faith.
“As he continues to try to act unilaterally, I just take him less and less seriously,” said Smith.
This is not the first time Smith has criticized Guilbeault. Shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling of the federal government’s Impact Assessment Act as largely unconstitutional, Guilbeault tried to position this ruling as a win for the federal government.
“Today, we accept the court’s opinion, which provides new guidance on the Impact Assessment Act, while affirming the right of the Government of Canada to collaborate with provinces on environmental protection,” Guilbeault said in a statement at the time.
“Guilbeault does not seem to acknowledge how badly he lost,” Smith said in a press conference just after the ruling. “Mr. Guilbeault has done more damage to our investment climate in this province than probably any single federal minister I’ve ever seen.”
The Conservatives are saying it’s “unacceptable” that the Liberal government allowed a woman with ties to ISIS to re-enter Canada.
Federal authorities repatriated 33-year-old Dure Amhed and her children from a detention camp in Syria.
“This is but one example of Mr. Trudeau’s neglect of Canada’s national security,” said Conservative foreign affairs critic Michael Chong.
Ahmed was married to well known ISIS militant El Shafee Elsheikh, who was part of “the Beatles,” a group within ISIS known for having British accents.
He is the highest ranking member of ISIS to be tried in the U.S. and is currently in a supermax prison, serving multiple life sentences for his involvement in the murder of eight American, British and Japanese hostages.
“It is unacceptable that the Trudeau government allowed someone affiliated with one of the world’s worst terrorist groups to re-enter Canada without first ensuring the safety and security of Canadians from this terrorist threat,” said Chong in a statement to CBC News.
While speaking in a court, Crown Attorney Marie Comiskey said that Ahmed was “steeped” in ISIS ideology for over eight years while living in an ISIS controlled territory within Syria and subsequently in a detention camp.
It’s “likely” that Ahmed was aware of her husband’s involvement in ISIS before leaving Canada in 2014 to join him in Syria, Crown Comiskey said on Tuesday.
Their relationship has since continued and they have been in communication, argued Comiskey.
Comiskey said there are reasonable grounds to suspect that Ahmed could commit terrorism while in Canada and potentially may recruit and indoctrinate others to join ISIS.
Ahmed’s lawyer, Yoav Niv, argued that there was no admission of criminal liability while arguing the conditions of a terrorism peace bond.
Niv said that so far no one has alleged that Ahmed was present for any criminal activity.
“So we need to be careful with how inflammatory allegations can be made,” said Niv.
“After all, she’s been repatriated. The government decided to bring her back, so whatever security concerns did exist, they weren’t so much that she wasn’t allowed back into the country.”
Jamileh Naso, president of the Canadian Yazidi Association, said she’s “horrified” by the government’s decision to repatriate Ahmed.
The Yazidi Association helps Yazidis after they come to Canada, who have arrived after fleeing ISIS captivity in Syria.
“That is very frightening that someone like that has been welcomed back and repatriated into the country,” said Naso.
Many in her association are frightened to learn that the Trudeau government is repatriating women from Syria.
“We want these folks to face the full brunt of the Canadian justice system,” said Naso. “It does not feel like justice has been served at all.”
Naso lost family members to ISIS, as have many in the Yazidi community.
In 2014, ISIS launched a campaign to eradicate Yazidi people, who are mostly farmers in Northern Iraq and are part of an ancient Kurdish-speaking community.
The federal government welcomed almost 1,200 Yazidi survivors, the majority of whom were women and girls that had been sexually abused and held in captivity by ISIS.
Ahmed has denied any wrongdoing and called her decision to move to Syria a “stupid mistake.”
She has denied having any knowledge of what her husband was involved in.
“I can be charged tomorrow,” said Ahmed. “I could be charged next week, next year.”
“Everything is still ongoing … Obviously Canada’s priority, and most countries’ priority, is public safety. If I was a threat or they found me an imminent threat, I won’t be out. I’d be in jail.”
A judge is expected to rule on the conditions of a terrorism peace bond on Thursday when Ahmed’s case returns to court in Brampton, Ont.
More Canadians said they believed Conservative Leader Pierre Pollievre would better handle another Donald Trump U.S. presidency when compared to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a recent poll.
In a national survey conducted by Abacus Data for the Toronto Star, 37% of respondents said that Polievere would be better equipped to deal with Trump over Trudeau, should he win the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
Less respondents, 28%, said they believed Trudeau would do a better job, while 31% said they didn’t know.
“Except for climate change (and child care), I would say there isn’t an issue probably right now in which people are feeling the prime minister would handle it better than the Conservative leader,” said Abacus CEO David Coletto.
Trudeau’s diplomatic fallout with India over Sikh murders and the Nazi scandal in the House of Commons have posed several problems for the Liberal government’s image.
This has led many to question Trudeau’s capabilities as a global leader, despite the fact that people previously believed he handled Trump’s presidency effectively.
Coletto claimed that Liberals who feel another Trump victory would bode well for a Liberal re-election are incorrect.
According to Coletto, the perception is that Poilievre shares similar conservative views to Trump, which is likely to make for better diplomacy, who likened the relationship to how Trudeau fared better with former U.S. President Barack Obama than his predecessor prime minister Stephen Harper.
The survey was conducted between Sept. 28 and Oct. 5 with a margin of error above or below 2.2%. There were a total of 1,985 people who responded.
Respondents were also asked who they would vote for if an election were held tomorrow.
The majority said they would vote Conservative at 39%, while only 26% said they would vote Liberal.
“The overriding desire for change is really helping Poilievre and making it a really difficult environment for the prime minister,” said Coletto.
Trudeau addressed his relationship with the former U.S. president while speaking with community leaders about the wildfires in Hay River, N.W.T. on Wednesday.
“There’s ways to handle him,” said Trudeau, who likened him to a “controlled burn.”
Trump is favoured to win the Republican nomination and is in a competitive position to beat President Joe Biden in 2024 according to recent polling.
Coletto said that while a Trump presidency is not imminent, “it does suggest that the Liberals can’t just count on that happening, if they think that’s going to be the solution to their problems.”
“The government’s been trying to spend more time focused on housing and affordability — they know what the top issues they need to be addressing are,” said Coletto. “It remains to be seen whether they can convince people that they can do it.”
