At the Attention Conference in Montreal, I spoke with four leading voices on digital governance about what Canada needs to do on tech accountability. Canada keeps introducing bills that die on the order paper. Meanwhile, the UK, EU, and Australia have moved forward with meaningful reforms. What will it take to get us there?

Featuring conversations with:

* Damian Collins (former UK Minister of Tech) on the UK’s Online Safety Act

* Vass Bednar (SHIELD) on digital sovereignty and why Canada needs to structurally separate the ad tech stack

* Imran Ahmed (Center for Countering Digital Hate) on the journey from Cambridge Analytica to protecting kids online

* Aengus Bridgman (Media Ecosystem Observatory) on how influencers now dominate political information

Chapters:

0:00 Damian Collins: UK’s Online Safety Act & Platform Accountability

15:27 Vass Bednar: Digital Sovereignty & Restructuring Tech

31:30 Imran Ahmed: Protecting Kids Online

45:20 Aengus Bridgman: News Bans, Deepfakes & Information Integrity

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report. We’ve seen significant albeit imperfect progress since and there’s much more for us to do together.

On this episode of Uncommons, I’m joined by Ava Hill and Willie Littlechild, two incredible Indigenous leaders. We talk about the state of reconciliation and what real partnership could and should look like, with a specific focus on their work to advance Indigenous participation in sport.

Ava Hill is a former Six Nations Chief, and Willie Littlechild is a former TRC commissioner, former MP, and residential school survivor.

Like many Canadians, Nate grew up on Raffi’s music. On this episode, Raffi joins Nate to discuss his musical journey, his ongoing advocacy for the peace and the planet, and why we need to centre children in our decision-making through his philosophy of child honouring. You can learn more about that philosophy via the “Raffi Foundation for Child Honouring”, but the idea is to emphasize the importance of respect, joy, and purpose in children’s lives and its potential to transform society.

They also touch on Raffi’s advocacy against fascism, the power of music in activism, the urgent need for climate mobilization, protecting children from digital harm and his belief in having courage to speak out and be engaged in democracy.

Raffi is a global troubadour, children’s entertainer, author and founder of the Raffi Foundation for Child Honouring. Called by the Washington Post as “the most popular children’s singers in the English-speaking world”.

Rutger Bregman is a Dutch historian, best-selling author, and co-founder of the School for Moral Ambition. His recent book and school both encourage us to spend our time and talent by making a difference on the greatest challenges and injustices of our time, rather than solely personal comfort and financial gain.

Rutger joins me in this episode to explore how his ideas on moral ambition connect to social change, the big challenges we need your talent to solve, and what he hopes to accomplish with his new school.

Tanya Talaga is an award-winning author and journalist and a powerful voice for Indigenous rights and education in Canada.

She’s also a constituent, which is how we happened to connect again recently when she was hosted by the House Speaker together with other finalists for the Shaugnessy Cohen Prize in political writing.

Talaga joined me a number of years ago at the Fox Theatre to talk about her 2017 award-winning book Seven Fallen Feathers.

This conversation focuses on her recent book, The Knowing. It is a deeply personal story in which she traces her own family’s history, and it is a story of Indigenous people in Canada, injustice, reclamation, and outlasting.

With her own background one of both Anishinaabe and Polish descent, Talaga writes: “From the legacies of these dual branches of genocide, one on Turtle Island and one far off in eastern Europe - comes my knowing.”

I recommend reading the book and you can also watch her docuseries at CBC Gem.

Phil Demers joins me outside the gates of Marineland for this episode- a return to a conversation we began seven years ago at the Fox Theatre.

Back then, we were fighting to pass Bill S-203 to end whale captivity in Canada. The law passed in 2019.

Now, the fight is to save the remaining 30 beluga whales and 500 other animals who remain trapped inside as the park has ceased to exist. At one point, recently, Marineland even threatened to euthanize the whales if governments didn’t provide emergency financial support.

Phil “The Walrus Whisperer” Demers was a trainer at Marineland turned whistleblower. He spent over a decade fighting Marineland in court after leaving his job there in 2012. After 13 years of legal battles and public advocacy, Marineland is finally on its last legs. But the fight to save the remaining animals isn’t over.

We discussed what happens next, short-term and long-term solutions, and why governments should lead on this instead of playing only a reactive role.

Chapters:

0:00 Standing Outside Marineland

6:21 Why China Might Actually Be Better

10:04 The Sanctuary Myth & Rescue Reality

14:08 30 Dead Whales

18:13 500 Forgotten Animals

19:30 13 Years of Legal Hell

24:37 Conclusion: The Divorce Analogy

Read further:

The Walrus and the Whistleblower - Documentary (CBC Gem) https://www.cbc.ca/documentarychannel/docs/the-walrus-and-the-whistleblower

7 years ago with Phil:

Transcript:

[00:00:00] Nate Erskine-Smith: All right, well, welcome to Uncommons. It’s an interesting episode because I’m joined by Phil Demers, who actually joined me at the Fox Theater many years ago, four years ago before we started the podcast actually. And it was just a, a local town hall event. We showed Blackfish. Right. And you were there to talk about your experience as a whistleblower at this horrible place behind us.

[00:00:19] Uh, it is interesting how far we’ve come, but also that the issue is so acute still. Uh, at the time we were talking about a bill that had to be passed. To end this kind of production and make sure we were protecting institutions in captivity. And you were adamant we had to get this bill passed. Hmm. Well we got the bill passed.

[00:00:37] Yeah. And yet we’ve got marineland, uh, beside us now, and it was grandfathered through in a way. And now we’ve got 30 beluga whales. We’ve got 500 other animals that are, that are in here. Mm-hmm. And all of which, all, all of whom need to be saved in, in, in one way or another. And, uh, it didn’t [00:01:00] have to come to this, really did it.

[00:01:02] Phil Demers: Well, we’ve, what, what has glossed over in much of, of your story is we’ve got a unwilling marine land in all of that. Yes. To evolve in any way, shape or form to be a, financially viable, uh, you know, for the security of their own future. Uh, but b, to adhere to any of the laws that we essentially passed, both provincially and, uh, and federally, although we did ban the breeding of the whales. Yep. Had we not banned the breeding of the whales. So, so currently there’s 30 belugas remaining. There’s four dolphins. Uh, we got two sea lions and a, and a host of, uh, land animals there. Had we not banned the breeding of belugas in 2019?

[00:01:41] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yep.

[00:01:42] Phil Demers: And albeit, the pregnant belugas of 2019 were grandfathered in.

[00:01:47] So there were some whale birth births there. On average, Marineland had five to seven belugas born per year. A couple would die. But there’s, you know, it’s conceivable to say that whereas [00:02:00] we have 30 right now in there, we would have had an excess of 50. Right. They would’ve kept probably 60.

[00:02:05] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yes, of course they would’ve kept the business model broke down with that law.

[00:02:08] But if they would’ve kept going otherwise, I mean, they’re, they were the bad actors. It’s the, it just wants to keep it active

[00:02:12] Phil Demers: At this point. It’s the only, it’s the only part of the law that they’ve, ad they’ve adhered to outside of importing, of course, which, which, uh, we ban. So it’s, it’s beyond their control, but.

[00:02:21] Um, you know, the breeding, they, they stopped, but had they not, we’d be talking about 50 to 60 whales in those tanks. It, it was, uh, you know, that’s something to really hang our hat on. That was a huge, uh, and super progressive, uh, lawsuit. But it does interestingly, take us to this place now where marine land is, you know, we essentially bankrupt.

[00:02:39] I, but we should stress owns a lot of land sitting on 700 acres of prime land meant to fuel or feed the, uh, the whole family trust. That’s, those are the heirs to it. You know, the operation is essentially sucking the money out of that. And so they’re looking for the, be it most lucrative or least expensive [00:03:00] way to get outta this thing.

[00:03:01] The sale to China was to be a profitable one. Uh, should be stressed that here in North America, none of the facilities wanna do business with marine land, right? A few years ago, five belugas were sent to Mystic Aquarium, three of which died within weeks and months. Uh, all having to do with, uh, preexisting conditions from Marineland.

[00:03:20] Nate Erskine-Smith: So, so pause, pause for a moment. ‘cause I think for those who are listening, they may not know you’ve got 30 belugas here. And there was, uh, a deal that Marine Land wanted a broker, at least with a facility in China. Ocean Kingdom time, long Ocean Kingdom. The decision of the federal minister was to say no animal welfare first.

[00:03:41] Uh, the primary purpose here is entertainment and, and we’re not convinced that they’re gonna be putting animal welfare first. Akin to the concern here, right? And, and why we don’t want this to contain to exist. But then the knock on question why is so acute right now is okay, but then what? Because marine land comes out as proper monsters. They say, well, if we don’t get emergency funding, we’re gonna, we’re gonna euthanize these whales,

[00:04:05] Phil Demers: which is a familiar theme with Marineland. In all of my years of dealing with them, it was always do this or else. Uh, again, I I, this morning alone, I watched a, a YouTube video. It was pretty.

[00:04:14] Pretty thorough history of marine land and in it is always the familiar threat of, well, if you don’t do this, I’m gonna, and it includes ship the park to the, to the US that includes, you know, a whole host of things. But that’s all, that’s marine land’s bluster when it, they don’t get their way right. But that said, the, the spirit of the law was to give, uh, to give final say to the minister so that they can ultimately consider the interests of the animals in it, which is a level of personhood, which is not.

[00:04:39] Which is atypical of most laws, especially of animals.

[00:04:40] Nate Erskine-Smith: Of, yeah. Yeah. An incredibly important step. Yeah.

[00:04:43] Phil Demers: Really, really, uh, progressive, you know, the spirit is to end captivity and, you know, and if you can stamp that out here, the, the idea is that it, it’s, uh, it’ll evolve to the rest of the world. And to be fair, uh, France adopted a very similar law recently passed, [00:05:00] uh, as well as, uh, new South Wales.

[00:05:02] The province in Australia adopted a law. It’s actually picking up around the world. So, so it’s, you know. I always stress when we, we look at, hey, we wanna end captivity, I always stress that’s a hundred year, that’s a hundred year fight. If all goes extremely well, you know, you’ve got burgeoning business in China, some in Russia, right?

[00:05:20] And we’re still ending sort of ours here, sort of choking that off here and that’s still expanding there. So, you know, we’ve, we’ve started something that’s gonna continue elsewhere, but you know, it’s gotta end here. It’s gotta end here first and ending.

[00:05:33] Nate Erskine-Smith: You can put a law on the books and, okay, so. Uh, on a going forward basis, you, you might avoid problems and, and avoid cruelty, but you still have 30 belugas here.

[00:05:44] And then the question becomes, well, what happens next? And, and I don’t wanna pretend that it’s just a marineland problem because you were just, uh, commenting on the fact that in Miami you got seaquarium that’s now shut down, that this is going to happen in other places too. Well of Mexico just banned it.

[00:05:59] Phil Demers: [00:06:00] And now all of their animals, now captive and legally captive can no longer perform in shows, can no longer do the swim with programs, et cetera, et cetera. So what happens is it becomes unviable to the owners. They lose their incentive, their incentive to have and use these animals. So what becomes well, unfortunately, in, in, in my estimation of what is available to us.

[00:06:20] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah.

[00:06:21] Phil Demers: You know, I’d always had hope that the much of these animals would go to the us, but it’s not gonna happen by way of a broker deal because again, none of ‘em wanna touch marine land for obvious reasons. Again, I, I mentioned the five whales that died at, uh, mystic.

[00:06:33] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yep.

[00:06:34] Phil Demers: They also know of the bad PR.

[00:06:36] Marine land’s been getting here for the decades. I mean, it’s been global news, you can’t ignore it. So SeaWorld also had to sue Marine Land a number of years ago to get an orca back. So SeaWorld doesn’t wanna touch marine land, so I don’t think. Anyone in the US wants to associate with buying animals off marine land or brokering any type of deal affiliations, et cetera, et cetera.

[00:06:54] But you know, I’d had this hope that this government, the provincial [00:07:00] Animal welfare society, especially with their policing powers and their ability to seize animals. You know, you have, you have essentially an opportunity to seize these animals and send them to these places, whereas those places might be receiving of them if they’re by way of a rescue versus of, of a broker deal.

[00:07:15] But again, this is me talking, theorizing, trying to figure this thing out.

[00:07:19] Nate Erskine-Smith: But let’s imagine that so, so the federal government. Has done its part in passing the law. I, I think the federal government could play a strong convening role here. And, and we’re starting to, I mean, in the wake of the minister turning down those permits, uh, to, uh, ocean Kingdom in China, I mean, uh, there is a role for the federal government to show some leadership here, but the actual law, the power that you’re talking about, the seizure power that exists, provincially, provincially, and you got Doug Ford over here talking about caring about dogs and okay.

[00:07:46] I, I like that. Okay. Yeah. Let’s, let’s have concern for, for all animals. Uh, but in this particular case, as soon as Marineland says, well, without emergency funding, we’ll euthanize them. They should be coming in here, seizing and using their authority. And, [00:08:00] and, and by the way, I mean even as part of, uh. Uh, I was reading, uh, as part of the settlement back in 2017 and driving the lawsuit.

[00:08:07] I mean, they agreed to monitoring. I mean, like, what are we even talking about here? Have animal welfare experts, animal science experts. Well, they’re in there. They’re in there. And why, and why can’t, and then why can’t Doug Ford sees these and say, now we can broker a deal with the animal welfare top of mind instead of marineland trying to extract top dollar.

[00:08:25] Phil Demers: So in the think tank, that’s become, since all of this and the Yeah. You know, sort of the, where does this go? I do have to say with limited options, China might be atop the very best options. And let me explain why if those animals were in a neutral place right now. Just let’s just, let’s just do this as like a, a sort of a thought, uh, uh, experiment if this animals were in a neutral space right now and yet to elect where they’re going.

[00:08:49] Yeah. Outside of the laws themselves, which is, you know, for the most part, it doesn’t exist in China. That I, that I know, I don’t wanna be quoted, but I don’t know what the animal, uh, oversight and, [00:09:00] and, and laws are like over here. But we know what they are here. Yeah. And we know that they exist here. But that said, they’re not really do serving so, so much.

[00:09:07] Uh, these days, if there was a choice between the facilities, it’d be hands down, you’d be sending them to, to China. It wouldn’t even be a question. There wouldn’t even be a question. These are brand new facilities that massive I had. A team member was there two weeks ago, a a, a former, uh, friend of mine that worked at marineland Works there.

[00:09:24] These are brand new massive, expansive facilities, the conditions of which are good and in fact maybe even be said to be great in the realm of captive facilities. I don’t want to be a defender of any facility. I don’t wanna say, Hey, that’s a good one, but what, on the scale of, you wouldn’t consider this for a moment, but because they’re in there, it becomes a little bit more complicated because it’s a question of, of removing them, but.

[00:09:48] Because of the limited space of where those animals have and being against the clock, they’re gonna have to go somewhere. And, uh, again, I stress the us I ideally, first and foremost, if it doesn’t work out [00:10:00] there, or if, you know, obviously they don’t have the space for 30, we know this already, some are gonna have to go to China

[00:10:04] Nate Erskine-Smith: So let, let’s walk, let’s, I, let’s take some time to walk, walk through those options. Because again, some people might say, well, why not return them to the wild? We’ve seen the consequences of that in, in, in some ways. You, uh, in, uh, there was a return to, uh, facility in, in, in Iceland at one point, I think in.

[00:10:24] So, well, that’s not, that’s not gonna work. And so there, there are just knock on challenges to, to that option.

[00:10:28] Phil Demers: There is no such thing as a perfect scenario. Also, that needs to be stressed because I think we’re, we’re, and we have been wasting a lot of time and thought on what would be perfect. Right? And it doesn’t exist.

[00:10:38] We have to scale that. Our expectations back to what is. And, and also stress that these animals are not very healthy. Now, I’m not gonna call them sick. Do we know? Do, is it Well on a, on a scale of the, they all, they’re all unwell by virtue of the conditions that have been here.

[00:10:58] Nate Erskine-Smith: But do, uh, is there that [00:11:00] openness with, uh, say.

[00:11:02] Uh, nonprofit or, or government experts and, and animal scientists who have access into properly not a chance.

[00:11:09] Phil Demers: And, and for that matter, anything that you would’ve access to look at would be changed,

[00:11:12] Nate Erskine-Smith: right?

[00:11:13] Phil Demers: So, so anyone that has a pen and, and putting it to paper has an interest in some people not knowing everything that’s going on.

[00:11:20] Nate Erskine-Smith: So Wildes out and then you’ve got, uh, wild is out and there have been proposals. For animal sanctuaries, there’s one in Nova Scotia that, that is, that is closest to realization. No. Uh, having spoke well, having spoken to the, the folks there, they said, well, the earliest is really next fall. And that’s an optimistic timeline.

[00:11:38] And, uh, and then you’re, they’re talking about a max of taking 10 of the whales, which today, in the environment that we exist, uh, doesn’t seem like the most plausible option when you want to protect these animals and, and put animal welfare in their animal interest first. Today. So, uh, the answer does, you know, first it’s just who’s the decision maker?

[00:11:59] And it can’t be marine land that is deciding what the deal on the table should be.

[00:12:03] Phil Demers: Well, clearly they’re not, they don’t make the decisions in the best, the best interest of the Yeah, exactly. Just to stress the point of the, of the whale sanctuary in Nova Scotia. I wish it more than anyone to be an operational place, but it’s not.

[00:12:13] I’ve gone, it can’t be, it’s not going to be. Its decades and hundreds of millions. And who’s foot in the bill? This is. A theory at best, and we got to move beyond theories or else what happens is people start hanging their hats out. People start talking, talking, talking. But the specific needs of those animals, and that’s outside of a perfect world, if we’re gonna have a sanctuary for animals, that has to be tried.

[00:12:36] In the best cases, not in one of duress and, and emergency, et cetera. It’s, this is an experiment for the most part, but those animals need to get a access. So we’re talking about a, uh, this monster sanctuary, but did they, in all of that, go through the what is required to actually care for these animals?

[00:12:53] You need a, a rising floor of a tank to be able to access sick animals so that you can give them, uh, medication, et cetera. You gotta be able to [00:13:00] access the animals, but an animal’s sick in the middle of your sanctuary. How are you gonna get them? And get them on a, on back to the shoreline, back into a tank where they can be monitored and then, you know, be given drugs and et cetera treated.

[00:13:12] And you’ve got the, the challenges that these animals already face is just outside of the scope of what an experiments at this point can offer. Right? These animals need facilities with people that know where to inject The animals know where to draw blood, know, you know, they got the book on the meds and they got access to those animals because that’s essentially what they need.

[00:13:32] When we’re talking about what the. What’s happening here? It’s essentially a rescue and it’s, it’s how it needs to be framed. It’s how I’ve always said it. And again, I I’m, I’m sounding like a broken record because I’ve been saying this for a decade, and if you read it, it’s, it, I don’t think I’ve done a single interview in the last decade where I said, if we don’t get those animals out, they’re gonna die.

[00:13:50] And, and, you know, it’s easy to say, well, of course they’re all going to die if they don’t move. But you know, if you watch. At the rate that I was saying it and the rate that the animal [00:14:00] started to die, we’re talking about a scale that’s grading up and speeding up and accelerating. So 30 animals have died there, essentially.

[00:14:08] I, I know it’s in the records as, as 2020 whales, but you know, if you add the three that died at Mystic as being marineland whales, right. If you add the, uh, while we know that in the, in 2019 there’s an affidavit that Marineland sworn of having 58 beluga whales. But we know that they would’ve pregnant ones.

[00:14:27] So five to seven more born there. Deduct those numbers. ‘cause they’re, they’re no longer in that inventory. Um, you’ve got 30 whales that have died essentially since about 2018. More than 50 since I quit, which will have been 60 or more if we hadn’t have passed the, the breeding bin. Nothing here is new.

[00:14:55] Marine land’s, bluster, et cetera, et cetera. You’re finally hearing their actual voice. You’re not seeing [00:15:00] the jingle on tv. You’re not seeing them talking about their, their animal welfare record and, and boasting it as the best in the world. You are seeing the, the people here have seen the marine land, the, the real marine land for the first time.

[00:15:09] Yeah.

[00:15:09] Nate Erskine-Smith: Big difference between everybody loves marine land and we’re gonna kill the whales if you don’t gonna sip on. Right. And this is a, this is a theme I’ve known for far too long because, you know, they don’t like me. But, uh, so just to close the, close this, uh, what’s on the table? It could be on the table.

[00:15:24] So. You’ve got, uh, sanctuaries talked about promising in the longer term, potentially

[00:15:30] Phil Demers: Well, if, and when that exists, the belugas hopefully are alive no matter where they are in the world to one day be received there.

[00:15:36] Nate Erskine-Smith: Right, right, right.

[00:15:38] Phil Demers: There’s so there if they’re alive, which we have to stress.

[00:15:39] Nate Erskine-Smith: And so, but in the immediate term, uh, you’re looking at, in an ideal world, when it’s not an ideal world, uh, you’ve got the premier acting, you got the provincial government that would seize. Control in order to make decisions in the best interest of the animals, you’ve got a situation where then you would survey what’s available across North America and [00:16:00] and elsewhere and say, we’re gonna proactively reach out and try to place these animals, putting animal welfare interests first.

[00:16:07] Phil Demers: And if I was negotiating those moves, I would say any re, any facility that receives these animals. Have to adhere to the spirit of the 2019 law. Right. Which is, and I think North America would, would be glad to adhere to that. They already generally do. I don’t think they’re breeding belugas. Uh, you know, most of these places have their own, despite it not being law, they’re sort of in-house no longer breeding.

[00:16:27] Definitely orcas that I know of, hopefully dolphins one day, but we’re, we’re not there yet. Uh, but that, yes, so with the caveat that, hey, if we can follow this, you know, it should be noted that. The spirit of of S two S 2 0 3, which is the law that passed, was that we’re, we’re gonna eradicate captivity in Canada.

[00:16:44] Sort of the idea was, you know, we’re gonna end this situations of captivity. And well, with the idea of that globally, this build had this, this effect. But that said, these animals who are already here, sadly, and with, with zero to minus zero option of ever being returned [00:17:00] to the wild, and I hate to be this voice.

[00:17:04] But if they go elsewhere, it may very well spare some live ones from being captured. And that is in the spirit of the law. So there is some salvation in this ending in Canada. The animals moving on to better places. Yep. And no more whales ever returning. And that practice being said and done, and we wash our hands of it.

[00:17:24] And that’s the biggest win that can be done. The noise of our bullhorns out here. Follow them to the next place. They’ll hear us out there. The fight continues where they go. That’s, that’s the reality. We got a hundred year problem ahead of us if everything goes well.

[00:17:43] Nate Erskine-Smith: And let’s talk about the other animals.

[00:17:45] I mean, you are known as the walrus whisperer. You didn’t start fighting. Just for the whales. I mean, you were fighting for the walrus smooth. She, and there are an estimated, what, 500 other [00:18:00] animals? It’s a lot of deer in there. Yeah. And, uh, and so is that also part of the picture here? I mean all obviously the public focus has overwhelmingly being on the whales, but, uh, what do we do with the other animals?

[00:18:13] Phil Demers: Well, that I know of, the Toronto Zoo expressed some interest. They were visiting the facility in early October. Those animals are likely destined for, uh, I mean, ideally, some sanctuaries that we know do exist. They, there are some, yeah. Um, the bison are already gone. No one seems to really know where there, there’s theories, but they’re gone.

[00:18:37] Uh, the bear, they that they’re gonna have a tough time because bears are, are solitary animals. They shouldn’t be confined to a tight space anyways. It’s already really, uh, antisocial and dangerous for them. It’s like a really unnatural environment. And so the coat is sort of stunted and no place is looking for a bunch of bears.

[00:18:53] So, you know, I’m, I won’t be surprised if a lot of them get euthanized very quietly, uh, and, you [00:19:00] know, the deer, 500 deer or so, what are you gonna do with that? So, I, I don’t know. Again, I, I, I leave this to, you know, I, I’m, you know, I’ve had my sort of, I, I got a decade plus of fighting against this place.

[00:19:14] That’s the extent of my knowledge of animal rights. And a lot of people come to me and say, Hey, this, this, and that. I’m just like, uh, talk to an organization that knows this stuff.

[00:19:23] Nate Erskine-Smith: Right. So they, I mean, the last time we spoke, uh, where we were, we had an audience in front of us.

[00:19:30] Yep. Uh, that’s, that, that you were still Yeah. Yeah. You were still deep in litigation where they were taking you on and trying to silence you. Mm-hmm. Uh, I mean, it’s interesting, you know, you’ve come to animal rights, but also, uh, you’ve. Really been, I think, uh, uh, you’ve, you’ve shown what it is to be a whistleblower in a, in a, in a publicized important way.

[00:19:53] And the, and the importance of whistle blowing protections despite the fact that they came after you with everything they got. And, uh, where [00:20:00] is all of that at now? I mean, you’ve, uh, uh, before we started recording, you’re talking about smooshy ended up where, so we

[00:20:07] Phil Demers: essentially, you know, so they sued me in 2000, early 2013 for plotting to steal smooshy the walrus.

[00:20:12] Yep. You terrible verse you and I could have done it, but I didn’t. And it had nothing to do with Marine le, but if anyone could have done it, but I wasn’t going to, you’d have to be crazy. And much as they tried to make me out to be crazy, uh, you know, I, there’s some percentage of crazy, but it’s not, not to the scope of what they had described in this lawsuit.

[00:20:31] So, you know, it was baseless. It, it did inspire antis, SLAPP legislation, uh, provincially, which was great. It didn’t help me, but it’s, you know, it, it’s there for the future. It’s important.

[00:20:40] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah.

[00:20:41] Phil Demers: And I also stress when you, when you say, you know, you did, you, you were a whistleblower and you know, we, we, we passed a, a host of different sort of whistleblower protection laws and everything.

[00:20:49] I, this wasn’t an animal rights issue. It, it, this was an animal rights issue when I left. It wasn’t animal rights. It was a, here’s what I’ve experienced and if something [00:21:00] doesn’t happen to this, this, this, these animals will, you know, their suffering will increase. Tell you, I know me suddenly being sued.

[00:21:07] Like these were, these were my friends, these animals and, and the employees. This is like, these were, you know, you’re gonna see your neighbor’s dog like that and you walk ‘em every day. You’re gonna have some concerns. Like, so this was that for me. It spills over into an animal rights realm, of course, because animal rights, people who had, you know, to their credit, been fighting this forever, suddenly, you know, I, I show up, but you know, to be fair, I’m not really an animal rights guy.

[00:21:31] She was your friend, smooshy. Yeah, of course. Right. That’s of course. But I’m just, when it comes, those you love mistreated when it comes to the history of, and what is. The box of animal rights activists, which I get very often. It’s like, no man, it’s just, it’s not, that’s not really what this was for me.

[00:21:49] What this was, was, let’s say, professional a*****e versus semi-professional a*****e. And it was a clash of all crazy proportions if you weren’t witness to it. I, I could only [00:22:00] imagine how much fun it was on the sidelines. I mean, I, I, I, I like to do it up for the people, put on a show, and we did. Uh, but that’s what this was, this was every corner.

[00:22:08] This was a fight. Tooth and nail in every aspect and element of every which way of my life outside of that, of the animals. It was a, it started as an animal thing and it’s taken on an entire other, uh, entire, entire other, uh, uh, level.

[00:22:24] Nate Erskine-Smith: But, but with that said and taken over your life, I mean, uh, well, the litigation and just the, I mean, all of that takes an incredible amount of toll and time

[00:22:33] Phil Demers: I would not have imagined when it happened that.

[00:22:36] That this was going to be like the most forever decision. I, I’ll be honest, and this is ambitious and in retrospect, super naive of me, but armed with the truth at the time, I thought in my mind, this is gonna take six months to resolve the, again, my objective was not, let’s shut marine land down six months.

[00:22:53] Well, what did I know about litigation, about anything? I just thought, well, listen, if the people know, well, not even the people. I thought if the, [00:23:00] if the authorities knew the, you know, if they knew, and here they were here, it was, they knew. And that was like the beginning of my journey. And here I am 13 years later and it all wholly and entirely reshaped into a, a pretty efficient marineland busting machine.

[00:23:19] Like it’s, it’s been a pleasure. But, uh, but yeah, there’s an element of almost, it’s a weird one and, but I, I almost chalk it up to what retired NHL players might. I feel like when they, when they’re so engaged in something that, that, that requires so much energy and, you know, like, and, and levels of execution and like, you know, you really gotta psych yourself up for some of the s**t I’ve been through now I’m trying to take a breath from it all.

[00:23:48] Then we got this thing going on still. You’re like, ay, ay. So no, it turned into, i, I guess what will be a decade long, uh, life identifier. It’s become. [00:24:00] You know, I’m, I’m kind of married to this place now.

[00:24:02] Nate Erskine-Smith: Right, exactly. And, and, and you live through personal challenges and then coming after you legally and then all of that.

[00:24:11] But you, you, I mean, you, we stand outside this place today and it’s, you’re gonna out survive it. You know? This is on his last legs. And it’s, uh, in a, in large measure the law we passed in large measure the public outcry and large measure because you were able to shine a light on it and, and called attention is something that was wrong.

[00:24:32] Phil Demers: It kind of looks like a divorce and now we want the kids

[00:24:37] hard to, hard to find a home for the kids. That’s the problem. Well. But here we are. Uh, but again, exactly, I, I, I do stress. I think that all of this will be revisited by the feds because there is gonna have to be some extra consideration give to the immediate conditions. Yes. As just this, the extent of, of how awful all of this is.

[00:24:54] Should other things be considered first? Yes, I think so too. I don’t think marine land should stand on, uh. [00:25:00] Hey, do what we say or, or give us money and this and that

[00:25:03] Nate Erskine-Smith: No. They’ve, they’ve found their way to profit. It’s a, they should care for the animals.

[00:25:07] Phil Demers: It’s a, it’s a breath of fresh air to not to see nobody caving because, uh, Marineland has known that for too long.

[00:25:12] Yeah. Uh, but, you know, so there, there should be a, a very diligent work done as into what can be done for these animals. But, you know, given the fact that we are super limited, I think there’s gonna have to be some reconsideration. To the Chinese facilities. It just is. It would be great if they came with the caveat of don’t breed them and don’t do this.

[00:25:32] Maybe that could be negotiated. I don’t know.

[00:25:35] Nate Erskine-Smith: But I think, uh, and I think it’s useful to close here. I mean, in the end, in the same way that, uh, you’ve got individuals including yourself who have shown leadership. I mean, at this moment in time, we need governments not to react, not to say, well, it’s our job to review a permit, or it’s our job to review.

[00:25:51] If there’s a complaint or there’s an investigation to say, no, no, no. We are gonna proactively find a home for these animals. We’re gonna proactively pull the stakeholders together, [00:26:00] together, pull the organizations together across North America and elsewhere. Say it’s not a perfect world. So what exists here?

[00:26:06] What what is possible, and to, and to show some leadership and, and to not just react and to try to solve the problem in a proactive way and not leave it. To these guys who are not intending to solve the problem at all and are didn’t want the law passed in the first place.

[00:26:20] Phil Demers: They’ve proven themselves as being irresponsible caretakers.

[00:26:24] It’s time for other people to have a hand in what becomes, and uh, you know, they may not like it, but they’ve set the stage for exactly that. So now other people will have a say.

[00:26:33] Nate Erskine-Smith: Appreciate it

[00:26:34] Phil Demers: Anytime

Catherine McKenna joined me in person for a live recording of this episode at the Naval Club of Toronto here in our east end. We discussed her new book ‘Run Like a Girl’, lessons learned from her six years in federal politics, the reality of political harassment, the tension between party loyalty and telling it like it is, and why we should be wary of “grand bargains” on climate with oil and gas companies.

Catherine served as Environment and Climate Change Minister from 2015-2019 and Infrastructure Minister from 2019-2021. She’s now the founder and CEO of Climate and Nature Solutions and chairs a UN expert group advising the Secretary General on net zero commitments.

Read further:

Run Like A Girl - Catherine McKenna (2025)

https://www.catherinemckenna.ca

Chapters:

00:00 Introduction & Run Like A Girl Book

05:32 Lessons from Politics: Hard Work & Balance

08:52 Climate Barbie & Political Harassment

15:26 Running for Office in Ottawa Centre

23:17 Being a Team Player vs. Speaking Truth

32:05 Leaving Politics

40:30 Climate Policy & the Oil & Gas “Grand Bargain”

48:24 Supporting Others in Politics

52:56 Carbon Pricing Communication Failures

59:13 Gender Balance, Feminism & Cabinet

01:04:04 Final Thoughts & Closing

Transcript:

Nate Erskine-Smith

00:02 - 00:38

Well, thank you everyone for joining. This is a live recording of the Uncommon’s podcast, and I’m lucky to be joined by Catherine McKenna, who has a very impressive CV. You will know her as the former Environment Minister. She is also the founder and CEO of Climate and Nature Solutions, a consultancy focused on all things environment and nature protection. And you may or may not know, but she’s also the chair of a UN expert group that gives advice to the Secretary General on net zero solutions. So thank you for coming to Beaches East York.

Catherine McKenna

00:38 - 00:56

It’s great to be here. Hello, everyone. And special shout out to the guy who came from, all the way from Bowmanville. That’s awesome. Anyone from Hamilton, that’s where I’m originally found. All right. Nice, we got a shout out for Hamilton. Woo-hoo.

Nate Erskine-Smith

00:57 - 01:19

So I ran down a few things you’ve accomplished over the years, but you are also the author of Run Like a Girl. I was at, you mentioned a book launch last night here in Toronto, but I attended your book launch in Ottawa. And you can all pick up a book on the way out. But who did you write this book for?

Catherine McKenna

01:21 - 02:58

So, I mean, this book has been a long time in the making. It’s probably been five years. It was a bit of a COVID project. And you’ll see, it’s good, I’ve got my prop here, my book. But you’ll see it’s not a normal kind of book. So it has a lot of images of objects and of, you know, pictures, pictures of me getting ready to go to the state visit dinner that was hosted by Obama while I’m trying to finalize the text on climate. So it’s got like random things in it, but it’s intended for a much broader audience. It’s really intended to inspire women and girls and young people. And I think that’s particularly important right now because I work on climate and I think it’s really hard. Do people here care about climate? Yes, I imagine here you care about climate. I mean, I actually think most Canadians do because they understand the wildfires and they see the smoke and people are being evacuated from communities and you can’t get insurance if you’re in a flood zone. But I do think in particular we need to bolster spirits. But also it’s a book, it’s really about how to make change. It’s not like people think it’s like a political memoir. So I think, you know, fancy people in politics will look at the end of the book to see if their name is there and maybe be disappointed if it isn’t. But it’s not really that kind of book. It’s like I was a kid from Hamilton. I didn’t want to be a politician. That wasn’t my dream when I grew up. I wanted to go to the Olympics for swimming. And spoiler alert, I did not make the Olympic team, but I went to Olympic trials.

Nate Erskine-Smith

02:59 - 02:59

You’re close.

Catherine McKenna

03:00 - 04:05

I was, well, closest, closest, but, but it wasn’t, I mean, you know, life is a journey and that wasn’t, it wasn’t sad that I didn’t make it, but I think it’s just to hopefully for people to think I can make change too. Like I didn’t come as a fully formed politician that was, you know, destined to be minister for the environment and climate change. So in particular for women and young people who are trying to figure out how to make change, I think it’s a little bit my story. I just tried to figure it out. And one day I decided the best way to make change was to go into politics and get rid of Stephen Harper. That was my goal. He was my inspiration, yes, because we needed a new government. And yeah, so I really, really, really am trying to reach a much broader audience because I think we often are politicians talking to a very narrow group of people, often very partisan. And that’s not my deal. My deal is we need everyone to be making change in their own way. And I want people who are feeling like maybe it’s a bit hard working on climate or in politics or on democracy or human rights that you too can make change.

Nate Erskine-Smith

04:06 - 05:17

And you were holding it up. I mean, it’s a bit of a scrapbook. You’ve described it. And it’s also honest. I mean, there was some media coverage of it that was sort of saying, oh, you said this about Trudeau, calling him a loofer. And there’s a certain honesty about I’ve lived in politics and I’m going to call it like it is. But what I find most interesting is not the sort of the gotcha coverage after the fact. It’s when you go to write something, you said you’re not a writer at the launch that I saw in Ottawa, but you obviously sat down and were trying to figure out what are the lessons learned. You’ve had successes, you’ve had failures, and you’re trying to impart these lessons learned. You mentioned you sort of were going down that road a little bit of what you wanted to impart to people, but you’ve had six years in politics at the upper echelon of decision-making on a really important file. I want to get to some of the failures because we’re living through some of them right now, I think. Not of your doing, of conservative doing, unfortunately. But what would you say are the lessons learned that you, you know, as you’re crystallizing the moments you’ve lived through, what are those lessons?

Catherine McKenna

05:19 - 07:12

It’s funny because the lessons I learned actually are from swimming in a way that actually you got to do the work. That, you know, you set a long-term goal and, you know, whatever that goal is, whatever you hope to make change on. And then you get up and you do the work. And then you get up the next morning and you do the work again. And sometimes things won’t go your way. But you still get up the next morning. And I think it’s important because, like, you know, look, I will talk, I’m sure, about carbon pricing. We lost the consumer carbon price. There’s a chapter. It’s called Hard Things Are Hard. I’m also, like, really into slogans. I used to be the captain of the U of T swim team. So I feel like my whole life is like a Nike ad or something. Hard things are hard. We can do it. But yeah, I mean, I think that the change is incremental. And sometimes in life, you’re going to have hard times. But the other thing I want people to take from it is that, you know, sometimes you can just go dancing with your friends, right? Or you can call up your book club. I would sometimes have hard days in politics. And I was like, oh, gosh, that was like, what? happened. So I’d send an email, it would say to my book club. So if you have book clubs, book clubs are a good thing. Even if you don’t always read the book, that would be me. But I would be SOS, come to my house. And I’d be like, all I have is like chips and wine, but I just need to hang out with regular people. And I think that’s also important. Like, you know, life is life. Like, you know, you got to do the work if you’re really trying to make change. But some days are going to be harder and sometimes you’re just trying to hang in there and I had you know I had I have three kids one of them they’re older now one of them is actually manning the the booth selling the books but you know when you’re a mom too like you know sometimes you’re going to focus on that so I don’t know I think my my lessons are I I’m too gen x to be like you’ve got to do this and I

Nate Erskine-Smith

07:12 - 07:16

learned this and I’m amazing no that’s not writing a graduation speech I’m not I’m not writing a

Catherine McKenna

07:16 - 08:43

graduation speech and I don’t know that you know the particular path I took is what anyone else is going to do I was going to I went to Indonesia to do a documentary about Komodo dragons because my roommate asked me to so that led me to go back to Indonesia which led me to work for UN peacekeeping and peacekeeping mission in East Timor but I think it’s also like take risks if you’re a young person Like, don’t, people will tell you all the time how you should do things. And I, you know, often, you know, doubted, should I do this, or I didn’t have enough confidence. And I think that’s often, women often feel like that, I’ll say. And, you know, at the end, sometimes you are right. And it’s okay if your parents don’t like exactly what you’re doing. Or, you know, people say you should stay in corporate law, which I hated. Or, you know, so I don’t know if there’s so many lessons as a bit as, you know, one, you got to do the work to, you know, listen to what you really want to do. That doesn’t mean every day you’re going to get to do what you want to do. But, you know, if you’re really passionate about working human rights, work on human rights, like figure out a way to do it and then also have some fun. Like life can feel really heavy. And I felt that during COVID. I think sometimes now after, you know, looking at, you know, social media and what Donald Trump has done or threatened to do, it can feel hard. So I think it’s also OK to to just check out and have fun.

Nate Erskine-Smith

08:44 - 08:46

I like it. Well, there aren’t lessons, but here are three important lessons.

Catherine McKenna

08:48 - 08:50

I am a politician. It’s good. Well, it’s OK.

Nate Erskine-Smith

08:50 - 09:57

You mentioned a few times really writing this book in a way to young people and specifically to young women to encourage them to to make a difference and to get involved. and yet politics, we were both drawn to politics, I think for similar reasons, and it is one of the most important ways to make a difference, and I wanna get to you. There are other ways to make a difference, of course, but there’s a bit of a tension, I think, in what you’re writing, because you’re writing this encouragement to make a difference, and politics is so important, and on the flip side, you document all sorts of different ways that politics has been truly awful, the absurdity of, I knew the ridiculous idiocy of Climate Barbie, but I didn’t actually appreciate that you had these bizarre men coming to your house to take selfies in front of your house. That’s just a next-level awfulness. And so how do you, when you’re talking to young people, to encourage them on the one hand, but also you don’t want to shield them from the awfulness, and we all want to make politics a more civil, better place, but these are problematic tensions.

Catherine McKenna

09:58 - 10:42

Yeah, I mean, look, I thought a lot about what I wanted to say about like the hate and abuse that I got, but also my staff got. I mean, they come to my office and start screaming. And of course, everything’s videotaped. So and, you know, there were incidents at my house. And so I first of all, I believe in being honest. Like, I just believe in it. I believe that people deserve the truth. But also in this case, I wasn’t looking for sympathy. I’m out of politics. I don’t need sympathy, but we need change. And so I think the only way, one of the only ways we get changed, and you know how hard it is to get policy, like online harm legislation. We still have not gotten online harm. In a way, it’s kind of unfathomable that we can’t just get it. Like, we know that online.

Nate Erskine-Smith

10:42 - 10:43

C5 happened real quick, though. Don’t worry.

Catherine McKenna

10:43 - 10:43

Okay.

Catherine McKenna

10:44 - 10:48

Well, luckily, I’m not in politics anymore. I’m not in politics anymore.

Catherine McKenna

10:48 - 11:48

I just do my thing. But I do think that by documenting this, I’m hoping that people will read it and say, well, wait a minute, that’s not OK, because that’s how we will get the support to get legislation to make sure that we hold social media platforms accountable. that’s the way that we will be able to get people to say to politicians, you cannot go and do personal attacks and then go spread them online to get to get clicks. And that we can get proper protection for politicians, which I don’t love, but actually we need that sometimes. So I think that it is important to say that I don’t want people to feel down because I have multiple purposes in the book. Like people are talking about this. And I’ve had a number of my female politician friends saying thank you for stepping up because now people are taking it more seriously because they’re like wow that was bad like climate barbie sounds kind of quaint now but climate barbie led to a whole bunch of things that led to a bunch of things that led to rcmp finally being outside my house which

Nate Erskine-Smith

11:49 - 12:05

wasn’t amazing but at least i felt safe but it’s one thing to say quaint but it normalizes a misogyny that is that is awful right yeah so it’s and it might it might not be a direct threat it might not be taking a selfie outside of your home which is an implicit threat but it is it’s normalizing an awfulness in our politics.

Catherine McKenna

12:06 - 12:10

Yeah, I mean, it is. From other politicians. It was a former minister in Harper’s Cabinet

Nate Erskine-Smith

12:10 - 12:11

who started it, right?

Catherine McKenna

12:11 - 12:21

It was, or at least amplified it. We’ll go there, like the climate Barbie. Okay, so climate Barbie is, it’s quite weird because now my kids are like, well, Barbie went to the moon.

Catherine McKenna

12:21 - 12:22

Barbie was an asteroid.

Catherine McKenna

12:23 - 14:57

Quinn is here, like, you know, Barbies are, like, you know, not that big a deal. The thing is, if you are my age, if anyone here is 50 or over, I think you’re pretty clear when someone who’s 50 or over calls you climate barbie there’s a lot going on in that and i said nothing like i was actually baptized climate barbie very early on um by a rage farming alt-right outlet they are not media and that’s what they do this is their game they go after progressives to make money actually um for clickbait but i didn’t do anything for so long um and i guess my team was lovely and i had a lot of really awesome women and they’re like just don’t do it because you’ll they’ll know that you know they can go after you um and so i’m at the un actually it’s like seven years ago i was just at the un last week yes i heard donald trump but i was there to work on climate but it was the same thing it was the end of a really long day i was going back to the hotel i was actually in the hotel lobby some crabby hotel with my team and i look at my phone i was like why is my twitter exploded what has happened and then i see the climate barbie tweet and i said to my team. I said, okay, I’m sorry. I’m just going to have to deal with this situation. And they knew, like, I’m, when I say I’m dealing with it, I’m going to deal with it. And so I, I, you know, I’m a lawyer by training. So I, you know, try, I am Irish. I’ve got the hot headed side and then I’ve got the lawyer rational side. So I was like, okay, what am I going to say? There’s going to call it out, but in a way that isn’t falling into the trap of just calling names. So I said, it’s in this book. I’m not going to get exactly right, but it was something like, would you use that kind of language with your girlfriend, wife, mother? You’re not chasing women out of politics. Your sexism is going to chase women, whatever it was. And what was so interesting about this, and this is why in this book, I do the same thing, is that it went viral. And I wasn’t trying to do this. I was trying to shame him so he would stop. And people like would stop me in the streets. And it would be, you know, conservative men, they’d be like, I’m a conservative, I’m ashamed. This is not acceptable. And I really appreciate this. This is how you stand up to bullies. And I thought, oh, this is important that we do this every once in a while, because often as a woman, you’re kind of supposed to take it because otherwise you look a bit weak. And I realized actually the power is other people saying that this is not okay. So I actually appreciate that you call it out. You will see in my book. I will just let me see if I can find it. I also, like, kind of bizarrely, a bunch of, like, men would send me Barbies with really mean notes.

Catherine McKenna

14:57 - 15:04

So they’d go to a store, buy a Barbie, then go and find the address of my constituency office or my ministerial office,

Catherine McKenna

15:05 - 15:32

and then send it with a note that they personally addressed. Like, that’s kind of weird. So anyway, the funny thing is, I guess, is it funny? I don’t know. It’s just it. There’s a Barbie. This is actually a picture of one of the Barbies that was sent. We would normally put our Barbies in the Christmas toy drive. I guess we figured might as well give it to, you know, kids that would like the Barbie. But I found one when I was cleaning up my office. And I was like, oh, I’m going to just keep that. I’m going to like, you know, just keep that. So you can...

Nate Erskine-Smith

15:32 - 15:33

No one’s sending you Barbies.

Catherine McKenna

15:33 - 15:38

I have a book of just... No one’s sending you Barbies. Glorious things that people have sent, like written notes that people have sent over the years

Nate Erskine-Smith

15:38 - 16:33

where you’re just like, this is the most bizarre thing to have received. And, you know, in 10 years in politics, the scrapbook grows. So speaking of, you mentioned Harper being an inspiration of sorts. You also have said, I’m just a regular person who wanted to make a change. And politics, you also said, I didn’t want to be a politician. I want to be an Olympian. But you also document Sheila Copps as someone you looked up to. You mentioned your dad being very political. And Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the person in politics who was a bit of an inspiration for your dad and family. And so Harper, obviously, a motivating force for me as well in the lead up to 2015. I think there’s a whole class of us in the lead up to 2015 that wanted a different kind of politics. How did you get on the ballot, though? It was you were a lawyer and you thought, no, this is this particular moment. Were people tapping on the shoulder and saying, come on, Catherine, now’s the time?

Catherine McKenna

16:37 - 18:52

Yeah, I mean, it’s kind of a funny story because women often have to be asked multiple times. The thing is, I’d already been asked before 2015. And it’s kind of funny because I saw my friend last night who’s part of the story. So when Stéphane Dion was running, I went back to Hamilton. So that’s where my parents, my dad passed away. But that’s where my parents lived. And I was walking up my street. And the head of the riding association was like, would you like to run? So the election, I think, was already called. I’m pregnant. I live in Ottawa. And so I was like, oh, maybe I should think about that. So I asked my friend. He’s like, well, I guess you won’t have to knock on doors. So that was my first time getting asked. I did not run then. But I ran a charity that did human rights, rule of law, and good governance. I’d started this charity after having lived abroad with a friend. And, I mean, it was like banging your head on a wall in the pre-Harper times. We were trying to support human rights. We were working with indigenous youth in Canada focused on reconciliation. I cared about climate change. I was like, all of these things I’m trying to do outside of the system are a complete and utter waste of time. So I thought, OK, we’ve got to get rid of the government. So that’s my theory of change now. My theory of change was create this charitable organization, and it’s just not getting the impact. So I decided I was going to run, but I was in Ottawa Centre. So I don’t know if many of you know Ottawa Centre. It’s actually where Parliament’s located, so it’s great. It’s a bike ride to work. But it was Paul Dewar, who was a really beloved NDP member of parliament. His mother had been mayor. And I really like Paul, too. But the reality is you’ve got to win, right? So you’ve got to win enough seats so you can form government. So I ran for two years. And it’s interesting because I just decided to run. I canvassed, and so maybe the woman, this will maybe resonate a little bit. So I was like, okay, I really want to run, but I kind of need permission. I don’t know why I thought I needed permission, but I did. So I went the rounds. And I like the Liberal Party, but it can be like an inside club. And I wasn’t from Ottawa Centre. And so I think people were like a bit perplexed. They’re like, we’re kind of keeping this riding for a star candidate. And I was like, okay, what the heck? Who’s a star?

Catherine McKenna

18:52 - 18:53

Like, what’s a star candidate?

Catherine McKenna

18:53 - 19:07

Is that like a male lawyer who gives a lot of money to the Liberal Party? Like, I was like, seriously, what is a star candidate? Yeah, that’s what it is. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. I don’t know. You are a male. I ran when I was 29 and had no money.

Nate Erskine-Smith

19:07 - 19:09

That was a setup. That was a setup.

Catherine McKenna

19:09 - 20:15

No, it wasn’t. Okay. Anyway, we’ll just blow by that one. You’re a little bit unusual. Okay. So we’ll take you out of that. But anyway, it’s quite funny because then I was like, and then people were like, actually, you should just get the party to go get you another riding that’s winnable. So I was like, okay, on the one hand, you need a star candidate here for this great riding that, but on the flip side, no one can win. So I was like, okay, I don’t really know. So I looked at, like, you know, I’m not a fool. I was a competitive swimmer. I want to win. So I looked at the numbers, and I realized, like, you know, if Justin Trudeau was then leader, if we did super well, we were in third place, and it was two years out. But if I worked really hard and we did super well, there was a shot at winning. So I just decided I’m going to run. And I got the chapters called The New Girls Club. And then I had men supporting me. It was fine. But I literally had a lot of women who were just like, I don’t know if you can win. This is kind of bonkers. You’re doing it. But I’m going to step up and give you some money. I’m going to go help sell nominations. And at that point, you had to sell them. And no one wanted to buy a nomination.

Catherine McKenna

20:15 - 20:20

People are like, I don’t want to be a party. I want to join a party, especially a liberal party.

Catherine McKenna

20:22 - 21:04

And so those of you who are thinking about politics, how do you win a nomination? I was trying to sell memberships and people weren’t buying them. I was like, oh gosh, every night I’m going out, I’ve got these kids and I’m going out and talking to people. And I’m spending two hours and getting one or two nominations, people signing up. So I actually realized it was my kids’ friends’ mothers whose names I didn’t know. I just knew their kids. And I think they were like, wow, we don’t really know anyone that would go into politics. But we actually think you’d be pretty good. And your kids would kind of nice. And I don’t know. I’ll just sign up. I don’t care.

Catherine McKenna

21:04 - 21:06

And so it was actually really heartening.

Catherine McKenna

21:07 - 23:15

And I will say, like, for all the bad of politics, and there is some bad for sure. And you will read about it in my book. That campaign for two years, like, we knocked on more than 100,000 doors. We had the highest voter turnout in the country. We had, I had my own rules. Like, I was like, we’re going to do this in the way that I believe in. and you know some like some of it was following the bomb a snowflake model like you know we wanted to run hard but we also engaged kids and it wasn’t like we had just like a kid area we would have kid canvases and I just felt important to me and we went to low income parts of the riding where some people said they’re not going to vote or we went to university we went to university residents they’re like they’re not going to vote actually they turned out in strong numbers and I got a ton of volunteers who, and people that knew my name, because like someone who knows someone who knows someone. So it was great. But I will say like, that’s the one thing about getting involved in politics. You may be here. I met a couple of you who said younger people who said you’d like to run. You can do it. You don’t need permission. You’re gonna have to hustle. You’re gonna have to build your team. But this isn’t an in club. And I do sometimes worry that politics feels like an in club and it shouldn’t be that like we need everyone who wants to step up and get involved in however they want to get involved to be able to do that and so that’s my lesson read that chapter hopefully you feel quite inspired and when I knocked on the last door I didn’t know if I would win or not but I knew we’d left it all on the ice and I felt great like I was like we also have another woman who has run here it’s Kelly is it Kelly who’s run a couple times you know what it’s like like you build a team. Now you were in a super hard riding. I do hope you run again. But it, it’s just this feeling of doing something that matters and bringing people together in a common cause that is bigger than yourself. And it’s about believing you can improve lives and you can tackle climate change. So that was a great I hope you read it and feel like you can do it too, if you want to run because you can, I will say you got to work hard. That is one of the most important thing doors got

Nate Erskine-Smith

23:15 - 23:36

got a knock on doors well so i want to get back to though you were emphasizing one this idea of an insider culture but at the same time the need to have a really local presence and it was people who who were on the ground in the community who who ultimately helped get you over the finish line the nomination i mean here you know sandy’s working the bar i went to high school with his kids and

Catherine McKenna

23:36 - 23:41

he signed up in the nomination you got sandy and he got us a beer and and you got claire and fred

Nate Erskine-Smith

23:41 - 24:44

here who again i went i went to high school with their kids and they signed up in the nomination probably for joining the Liberal Party for the first time. And you go down the list, and there are people who are behind you locally. And in part, I think when you get started, now you go, okay, well, I know this person in the party, I know that person in the party, I’ve lived in the party for 12, 13 years. But I was 29 when I was starting to run the nomination. No one was tapping me on the shoulder and going, like, you’re a star candidate, whatever that means, as you say. And so it does require that desire to say, no one has to ask me. I’m going to go do it and I’m going to build my own local team. But it also gets, I think, at another tension of who is your team? Because you say at one point, sometimes you need to be on the outside so you can push the inside to do more. And so you’re on the outside now and you can be probably more honest in your assessment of things and more critical. I have tried, though, at times over the 10 years to play that same role in caucus.

Catherine McKenna

24:46 - 24:49

What? Nate? I thought you were always all in on everything. Yeah, all in on everything.

Nate Erskine-Smith

24:50 - 25:32

But it does get to this idea of team. It’s like, be a team player, be a team player, be a team player. And the answer back is, well, who’s your team? And yeah, sure, of course the team is the Liberal caucus, but the team is also people in Beaches of East York, the people who are knocking doors with the nomination, people who are knocking doors in the election. And they also want accountability. They also want the party and the government to be the best version of itself. And so do you find you were when you think back at the six years that you were in. I mean, cabinet’s a different level of solidarity, obviously. But do you think it’s possible to navigate that, you know, critical accountability role inside the tent? Or do you think it’s essential as you are now to be outside to play that, you know, that that truth function?

Catherine McKenna

25:34 - 25:46

I mean, that’s a that’s a really hard question because I mean, I’m a team person. I just sound like I was captain of a swim team. But that doesn’t team. So it’s different. Like, I’ll just have to distinguish like being in cabinet.

Catherine McKenna

25:47 - 25:52

Like you do have cabinet solidarity. But in cabinet, let me tell you, like I spoke up.

Catherine McKenna

25:52 - 26:50

I like everyone didn’t didn’t always like it, but I felt like I had an obligation to just say things. And that was as much to myself as it was to anyone else. But then once you do that, you know, there is this view that then you stand with the team or else you leave cabinet. That is hard. That is hard. But it’s probably less hard than being in caucus where you feel like you might have less influence on the issues. The one time I felt this was actually when I was out, but it was hard to do. And this is when I spoke up and I said I felt it was time for Justin Trudeau to step down, like to like have a leadership race to allow someone new to come in. And it was funny because I got like all these texts like and I was out. Right. So you think not such a big deal. But I got texts from people and like saying, who do you think you are? Like, you know, we’re a liberal team. And I was like, OK, this is weird because I get team, but team doesn’t equal cult.

Nate Erskine-Smith

26:52 - 26:52

Welcome to my world.

Catherine McKenna

26:56 - 28:06

Nate and me, are we exactly the same? Probably not exactly the same, but no, no. but I think it’s true because I was like, well, wait a minute. We also owe it to, in that case, it was also like, we got to win. Are we going to just go? Is this the way it’s going? We’re just going to allow us to go down even though it’s clear that the wheels have come off the cart. And that was hard. But I thought about it, and I was just so worried about the other option. Like Pierre Paulyab, that was too much. And I was like, okay, if I can make a bit of a difference, I will take a hit. It’s fine. But I like, look, there is it is really hard to navigate that. And I mean, obviously, if it’s super chaotic and no one’s supporting things, I mean, the government will fall and you can’t get agendas through. There does have to be some leeway to say things like that is important. It’s that line and the tension. And I know you’ve you’ve felt it. And, you know, we haven’t always been on the same side of those things, probably. But that is hard. That is hard. And I don’t know that there’s any easy answer to that because you can’t always be in opposition because you can’t govern.

Catherine McKenna

28:07 - 28:09

So I would actually put that to you, Nate.

Catherine McKenna

28:10 - 28:38

No, but I think it’s an interesting question for you because, as I said, I was in cabinet, so it was a little bit easier. I mean, you literally have to vote with the government. But for you, there were times that you decided to, you know, be your own voice and not necessarily, well, not when I say not necessarily, not support, you know, the government’s position. like how did you make decisions on that like how do you decide this is the moment i’m going to do that sometimes i care but i don’t care as much or maybe i’ve done it you know a few times and i

Nate Erskine-Smith

28:38 - 31:51

should stay together like how did you how do you make that choice so i i think that uh trudeau and running for his leadership one thing that drew me to him actually he was calling for generational renewal at the time which which appealed to me but he was also talking about doing politics differently and whether that promise was entirely realized or not you know you lived around the cabinet table you you know more than me in some ways but I would say the promise of freer votes was incredibly appealing to me as the kind of politics that I that I want to see because I do think you you want that grassroots politics you want people to be it sounds trite now but that idea of being voices for the community in Ottawa not the other way around but there is a there’s a truth to that. And so how do you get there and also maintain unity? And I think they navigated that quite well when in the leadership and then it became part of our platform in 2015, he articulated this idea of, well, we’re going to have whipped votes on platform promises. Do I agree with everything in the platform? No, but I’ll bite my tongue where I disagree and I’ll certainly vote with the government. Two, on charter rights and human rights issues. And then three, and this is more fraught but on confidence matters more fraught i say because there were moments where they made certain things confidence matters that i didn’t think they should have but you know that was that was the deal and that was the deal that you know you make with constituents it’s the deal that you make with with members of the liberal party beyond that i think it’s more about how you go about disagreeing and then it’s making sure that you’ve given notice making sure that you’ve explained your reasons i i’ve i’ve uh i’ve joked i’ve been on many different whips couches but uh andy leslie i thought was the best whip in part because he would say why are you doing this and you’d run through the reasons he goes well have you have you engaged with them like do they know yeah well have they tried to convince you otherwise yeah and but here are the reasons okay well sounds like you thought about it kid get in my office and it was a there was a you could tell why he was an effective general because he he built respect as between you uh whereas you know the other approach is you have to vote with us. But that’s not the deal, and here’s why. And it’s a less effective approach from a whip. But I would say how you, you know, I’ve used the example of electoral reform. I wasn’t going and doing media saying Justin Trudeau is an awful person for breaking this promise, and, you know, he’s, this is the most cynical thing he could have possibly have done, and what a bait and switch. I wasn’t burning bridges and making this personal. I was saying, you know, he doesn’t think a referendum is a good idea. Here’s why I think there’s a better forward and here’s why I think we here’s a way of us maintaining that promise and here’s why I don’t think we should have broken the promise and you know different people in the liberal party of different views I think the way we go about disagreeing and creating space for reasonable disagreement within the party outside the party but especially within the party really matters and then sometimes you just have to say there’s an old Kurt Vonnegut line it’s we are who we pretend to be so be careful who you pretend to be and I think it’s double each room politics and so you know you want to wake up after politics and think I did the thing I was supposed to do when I was there. And sometimes that means being a good team player, and other times it means standing up and saying what you think. Okay, but back to questions for you.

Catherine McKenna

31:52 - 31:57

Do you like that one? That was pretty good. Just put Nate on the hot speed for a little bit.

Nate Erskine-Smith

31:59 - 33:01

You can ask me questions, too. Okay, so I was going to ask you why not politics, but you’ve sort of said, I’ve heard you say you felt that you were done, and you did what you came to do. But I want to push back on that a little bit, because you did a lot of things, especially around climate. First climate plan, you put carbon pricing in place, a number of measures. I mean, that gets all the attention, and we can talk about the walk back on it. But there’s stringent methane rules, there were major investments in public transit, there’s clean electricity. You run down the list of different things that we’ve worked towards in advance. And then we talk about consumer carbon pricing, but the industrial carbon piece is huge. Having said that, do you worry you left at a time when the politics were toxic, but not as toxic as they are today around climate and certainly around carbon pricing? And do you feel like you left before you had made sure the gains were going to be protected?

Catherine McKenna

33:02 - 33:11

I think the lesson I learned, you can never protect gains, right? Like, you’re just going to always have to fight. And, like, I can’t, like, when am I going to be in politics? So I’m, like, 120?

Catherine McKenna

33:12 - 33:12

Like, sorry.

Catherine McKenna

33:14 - 34:43

And it is really true. Like, when I, the weird thing, when, so I’d been through COVID. I had three teenagers, one who, as I mentioned, is here. And I really thought hard. Like, I turned 50. And, like, I’m not someone who’s, like, big birthdays. It’s, like, this existential thing. I wasn’t sad. It was, like, whatever. But I was, like, okay, I’m 50 now. Like, you know, there’s what do I want to do at 50? I really forced myself to do it. And I really felt like, remember, I got into politics to make change. So I just thought, what is the best way to make change? And I really felt it wasn’t, I felt personally for myself at this point, it wasn’t through politics. I really wanted to work globally on climate because I really felt we’d done a lot. And I did think we kind of landed a carbon price. and we’d gone through two elections and one at the Supreme Court. So I felt like, okay, people will keep it. We will be able to keep it. So I just felt that there were other things I wanted to do, and I’d really come when I – you know, I said I would leave when I had done what I’d come to do, and that was a really important promise to myself. And I really want to spend time with my kids. Like, you give up a lot in politics, and my kids were going off to university, and I’d been through COVID, and if any parents – anyone been through COVID, But if you’re a parent of teenage kids, that was a pretty bleak time. I’d be like, do you guys want to play another game? And they’re like, oh my God.

Audience Q

34:43 - 34:44

As if, and then they go to their bed.

Catherine McKenna

34:44 - 35:15

They’d be like, I’m doing school. And I’d be like, as if you’re doing school, you’re online. Probably playing video game. But what am I going to do, right? Let’s go for another walk. They’re like, okay, we’ll go for a walk if we can go get a slushie. And I was like, I’m going to rot their teeth. And my dad was a dentist. So I was like, this is bad. But this is like, we’re engaging for 20 minutes. Like it was really hard. And so I actually, when I made the decision, like, but the counter, the funny thing that is so hilarious now to me is I almost, I was like, I’m not going to leave because if I leave, those haters will think

Catherine McKenna

35:15 - 35:16

they drove me out.

Nate Erskine-Smith

35:16 - 35:18

So I was like, okay, I’m going to stay.

Catherine McKenna

35:18 - 35:20

And like, it was bizarre. I was like, okay.

Nate Erskine-Smith

35:20 - 35:21

I don’t want to stay when I’m staying. I don’t want to stay.

Catherine McKenna

35:21 - 35:46

I don’t think this is the most useful point of my, like, you know, part of what I, you know, this is this useful, but I’m going to stay because these random people that I don’t care about are actually going to say, ha ha, I chased her out. So then I was like, okay, well, let’s actually be rational here and, you know, an adult. So I made the decision. And I actually felt really zen. Like, it was quite weird after I did it, where it was actually politicians who would do it to me. They’d be like, are you okay?

Catherine McKenna

35:47 - 35:49

And I’d be like, I’m amazing.

Catherine McKenna

35:49 - 36:05

What are you talking about? And, like, you know, it was as if leaving politics, I would not be okay. And then people would say, like, is it hard not to have stuff? I was like, I’m actually free. I can do whatever I want. I can go to a microphone now and say whatever. Probably people will care a lot less. But I don’t.

Nate Erskine-Smith

36:05 - 36:07

You can do that in politics sometimes too.

Catherine McKenna

36:08 - 36:08

Yes, Nate.

Nate Erskine-Smith

36:09 - 36:09

Yes, Nate.

Catherine McKenna

36:09 - 39:32

We know about that. Yeah, it was just. So anyway, I left politics. I was not. I do think that what I always worried about more than actually the haters thinking they won. It was that women and women and girls would think I love politics because of all the hate. And once again, I’ll just repeat it because it’s very important to me. The reason I say the things that happened to me in the book is not because I need sympathy. I don’t. We do need change. And I felt when I left, I said I would support women and girls in politics. One of the ways I am doing it is making sure that it is a better place than what I had to put up with. Now, sadly, it’s not because it’s actually worse now. I hear from counselors. I hear from school board trustees. I hear from all sorts of women in politics, but also men, however you identify. Like, it’s bad out there. And it’s not just online. It is now offline. People think they can shout at you and scream at you and take a video of it, like put it in the dark web or wherever that goes. So, you know, that’s bad. But I feel like, you know, people are like, oh, we got to stop that. And that’s what’s important. There’s a nice letter here. So as I said, I have like random things in here. But there’s this lovely gentleman named Luigi. I haven’t talked about Luigi yet, have I? So I was at the airport and this gentleman came over to me. And I still get a little nervous when people, because I don’t know what people are going to do. Like I probably 99% of them are very nice, but it only takes one percent. So I always get like slightly nervous. And I don’t mean to be because I’m actually, as you can see, quite gregarious. I like talking to people, but never exactly sure. And he hands me a note and walks away. And I’m like, oh, God, is this like an exploding letter? Who knows? And I open it and it’s in the book. So I’ll read you his letter because it actually, I put it towards the end because I think it’s really important. because you can see I asked Luigi if I could put his note so his note is here so Ms. McKenna I did not want to disturb you as I thought so I thought I would write this note instead because I identify as a conservative in all likelihood we probably would disagree on many issues I find it quite disturbing the level of abuse that you and many other female politicians must endure. It is unfortunate and unacceptable, and I make a point of speaking out when I see it. I hope that you take consolation in the fact that you and others like you are making it easier for the next generation of women, including my three daughters, Luigi. And I was like, this is like the nicest note. And I think that’s also what I hope for my book like I hope people are like yeah we can be we can actually disagree but be normal and you know okay with each other and probably most people are um most people are like Luigi are probably not paying attention but there are people that aren’t doing that and I think they’re also fed sometimes by politicians themselves um who you know really ratchet things up and attack people personally and And so that’s a long answer to I can’t even remember the question. But I mean, I left politics and I was done. And that’s not related to Luigi, but Luigi is a nice guy.

Nate Erskine-Smith

39:34 - 41:21

It’s a I think I’ve got those are my questions around the book. But I do have a couple of questions on climate policy because you’re living and breathing that still. And although it’s interesting, you comment about politicians. I mean, there’s a deep inauthenticity sometimes where politicians treat it as a game. And there’s these attacks for clicks. Or in some cases, especially when the conservatives were riding high in the polls, people were tripping over themselves to try and prove to the center that they could be nasty to and that they could score points and all of that. And so they all want to make cabinet by ratcheting up a certain nastiness. But then cameras get turned off and they turn human beings again to a degree. And so that kind of inauthenticity, I think, sets a real nasty tone for others in politics more generally. But on climate policy, I was in Edmonton for our national caucus meeting. I think I texted you this, but I get scrummed by reporters and they’re asking me all climate questions. And I was like, oh, this is nice. I’m getting asked climate questions for a change. this is good. This is put climate back on the radar. And then a reporter says, well, are you concerned about the Carney government backtracking on climate commitments? And I said, well, backtracking on climate commitments. I mean, if you read the book Values, it’d be a very odd thing for us to do. Do you worry that we are backtracking? Do you worry that we’re not going to be ambitious enough? Or do you think we’re still, we haven’t yet seen the climate competitiveness strategy? I mean, you know, here’s an opportunity to say we should do much more. I don’t know. But are you concerned, just given the dynamic in politics as they’re unfolding, that we are not going to get where we need to get?

Catherine McKenna

41:22 - 42:31

I mean, look, I’m like you. You know, first of all, I did get into politics. I wasn’t an expert on climate, but I cared about climate because I have kids. Like, we have this truck that’s coming for our kids, and I’m a mother, so I’m going to do everything I can. I was in a position that I learned a lot about climate policy, and climate policy is complicated, and you’ve got to get it right. But look, I mean, you know, Mark Carney knows as much about, you know, climate as an economic issue as anyone. And so, I mean, I’m certainly hopeful that you can take different approaches, but at the end of the day, your climate policy requires you to reduce emissions because climate change isn’t a political issue. Of course, it’s very political. I’m not going to understate it. I know that as much as anyone. But in the end, the science is the science. We’ve got to reduce our emissions. And you’ve probably all heard this rant of mine before, but I will bring up my rant again. I sometimes hear about a grand bargain with oil and gas companies. We did a grand bargain with oil and gas companies.

Catherine McKenna

42:31 - 42:31

How did that work out?

Catherine McKenna

42:31 - 42:32

Yeah.

Catherine McKenna

42:32 - 42:33

How did that work out? Tell us. How did that work out?

Catherine McKenna

42:33 - 47:27

Let me tell you how that worked out. So we were working really hard to get a national climate plan. And I saw it as an obligation of mine to work with provinces to build on the policies they had. The Alberta government had stood, so it was the government of Rachel Notley, but with Murray Edwards, who’s the head of one of the oil and gas companies, with environmentalists, with economists, with indigenous peoples, saying, okay, this is the climate plan Alberta’s going to do. A cap on emissions from oil and gas. a price on pollution, tough methane regs, and, you know, some other things. And so then we were pushed, and it was really hard. I was the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, where we had a climate emergency one day, and then we had a pipeline. The next, I talk about that. That was hard. But the reality is, we felt like that, you know, the Alberta government, we needed to support the NDP Alberta, you know, the NDP government at the time early on. And so then what did we get? Like, where are we right now? We basically, none of the, either those policies are gone or not effective. We got a pipeline at massive taxpayer costs. It’s like 500% over. We have oil and gas companies that made historic record profits, largely as a result of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. What did they do with those profits? They said that they were going to invest in climate solutions. They were going to reduce their emissions. They were all in. But instead, they give their CEOs massive, massive historic bonuses. I’m from Hamilton. That’s not a thing when you get these massive historic record bonuses. At the same time, they gave the money back to shareholders who were largely Americans. While they demanded more subsidies to clean up their own pollution, while we are in a climate crisis that is a fossil fuel climate crisis. I now feel taken for a fool because I believed that the oil and gas, like in particular, the oil sands would live up to their end of the bargain. You will see in the book also, I don’t know, I probably can’t find the page fast enough. I did pinky promises with kids because all these kids came up to me all the time and they said, like, I’m really working hard on climate change. You know, I’ve got a water bottle. I’m riding my bike. I’m doing like a used clothing drive, whatever it was. And I said, you know what? I’m doing my part, too. Let’s do a pinky promise like a pinky swear. And we will promise to continue doing our part. Well, we all did our part. By the way, basically everyone in all sectors have done their part except for oil and gas when they had massive historic record profits. And I wrote a report for the UN Secretary General on greenwashing. And they were exhibit A, exhibit A on what greenwashing looks like, like saying you’re doing things that you are not doing and while you’re lobbying to kill every policy. So I just hope that people aren’t taken for fools again. Like the grand bargain should be they should live up with their end of the bargain. Like that is what bargains are. You got to do what you say you were going to do. And they didn’t do it. And as a result, it’s extremely hard for Canada to meet our target because they are 30% and growing of our emissions. So I also think like, why are we paying? Why would taxpayers pay? So, look, I don’t know. Hard things are hard, as my mug says that I was given by my team because I said it every single day, about 12 times a day. You have to make very tough decisions in government. And we’re in a trade war. And also defending our we have to absolutely stand up and defend our sovereignty against the Trump regime, which is very dangerous and very destabilizing. but at the same time we can’t not act on climate climate is a here and now problem it’s not this fire problem like all these people were evacuated from communities the cost of climate change is massive people are not going to be able to be insured that’s already happening and so i just think you gotta walk and chew gum you gotta like figure out how to you know build and grow the economy but you also need to figure out how to tackle climate change and reduce your emissions and to be honest, hold the sector that is most responsible for climate change accountable for their actions and also for their words because they said they were going to act on climate and they supported these policies and they are now still fighting to kill all these policies. You almost can’t make it up. And I just don’t think Canadians should be taken for fools and I think you’ve got to make a lot of choices with tax dollars. But I’m not in government And I think, you know, we have, you know, Mark Carney, he’s very smart. He’s doing a great job of defending Canada. You know, I think like everyone, I’m waiting to see what the climate plan is because it’s extremely important. And the climate plan is an economic plan as much as anything else.

Nate Erskine-Smith

47:28 - 48:23

And on that, I would say not just an economic plan, but when you talk about national resiliency, there’s a promise in our platform to become a clean energy superpower. There’s a promise in our platform to create an east-west transmission grid. And just in Ontario, when you look at the fact that not only are they doubling down on natural gas, but they’re also importing natural gas from the United States. When solar, wind, storage is actually more cost effective, investments in east-west transmission grid and in clean energy would make a lot more sense, not only for the climate, not only for the economy, but also as a matter of resiliency and energy independence as well. Okay, those are my questions. So thank you for... Give a round of applause for Calvin. Thank you for joining. With the time that we’ve got left, Christian, we’ve got, what, 10, 15 minutes? What time is it? Okay, great. Okay, so does anyone have questions for Ms. McKenna?

Audience Q

48:25 - 49:09

It’s a question for both of you, actually. You guys have both been trailblazers in your own right, I think, inside and inside of politics. And you talk a lot about building your community and building your team, whether it’s swimming or local politics, and also demanding space in those places to be competitive, all the way up from your local team up to the prime minister. But I’m curious on the other side of that, what does it look like to be a good teammate inside and inside of politics, and how do we support more people, for those of us that might not be running, but trying to get more people like you? Or maybe as an example, somebody that supported you in your run?

Catherine McKenna

49:11 - 49:56

well i mean look i’m trying to do my part and so what i did and it’s like what most of you did you go support people that you think are good that are running so i in the last election i went and i supported people that i thought were serious about climate including in ridings that we had never won before um and i also well probably especially those writings um and i also supported women candidates that was just a choice I mean but I think everyone getting involved in politics is a great way to do it but also you know when you think there’s someone good that might be good to run you know you know talk to them about it and as I said for women they need to be asked often seven times I think is it so like for women maybe just start asking and if we get to the seventh time maybe

Nate Erskine-Smith

49:56 - 51:38

really good women will run and I would add I suppose just on locally I have found one, going into schools and talking politics and encouraging people to think about politics as an opportunity has translated into our youth council. It’s then translated into our young liberals internship over the summer where we make sure people are able to be paid to knock on doors and just maintain involvement. And then a number of those people come through either our office and then they’re working in politics in the minister’s office or in the prime minister’s office or they’re going to law school or they’re adjacent to politics and helping other people and just encouraging people to at least be close to politics so that they see politics as a way to make a difference, there will then be people that will want to run from that or help encourage other people to run. The second thing, and I’ll use Mark Holland as an example, when I was running the nomination and I didn’t have contacts in the party, but I had someone who knew Mark Holland and he gave me advice to think about it like concentric circles when you’re running a nomination where you have people who are close to you and then the people who are close to you will have 10 people that are close to them that maybe they can sign them up for you or maybe they just are they open the door and I you know if so if someone opens the door to a conversation with me I feel pretty confident that I can close the sale but if the door is closed in my face I’m not gonna I’m not gonna even have an opportunity to and so just that idea of building out you start with your your home base and you build out from there build out from there so I just think I have in the last week had conversations with two people who want to run for office at some point, they’re both under the age of 30, and I’ve given that same kind of advice of, here’s what worked for me. It may work for you, it may not, it depends, but find where your home base is, and then just grow from there. And so I think just spending time, like

Audience Q

51:39 - 52:30

giving one’s time to give advice like that is really important. Yeah. Building on that, that’s, I wanted to, because I think that does nicely into what you said earlier, Catherine, about and really encouraging young women in particular to get into politics. But it’s not just, it’s all the peripheral people, people that are peripheral to politics, your concentric circles, so that you don’t necessarily have to run for an office. And I appreciate what you’ve done for girls. But I also want you to know that, I mean, I’m older than you, and still you are a role model to me. Not only that, though, I have sons in their mid to late 20s. and I’ve made sure you’re a role model and women like you are a role model to them because I think that’s how change begins.

Nate Erskine-Smith

52:32 - 52:34

This was entirely planted just for you, by the way.

Catherine McKenna

52:35 - 52:37

No, but I think that’s...

Nate Erskine-Smith

52:37 - 52:40

So I do think that’s important, right?

Catherine McKenna

52:40 - 53:26

My book is not... Run Like a Girl, I’m a woman, I identify as a woman and there’s a story about how I was told I ran like a girl and so it really bugged me. So it’s kind of a particular thing. But I think that is important. Like, you know, this isn’t exclusive. Although, you know, there are, you know, certain different barriers, at least that I’m aware of, you know, that if you’re a woman, if you’re LGBTQ2+, if you’re racialized or indigenous, there could be different barriers. But I hear you. And I think, you know, we do have to inspire each other in a whole range of ways. So that is very nice. I hope that, I mean, I’m not, you know, looking to, you know, you know, for kudos. I really, but it is nice to hear that you can inspire people in a whole different way, you know, range of ways.

Audience Q

53:26 - 53:47

It’s really, yeah, it’s really not about kudos. It’s about, you know, it’s not that my intent is not just to applaud you. It’s just, it’s to, it’s to recognize you. And that’s different, like being seen, holding place, holding space for people to be involved. And so I do have one actual question of this.

Catherine McKenna

53:48 - 53:50

You can ask a question after that.

Audience Q

53:51 - 53:57

Regarding pricing, carbon pricing, how would you communicate the rollout differently?

Catherine McKenna

53:58 - 54:43

Well, I would actually fund it. So hard things at heart, I’m like, okay, well, first of all, we know the Conservatives were terrible. They lied about it. They misled. They didn’t talk about the money going back. The problem is, like, we hampered ourselves too. And it was really quite weird because I was like, okay, well, we need an advertising budget because clearly this is a bit of a complicated policy. But the most important thing I need people to know is that we’re tackling climate change and we’re doing it in a way that we’re going to leave low income and middle income people better off. You’re going to get more money back. That’s very, very important. The second part of the message is as important because I knew the conservatives were going to be like, you’re just increasing the price of everything. But we were told we couldn’t advertise. And I was like, why? And they said, well, because we’re not like conservatives because they had done the, what was the plan?

Nate Erskine-Smith

54:43 - 54:51

The economic action plan. The signs everywhere. They basically, what Ford does now, they were doing it.

Catherine McKenna

54:51 - 57:40

So that sounds really good, except if you’re me. Because I was like, well, no one really knows about it. So I’m like one person. And we got some caucus members, not all of them. But Nate will go out and talk about it. Some people will talk about it. But I said, people are entitled to know what government policy is, especially in this particular case, where you’ve literally got to file your taxes to get the rebate. Because that was the second mistake we made. I was told that we couldn’t just do quarterly checks, which would be much more obvious to people, even if it was automatically deposited, you actually named it properly, which was another problem. But, you know, all of these things that are just normal things. And instead, we were told, I was told by the folks in the Canada Revenue Agency, there’s no way we could possibly do quarterly checks. after COVID, when we did everything, we blew everything up, then they were like, oh, actually, and this was after me, but they were like, we can do quarterly chaps. I was like, well, that’s really helpful. Like, that would have been nice, like a little bit longer, you know, like the beginning of this. And so I think like, we do need to be sometimes very tough, like, don’t do things that sound great and are not, are really hampering your ability to actually deliver a policy in a way that people understand. So like, it’s just a hard policy. Like, you know, people say, would you have done, what would you have done differently? Yes, I would have communicated it differently. I tried. Like, I was out there. I went to H&R Block because I saw a sign, and they were like, climate action incentive. Oh, by the way, we couldn’t call it a rebate because the lawyers told us injustice. We couldn’t do that, and I’m a lawyer. I was like, what? And so I should have fought that one harder too, right? Like, I mean, there’s so many fights you can have internally as well, but, you know, there I am. I was like, oh, H&R Block, they’re doing free advertising for us because they wanted people to file their taxes, so then I would make, I said to all caucus members, you need to go to your HR block and get a family. I don’t even want to see you necessarily. I want a family to be sitting down being told they’re getting money back. And, and so like, look, I think it’s just a hard policy. And, and what happened though, I mean, read hard things are hard, but the chapter, but it’s, um, and people will be like, I’m definitely not reading that chapter. You can skip chapters. This book is like, go back and forth, rip things out. I don’t, you don’t have to read it in chronological order or read particular chapters. But was if the price is going to go up every year, every year you better be ready to fight for it because every year you’re literally creating this conflict point where conservatives are like, they’re on it. They’re like spending so much tax dollars to mislead people. Remember the stickers on the pump that fell off? That was quite funny. They actually fell off. But you’re going to have to fight for it. And so we just, it’s a hard, it’s a very hard policy. I did everything I could. And I don’t live with life with regrets. I think it was really important. And by the way, it’s a case study outside of Canada.

Catherine McKenna

57:41 - 57:42

Everyone’s like, Canada.

Catherine McKenna

57:42 - 57:52

I was like, oh, yeah, there is like a little different ending than you might want to know about what happened. But they’re like, yes, this is, of course, how we should do it. Should be a price on pollution. Give the money back.

Nate Erskine-Smith

57:52 - 58:38

I went to a movie at the Beach Cinema with my kids. And there was an ad. This is years ago. But there was an ad. So we were advertising. But it was advertising about the environment climate plan. and it was like people in canoes. And I was like, what is this trying to, like we’re spending how much money on this to tell me what exactly? And I went to, Stephen was the minister, and I went, Stephen, can we please advertise Carbon Pricing Works, it’s 10 plus percent of our overall plan, and 80% of people get more money back or break even. Just tell people those three things, I don’t need the canoe. and then he was like oh we can’t we we they tell it they tell us we can’t do it no no and that’s

Catherine McKenna

58:38 - 58:55

what you’re often told like it is kind of weird internally the amount of times you’re told no like on advertising it is a particular thing because like and so then you’re like having a fight about comms i was like oh my gosh can we don’t think the canoe is going to win this carbon and it didn’t turns out i love canoeing by the way so maybe it would have convinced me if i was

Nate Erskine-Smith

58:55 - 59:01

i think last question we’ll finish with that with maryland hi i’m maryland and i also happen to be

Audience Q

59:01 - 01:00:18

president of the Ontario Women’s Liberal Commission and of course our young women and she’s a former candidate in 2022 it was a hard race it was a hard time for all of us two things I know obviously running with Trudeau and being in his cabinet there was a large over emphasis on the gender balance cabinet and you know it’s a feminist cabinet and he’s a feminist prime minister and that’s great you know we get a lot for us to recognize the importance of having women at the table but then of course it kind of feels like a little tokenistic and maybe you’re there because you’re a woman and it kind of undermines your competencies and your capabilities and and so i i i wonder if you can kind of reflect back also just mindful like your title was like run like a girl or mindful of like we want you to um run because you can and not because you’re a girl because you’re competent and capable but but just the tension that people might feel like we’re running or getting opportunities just because did everyone hear that okay so i mean it’s just

Catherine McKenna

01:00:19 - 01:03:42

impossible being a woman right like that’s like what you said you’re like oh my but that’s how i felt right like on the one hand so first of all let me be very clear that when Justin Trudeau said this is 20 like it’s going to be a gender balance cabin because it’s 2015 I was like amazing great we’re half the population it’s 2015 I kind of thought that that was the point the problem is then it was constantly it was constantly repeated and I don’t want to diminish it like I am a feminist but I don’t wake up every day and saying I’m a feminist and now I was like I’m gonna waking up every day and I’m like I gotta do this hard job I’m gonna go do it and and I also like the whole gender thing was so weird because on the flip side then I’m climbing Barbie so I’m like holy how do we like just I just want to be someone doing something in politics however we do need to break barriers so having 50% women I heard it when I was in Japan this one woman in cabinet one woman she’s like I cannot believe how important it was to see when you guys made that announcement so we can’t diminish it. You know, the challenge though is when you repeat something so much, like it’s got to be about outcomes. And like, I’ll give one example. Maybe it’s not a fair example, but we said we’ve got a feminist foreign policy. And I was like, okay, what does that mean? And we were going to have all these women peacekeepers. We never increased women peacekeepers at all. So we actually decreased our peacekeepers overall. So it was kind of weird because then people are kind of calling you out. And then, of course, the flip side, and we saw this, was that when the Prime Minister had conflicts with women, it was put into a frame of, well, he’s not a feminist, even if the conflicts had nothing to do with the fact that they were women. So it is extremely fraught. And I don’t have any easy solutions. I think that what is really important is outcomes. So child care is really important, that we did child care, that that is a very important thing that we did, that we raised hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. That is a real thing. So also, it is about what you deliver on in the real world. We also did, I was going to say super nerdy, but I’m like a policy nerd. We did a gender-based analysis policy. That actually, we don’t have to put that in the window, but when you actually think, how would policy affect people differently? That’s actually a really good way of understanding when you, is this a good policy? Is this going to get the outcome? So, I mean, I think we did things. It is hard. And then people pick on my, you know, my book. They’re like, see, you know, you call him out and he’s not really a feminist. I was like, oh my gosh, are we really getting into this whole thing? Although I did make the point that it did feel kind of heavy sometimes where I was like, you know, maybe I just got into cabinet because like, you know, you know, I was actually pretty competent, right? Like, and by the way, cabinet is a bunch of people. They’ve got to find diversity of, you know, regions. They got a whole bunch of things. And sometimes actually there are men that aren’t that competent against cabinet. Cabinet is just a thing. And so, yeah, I mean, it’s hard. It is hard. And, you know, it is a fraught space for sure. But I think, look, at the end of the day, you should be judged on outcomes. And I think we did a lot of good. We could have done more. But I think we did a lot of good on the gender front. It’s just you don’t always have to be like out there calling everything feminist. Because when my book club was like, they’re like, we’re all feminists. Like they were like, but just free advice. could you just stop using feminist in everything you do? And I was like, I get it. I get it.

Nate Erskine-Smith

01:03:43 - 01:04:40

Well, I think just on that, I think you’re right to emphasize the different diversities across something like a cabinet selection. I mean, we don’t make a big deal in this country about the fact that you have regional diversity. It’s just an established, accepted fact. Of course we’re going to have regional diversity in cabinet selections. Of course you’re going to look for gender equality in your cabinet because welcome to the population. I mean, my law school class, this is many years ago, was like 52% women. Just on the basic matter of competence, there’s going to be lots of competent people to choose from. And that’s just, I think your point is, you don’t have to parade it around. Just do the damn thing, because that’s the thing we do. We don’t parade around the fact we do geographic diversity. It’s just that’s the thing that’s accepted that we do. Of course we do it. Of course you do gender equality. Of course you do. And then you focus on the fact that people in cabinet are competent and go do the damn job. And if you can’t do the job, then we find someone else to do the job. Yeah.

Catherine McKenna

01:04:41 - 01:05:54

And I also just want to point out that, and I talk about this in the book, like we actually had broader diversity than just gender and regional diversity. Like we had people who were, you know, had disabilities. We had people that were different religious groups. We had a refugee. Like I’m not going to go on and on, but I mean, we got to represent the population. And that’s why, in fact, you know, I was proud to be standing with the Liberal Party. We, you know, we, you know, there are more things we could do on the diversity front, but we actually attracted a lot of candidates that are a variety of different backgrounds. And that is how you do a better job of making decisions. And now I have to defend this now, not not here, these folks, but people are like, well, I don’t know, women on boards are like, I was like, okay, it’s not a woke issue. Like, I’ve got McKinsey reports, I’m going to give you 100 McKinsey reports, because I’m literally not going to debate it. It just says that diversity leads to better decisions. That’s just a thing. And we don’t have to go back in time. This isn’t a woke thing. This is just getting better outcomes. So I think it is important. But it is a complicated thing. And you don’t overplay your hands on things. And then, unfortunately, when something happens, then suddenly you’re like, well, you’re not a feminist. I don’t think that would have been said about others. It’s just it had been such a big deal. And so...

Nate Erskine-Smith

01:05:55 - 01:06:39

Yeah, but you’re... And also, I think we just got to emphasize is there are different kinds of representation. So there’s descriptive representation. You want people in politics to look like the population, for sure, but you also want this idea of add women change politics, sure, unless they’re Margaret Thatcher. It depends who’s there to stand up for equality. You want 100% feminists, and you want them to be descriptively representative of the population, but also them all to believe in the things that matter when it comes to substantive representation of equality. So I think we sometimes over-index on description instead of substantive representation of the views and values we want to see around equality at the same time. That’s a whole other podcast.

Catherine McKenna

01:06:40 - 01:06:41

100%.

Nate Erskine-Smith

01:06:41 - 01:06:47

Well, okay, so thank you very much. Catherine’s going to hang around, and I think her daughter is selling books still. Is that right? Maybe.

Catherine McKenna

01:06:47 - 01:06:52

I hope so. Maybe. I hope so. And I’ll hang around, too. You’ve got to get your children in another game.

Nate Erskine-Smith

01:06:52 - 01:07:14

Thank you, everyone, for coming. Thank you, Catherine, for spending the time. and we will try to do more so i i we do this podcast and uh as i say like most of it the focus is online and the focus is you know get it up on youtube and get it up on spotify but uh but it’s nice to have an audience and so we are going to try to do more of these in-person recordings

Catherine McKenna

01:07:15 - 01:07:24

at the same time so uh keep a lookout for emails of what’s to come and if you have suggestions for guests or ideas, let me know. And thanks very much. Appreciate it. Thank you, Nate.

** There are less than 10 tickets remaining for the live recording of Uncommons with Catherine McKenna on Thursday Oct 2nd. Register for free here. **

On this two-part episode of Uncommons, Nate digs into Bill C-2 and potential impacts on privacy, data surveillance and sharing with US authorities, and asylum claims and refugee protections.

In the first half, Nate is joined by Kate Robertson, senior researcher at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab. Kate’s career has spanned criminal prosecutions, regulatory investigations, and international human rights work with the United Nations in Cambodia. She has advocated at every level of court in Canada, clerked at the Supreme Court, and has provided pro bono services through organizations like Human Rights Watch Canada. Her current research at Citizen Lab examines the intersection of technology, privacy, and the law.

In part two, Nate is joined by Adam Sadinsky, a Toronto-based immigration and refugee lawyer and co-chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers’ Advocacy Committee. Adam has represented clients at every level of court in Canada, including the Supreme Court, and was co-counsel in M.A.A. v. D.E.M.E. (2020 ONCA 486) and Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (2023 SCC 17).

Further Reading:

Unspoken Implications A Preliminary Analysis of Bill C-2 and Canada’s Potential Data-Sharing Obligations Towards the United States and Other Countries - Kate Robertson, Citizen Lab

Kate Robertson Chapters:

00:00 Introduction & Citizen Lab

03:00 Bill C-2 and the Strong Borders Act

08:00 Data Sharing and Human Rights Concerns

15:00 The Cloud Act & International Agreements

22:00 Real-World Examples & Privacy Risks

28:00 Parliamentary Process & Fixing the Bill

Adam Sadinsky Chapters:

33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada

36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants

39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks

41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions

44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System

47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways

50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government

52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing Reflections

Part 1: Kate Robertson

Nate Erskine-Smith

00:00-00:01

Kate, thanks for joining me.

Kate Robertson

00:01-00:01

Thanks for having me.

Nate Erskine-Smith

00:02-00:15

So I have had Ron Debert on the podcast before. So for people who really want to go back into the archive, they can learn a little bit about what the Citizen Lab is. But for those who are not that interested, you’re a senior researcher there. What is the Citizen Lab?

Kate Robertson

00:16-01:00

Well, it’s an interdisciplinary research lab based at University of Toronto. It brings together researchers from a technology standpoint, political science, lawyers like myself and other disciplines to examine the intersection between information and communication technologies, law, human rights, and global security. And over time, it’s published human rights reports about some of the controversial and emerging surveillance technologies of our time, including spyware or AI-driven technologies. And it’s also really attempted to produce a thoughtful research that helps policymakers navigate some of these challenges and threats.

Nate Erskine-Smith

01:01-02:50

That’s a very good lead into this conversation because here we have Bill C-2 coming before Parliament for debate this fall, introduced in June, at the beginning of June. And it’s called the Strong Borders Act in short, but it touches, I started counting, it’s 15 different acts that are touched by this omnibus legislation. The government has laid out a rationale around strengthening our borders, keeping our borders secure, combating transnational organized crime, stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl, cracking down on money laundering, a litany of things that I think most people would look at and say broadly supportive of stopping these things from happening and making sure we’re enhancing our security and the integrity of our immigration system and on. You, though, have provided some pretty thoughtful and detailed rational legal advice around some of the challenges you see in the bill. You’re not the only one. There are other challenges on the asylum changes we’re making. There are other challenges on lawful access and privacy. You’ve, though, highlighted, in keeping with the work of the Citizen Lab, the cross-border data sharing, the challenges with those data sharing provisions in the bill. It is a bit of a deep dive and a little wonky, but you’ve written a preliminary analysis of C2 and Canada’s potential data sharing obligations towards the U.S. and other countries, unspoken implications, and you published it mid-June. It is incredibly relevant given the conversation we’re having this fall. So if you were to at a high level, and we’ll go ahead and some of the weeds, but at a high level articulate the main challenges you see in the legislation from the standpoint that you wrote in unspoken implications. Walk us through them.

Kate Robertson

02:51-06:15

Well, before C2 was tabled for a number of years now, myself and other colleagues at the lab have been studying new and evolving ways that we’re seeing law enforcement data sharing and cross-border cooperation mechanisms being put to use in new ways. We have seen within this realm some controversial data sharing frameworks under treaty protocols or bilateral agreement mechanisms with the United States and others, which reshape how information is shared with law enforcement in foreign jurisdictions and what kinds of safeguards and mechanisms are applied to that framework to protect human rights. And I think as a really broad trend, what is probably most, the simplest way to put it is that what we’re really seeing is a growing number of ways that borders are actually being exploited to the detriment of human rights standards. Rights are essentially falling through the cracks. This can happen either through cross-border joint investigations between agencies in multiple states in ways that essentially go forum shopping for the laws and the most locks, that’s right. You can also see foreign states that seek to leverage cooperation tools in democratic states in order to track, surveil, or potentially even extradite human rights activists and dissidents, journalists that are living in exile outside their borders. And what this has really come out of is a discussion point that has been made really around the world that if crime is going to become more transient across borders, that law enforcement also needs to have a greater freedom to move more seamlessly across borders. But what often is left out of that framing is that human rights standards that are really deeply entrenched in our domestic law systems, they would also need to be concurrently meaningful across borders. And unfortunately, that’s not what we’re seeing. Canada is going to be facing decisions around this, both within the context of C2 and around it in the coming months and beyond, as we know that it has been considering and in negotiation around a couple of very controversial agreements. One of those, the sort of elephant in the room, so to speak, is that the legislation has been tabled at a time where we know that Canada and the United States have been in negotiations for actually a couple of years around a potential agreement called the CLOUD Act, which would quite literally cede Canada’s sovereignty to the United States and law enforcement authorities and give them really a blanket opportunity to directly apply surveillance orders onto entities, both public and private in Canada?

Nate Erskine-Smith

06:16-07:46

Well, so years in the making negotiations, but we are in a very different world with the United States today than we were two years ago. And I was just in, I was in Mexico City for a conference with parliamentarians across the Americas, and there were six Democratic congressmen and women there. One, Chuy Garcia represents Chicago district. He was telling me that he went up to ICE officials and they’re masked and he is saying, identify yourself. And he’s a congressman. He’s saying, identify yourself. What’s your ID? What’s your badge number? They’re hiding their ID and maintaining masks and they’re refusing to identify who they are as law enforcement officials, ostensibly refusing to identify who they are to an American congressman. And if they’re willing to refuse to identify themselves in that manner to a congressman. I can only imagine what is happening to people who don’t have that kind of authority and standing in American life. And that’s the context that I see this in now. I would have probably still been troubled to a degree with open data sharing and laxer standards on the human rights side, but all the more troubling, you talk about less democratic jurisdictions and authoritarian regimes. Well, isn’t the U.S. itself a challenge today more than ever has been? And then shouldn’t we maybe slam the pause button on negotiations like this? Well, you raise a number of really important points. And I think that

Kate Robertson

07:47-09:54

there have been warning signs and worse that have long preceded the current administration and the backsliding that you’re commenting upon since the beginning of 2025. Certainly, I spoke about the increasing trend of the exploitation of borders. I mean, I think we’re seeing signs that really borders are actually, in essence, being used as a form of punishment, even in some respects, which I would say it is when you say to someone who would potentially exercise due process rights against deportation and say if you exercise those rights, you’ll be deported to a different continent from your home country where your rights are perhaps less. And that’s something that UN human rights authorities have been raising alarm bells about around the deportation of persons to third countries, potentially where they’ll face risks of torture even. But these patterns are all too reminiscent of what we saw in the wake of 9-11 and the creation of black sites where individuals, including Canadian persons, were detained or even tortured. And really, this stems from a number of issues. But what we have identified in analyzing potential cloud agreement is really just the momentous decision that the Canadian government would have to make to concede sovereignty to a country which is in many ways a pariah for refusing to acknowledge extraterritorial international human rights obligations to persons outside of its borders. And so to invite that type of direct surveillance and exercise of authority within Canada’s borders was a country who has refused for a very long time, unlike Canada and many other countries around the world, has refused to recognize through its courts and through its government any obligation to protect the international human rights of people in Canada.

Nate Erskine-Smith

09:56-10:21

And yet, you wrote, some of the data and surveillance powers in Bill C-2 read like they could have been drafted by U.S. officials. So you take the frame that you’re just articulating around with what the U.S. worldview is on this and has been and exacerbated by obviously the current administration. But I don’t love the sound of it reading like it was drafted by American

Kate Robertson

10:22-12:43

officials. Well, you know, it’s always struck me as a really remarkable story, to be frank. You know, to borrow Dickens’ tale of two countries, which is that since the 1990s, Canada’s Supreme Court has been charting a fundamentally different course from the constitutional approach that’s taken the United States around privacy and surveillance. And it really started with persons looking at what’s happening and the way that technology evolves and how much insecurity people feel when they believe that surveillance is happening without any judicial oversight. And looking ahead and saying, you know what, if we take this approach, it’s not going to go anywhere good. And that’s a really remarkable decision that was made and has continued to be made by the court time and time again, even as recently as last year, the court has said we take a distinct approach from the United States. And it had a lot of foresight given, you know, in the 1990s, technology is nowhere near what it is today. Of course. And yet in the text of C2, we see provisions that, you know, I struggle when I hear proponents of the legislation describe it as balanced and in keeping with the Charter, when actually they’re proposing to essentially flip the table on principles that have been enshrined for decades to protect Canadians, including, for example, the notion that third parties like private companies have the authority to voluntarily share our own. information with the police without any warrant. And that’s actually the crux of what has become a fundamentally different approach that I think has really led Canada to be a more resilient country when it comes to technological change. And I sometimes describe us as a country that is showing the world that, you know, it’s possible to do both. You can judicially supervise investigations that are effective and protect the public. And the sky does not fall if you do so. And right now we’re literally seeing and see to something that I think is really unique and important made in Canada approach being potentially put on the chopping block.

Nate Erskine-Smith

12:44-13:29

And for those listening who might think, okay, well, at a high level, I don’t love expansive data sharing and reduced human rights protections, but practically, are there examples? And you pointed to in your writing right from the hop, the Arar case, and you mentioned the Supreme Court, but they, you know, they noted that it’s a chilling example of the dangers of unconditional information sharing. And the commission noted to the potentially risky exercise of open ended, unconditional data sharing as well. But that’s a real life example, a real life Canadian example of what can go wrong in a really horrible, tragic way when you don’t have guardrails that focus and protect human rights.

Kate Robertson

13:31-14:56

You’re right to raise that example. I raise it. It’s a really important one. It’s one that is, I think, part of, you know, Canada has many commendable and important features to its framework, but it’s not a perfect country by any means. That was an example of just information sharing with the United States itself that led to a Canadian citizen being rendered and tortured in a foreign country. Even a more recent example, we are not the only country that’s received requests for cooperation from a foreign state in circumstances where a person’s life is quite literally in jeopardy. We have known from public reporting that in the case of Hardeep Najjar, before he was ultimately assassinated on Canadian soil, an Interpol Red Notice had been issued about him at the request of the government of India. And the government had also requested his extradition. And we know that there’s a number of important circumstances that have been commented upon by the federal government in the wake of those revelations. And it’s provoked a really important discussion around the risks of foreign interference. But it is certainly an example where we know that cooperation requests have been made in respect of someone who’s quite literally and tragically at risk of loss of life.

Nate Erskine-Smith

14:57-16:07

And when it comes to the, what we’re really talking about is, you mentioned the Cloud Act. There’s also, I got to go to the notes because it’s so arcane, but the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention. These are, in that case, it’s a treaty that Canada would ratify. And then this piece of legislation would in some way create implementing authorities for. I didn’t fully appreciate this until going through that. And I’d be interested in your thoughts just in terms of the details of these. And we can make it as wonky as you like in terms of the challenges that these treaties offer. I think you’ve already articulated the watering down of traditional human rights protections and privacy protections we would understand in Canadian law. But the transparency piece, I didn’t fully appreciate either. And as a parliamentarian, I probably should have because there’s... Until reading your paper, I didn’t know that there was a policy on tabling of treaties That really directs a process for introducing treaty implementing legislation. And this process also gets that entirely backwards.

Kate Robertson

16:09-17:01

That’s right. And, you know, in researching and studying what to do with, you know, what I foresee is potentially quite a mess if we were to enter into a treaty that binds us to standards that are unconstitutional. You know, that is a diplomatic nightmare of sorts, but it’s also one that would create, you know, a constitutional entanglement of that’s really, I think, unprecedented in Canada. But nevertheless, that problem is foreseen if one or both of these were to go ahead. And I refer to that in the cloud agreement or the 2AP. But this policy, as I understand it, I believe it was tabled by then Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, as he was at the time, by Prime Minister Harper’s government.

Nate Erskine-Smith

17:02-17:04

He’s come a long way.

Kate Robertson

17:07-18:12

I believe that the rationale for the policy was quite self-evident at the time. I mean, if you think about the discussions that are happening right now, for example, in Quebec around digital sovereignty and the types of entanglements that U.S. legal process might impact around Quebec privacy legislation. Other issues around the AI space in Ontario or our health sector in terms of technology companies in Ontario. These treaties really have profound implications at a much broader scale than the federal government and law enforcement. And that’s not even getting to Indigenous sovereignty issues. And so the policy is really trying to give a greater voice to the range of perspectives that a federal government would consider before binding Canada internationally on behalf of all of these layers of decision making without perhaps even consulting with Parliament First.

Nate Erskine-Smith

18:12-19:15

So this is, I guess, one struggle. There’s the specific concerns around watering down protections, but just on process. This just bothered me in particular because we’re going to undergo this process in the fall. And so I printed out the Strong Borders Act, Government of Canada Strengthens Border Security and the backgrounder to the law. And going through it, it’s six pages when I print it out. And it doesn’t make mention of the Budapest Convention. It doesn’t make mention of the Cloud Act. It doesn’t make mention of any number of rationales for this legislation. But it doesn’t make mention that this is in part, at least, to help implement treaties that are under active negotiation. not only gets backwards the policy, but one would have thought, especially I took from your paper, that the Department has subsequently, the Justice Department has subsequently acknowledged that this would in fact help the government implement these treaties. So surely it should

Kate Robertson

19:15-19:57

be in the background. I would have thought so. As someone that has been studying these treaty frameworks very carefully, it was immediately apparent to me that they’re at least relevant. It was put in the briefing as a question as to whether or not the actual intent of some of these new proposed powers is to put Canada in a position to ratify this treaty. And the answer at that time was yes, that that is the intent of them. And it was also stated that other cooperation frameworks were foreseeable.

Nate Erskine-Smith

19:59-20:57

What next? So here I am, one member of parliament, and oftentimes through these processes, we’re going to, there’s the objective of the bill, and then there’s the details of the bill, and we’re going to get this bill to a committee process. I understand the intention is for it to be a pretty fulsome committee hearing, and it’s an omnibus bill. So what should happen is the asylum components should get kicked to the immigration committee. The pieces around national security should obviously get kicked to public safety committee, and there should be different committees that deal with their different constituent elements that are relevant to those committees. I don’t know if it will work that way, but that would be a more rational way of engaging with a really broad ranging bill. Is there a fix for this though? So are there amendments that could cure it or is it foundationally a problem that is incurable?

Kate Robertson

20:58-21:59

Well, I mean, I think that for myself as someone studying this area, it’s obvious to me that what agreements may be struck would profoundly alter the implications of pretty much every aspect of this legislation. And that stems in part from just how fundamental it would be if Canada were to cede its sovereignty to US law enforcement agencies and potentially even national security agencies as well. But obviously, the provisions themselves are quite relevant to these frameworks. And so it’s clear that Parliament needs to have the opportunity to study how these provisions would actually be used. And I am still left on knowing how that would be possible without transparency

Nate Erskine-Smith

22:00-22:05

about what is at stake in terms of potential agreements. Right. What have we agreed to? If this

Kate Robertson

22:05-24:57

is implementing legislation what are we implementing certainly it’s a significantly different proposition now even parking the international data sharing context the constitutional issues that are raised in the parts of the bill that i’m able to study within my realm of expertise which is in the context of omnibus legislation not the entire bill of course yeah um but it’s hard to even know where to begin um the the the powers that are being put forward you know i kind of have to set the table a bit to understand to explain why the table is being flipped yeah yeah we’re at a time where um you know a number of years ago i published about the growing use of algorithms and AI and surveillance systems in Canada and gaps in the law and the need to bring Canada’s oversight into the 21st century. Those gaps now, even five years later, are growing into chasms. And we’ve also had multiple investigative reports by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada being sent to Parliament about difficulties it’s had reviewing the activities of law enforcement agencies, difficulties it’s had with private sector companies who’ve been non-compliant with privacy legislation, and cooperating at all with the regulator. And we now have powers being put forward that would essentially say, for greater certainty, it’s finders keepers rules. Anything in the public domain can be obtained and used by police without warrant. And while this has been put forward as a balancing of constitutional norms, the Supreme Court has said the opposite. It’s not an all or nothing field. And in the context of commercial data brokers that are harvesting and selling our data, including mental health care that we might seek online, AI-fueled surveillance tools that are otherwise unchecked in the Canadian domain. I think this is a frankly stunning response to the context of the threats that we face. And I really think it sends and creates really problematic questions around what law enforcement and other government agencies are expected to do in the context of future privacy reviews when essentially everything that’s been happening is supposedly being green lit with this new completely un-nuanced power. I should note you are certainly not alone in these

Nate Erskine-Smith

24:57-27:07

concerns. I mean, in addition to the paper that I was talking about at the outset that you’ve written as an analyst that alongside Ron Deaver in the Citizen Lab. But there’s another open letter you’ve signed that’s called for the withdrawal of C2, but it’s led by open media. I mean, BCCLA, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, QP, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Penn Canada, the Center for Free Expression, privacy experts like Colin Bennett, who I used be on the Privacy Committee and that were pretty regular witnesses. You mentioned the Privacy Commissioner has not signed the open letter, but the Privacy Commissioner of both Canada and the Information Commissioner of Ontario, who’s also responsible for privacy. In the context of the treaties that you were mentioning, the Budapest Convention in particular, they had highlighted concerns absent updated, modernized legislation. And at the federal level, we have had in fits and starts attempts to modernize our private sector privacy legislation. But apart from a consultation paper at one point around the Privacy Act, which would apply to public sector organizations, there’s really been no serious effort to table legislation or otherwise modernize that. So am I right to say, you know, we are creating a myriad number of problems with respect to watering down privacy and human rights protections domestically and especially in relation to foreign governments with relation to data of our citizens here. And we could potentially cure those problems, at least in part, if we modernize our privacy legislation and our privacy protections and human rights protections here at home. But we are, as you say, a gap to chasm. We are so woefully behind in that conversation. It’s a bit of an odd thing to pass the open-ended data sharing and surveillance piece before you even have a conversation around updating your privacy protections.

Kate Robertson

27:07-28:13

Yeah, I mean, frankly, odd, I would use the word irresponsible. We know that these tools, it’s becoming increasingly well documented how impactful they are for communities and individuals, whether it’s wrongful arrests, whether it’s discriminatory algorithms. really fraught tools to say the least. And it’s not as if Parliament does not have a critical role here. You know, in decades past, to use the example of surveillance within Quebec, which was ultimately found to have involved, you know, years of illegal activity and surveillance activities focused on political organizing in Quebec. And that led to Parliament striking an inquiry and ultimately overhauling the mandate of the RCMP. There were recommendations made that the RCMP needs to follow the law. That was an actual recommendation.

Nate Erskine-Smith

28:14-28:16

I’m sorry that it needs to be said, but yeah.

Kate Robertson

28:16-29:05

The safeguards around surveillance are about ensuring that when we use these powers, they’re being used appropriately. And, you know, there isn’t even, frankly, a guarantee that judicial oversight will enable this to happen. And it certainly provides comfort to many Canadians. But we know, for example, that there were phones being watched of journalists in Montreal with, unfortunately, judicial oversight not even that many years ago. So this is something that certainly is capable of leading to more abuses in Canada around political speech and online activity. And it’s something that we need to be protective against and forward thinking about.

Nate Erskine-Smith

29:05-29:58

Yeah, and the conversation has to hold at the same time considerations of public safety, of course, but also considerations for due process and privacy and human rights protections. These things, we have to do both. If we don’t do both, then we’re not the democratic society we hold ourselves out as. I said odd, you said irresponsible. You were forceful in your commentary, but the open letter that had a number of civil society organizations, I mentioned a few, was pretty clear to say the proposed legislation reflects little more than shameful appeasement of the dangerous rhetoric and false claims about our country emanating from the United States. It’s a multi-pronged assault on the basic human rights and freedoms Canada holds dear. Got anything else to add?

Kate Robertson

30:00-30:56

I mean, the elephant in the room is the context in which the legislation has been tabled within. And I do think that we’re at a time where we are seeing democratic backsliding around the world, of course, and rising digital authoritarianism. And these standards really don’t come out of the air. They’re ones that need to be protected. And I do find myself, when I look at some of the really un-nuanced powers that are being put forward, I do find myself asking whether or not those risks are really front and center when we’re proposing to move forward in this way. And I can only defer to experts from, as you said, hundreds of organizations that have called attention towards pretty much every aspect of this legislation.

Nate Erskine-Smith

30:57-31:44

And I will have the benefit of engaging folks on the privacy side around lawful access and around concerns around changes to the asylum claim and due process from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. But as we do see this move its way through Parliament, if we see it move its way through Parliament in the fall, if they’re recognizing that the call was for withdrawal, but also recognizing a political reality where if it is to pass, we want to make sure we are improving it as much as possible. If there are amendments along the way, if there are other people you think that I should engage with, please do let me know because this is before us. It’s an important piece of legislation. And if it’s not to be withdrawn, we better improve it as much as possible.

Kate Robertson

31:46-32:02

I appreciate that offer and really commend you for covering the issue carefully. And I really look forward to more engagement from yourself and other colleagues in parliament as legislation is considered further. I expect you will be a witness at committee,

Nate Erskine-Smith

32:02-32:06

but thanks very much for the time. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.

Part 2: Adam Sadinsky

Chapters:

33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada

36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants

39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks

41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions

44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System

47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways

50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government

52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing Reflections

Nate Erskine-Smith

33:33-33:35

Adam, thanks for joining me.

Adam Sadinsky

33:35-33:36

Thanks for having me, Nate.

Nate Erskine-Smith

33:36-33:57

We’ve had a brief discussion about this, by way of my role as an MP, but, for those who are listening in, they’ll have just heard a rundown of all the concerns that the Citizen Lab has with data surveillance and data sharing with law enforcement around the world. You’ve got different concerns about C2 and you represent the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. What are your concerns here?

Adam Sadinsky

33:57-35:31

I mean, our biggest concern with this bill is new provisions that create additional categories of folks ineligible to claim asylum in Canada. And specifically to have their hearings heard at the Immigration and Refugee Board. The biggest one of those categories is definitely, a bar on individuals making refugee claims in Canada one year after they have arrived in Canada, and that’s one year, whether they have been in Canada for that whole year or they left at some point and came back. Those folks who have been here, who came more than a year ago, if they now fear persecution and want to make a claim for refugee protection, this bill would shunt them into an inferior system where rather than having a full hearing in their day in court.

Their application will be decided by an officer of immigration, alone, sitting in the cubicle, probably, with some papers in front of them. That person is going to make an enormous decision about whether to send that person back home where they feared persecution, torture, death. Our position is that this new form of ineligibility. Is unfair. it doesn’t meet the government’s goals, as we understand them, and we share, we share the views of organizations like, Citizen Lab, that the bill should be withdrawn. There are other ways to do this, but this bill is fundamentally flawed.

Nate Erskine-Smith

35:31-35:57

Let’s talk about government goals. Those looking at the influx of temporary residents in Canada specifically, and I don’t, and I don’t wanna pick on international students, but we’ve seen a huge influx of international students just as one category example. And they’ve said, well, if someone’s been here for a year and they didn’t claim right away, they didn’t come here to claim asylum. Because they would’ve claimed within that first year, presumably, you know, what’s the problem with, uh, with a rule that is really trying to tackle this problem.

Adam Sadinsky

35:57-38:33

The issue is, I mean, Nate, you had mentioned, you know, people who had come to Canada, they didn’t initially claim and it didn’t initially claim asylum, temporary residents. What do we do about it? I wanna give a couple of examples of people who would be caught by this provision, who fall into that category. But there’s legitimate reasons why they might claim more than a year after arriving in Canada. The first is someone who came to Canada, student worker, whatever. At the time they came to Canada, they would’ve been safe going back home they didn’t have a fear of returning back home. But country conditions change and they can change quickly. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, was a stark example there may have been people who came to Canada as students planning to go back to Afghanistan and rebuild their country. As the bill is currently written. If there were to be a situation like that, and there will be some other Afghanistan, there will be some other situation down the line. Those people who weren’t afraid when they originally came to Canada and now have a legitimate claim, will have an inferior, process that they go through, one that is riddled with issues, examples of unfairness compared to the refugee, the regular refugee system, and a lack of protection from deportation, pending any appeal.

So that’s one category. A second category is people who were afraid of going back home when they came to Canada but didn’t need to claim asylum because they had another avenue to remain in Canada. So the government advertised, Minister Frazier was saying this often come to Canada, come as a student and there’s a well-established pathway. You’ll have a study permit, you’ll get a post-graduation work permit. This is what the government wanted. The rug has been pulled out from under many of those people. Towards the end of last year when Canada said, okay, it’s enough, too many temporary residents. But what about the temporary residents who had a fear of returning home when they came? They went through the system the “right way,” quote unquote. They didn’t go to the asylum system. they went through another path. And now they’re looking at it. They say, well, you know, I came to Canada to study, but also I’m gay and I’m from a country where, if people know about that, you know, I’ll be tortured. Maybe since they’ve been in Canada, that person in that example, they’ve been in a relationship, they’ve been posting on social media with their partner. It is very dangerous so why, why shouldn’t that person claim refugee protection through regular means?

Nate Erskine-Smith

38:33-39:06

Is this right on your read of the law as it is written right now, if someone were to come with their family when they’re a kid and they were to be in Canada for over a year and then their family were to move back to either the home country or to a different country, and, they wake up as a teenager many years later, they wake up as an adult many years later and their country’s falling apart, and they were to flee and come to Canada. By virtue of the fact they’ve been here for a year as a kid, would that preclude them from making a claim?

Adam Sadinsky

39:06-39:10

It’s even worse than that, Nate.

Nate Erskine-Smith

39:09-39:10

Oh, great.

Adam Sadinsky

39:10-39:47

In your example, the family stayed in Canada for more than a year. Yes, absolutely. That person is caught by this provision. But here’s who else would be someone comes when they’re five years old with their family, on a trip to the United States. during that trip, they decide we want to see the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. They either have a visa or get whatever visa they need, or don’t need one. They visit the falls, and at that point that they enter Canada, a clock starts ticking. That never stops ticking. So maybe they came to Canada for two hours.

Nate Erskine-Smith

39:44-39:45

Two hours and you’re outta luck.

Adam Sadinsky

39:45-39:47

They go back to the US

Nate Erskine-Smith

39:47-39:47

Oh man.

Adam Sadinsky

39:47-40:09

They never come back to Canada again. The way that the bill is written, that clock never stops ticking, right? Their country falls apart. They come back 15 years later. That person is going to have a very different kind of process that they go through, to get protection in Canada, than someone who wouldn’t be caught by this bill.

Nate Erskine-Smith

40:09-40:34

Say those are the facts as they are, that’s one category. There’s another category where I’ve come as a student, I thought there would be a pathway. I don’t really fear persecution in my home country, but I want to stay in Canada we see in this constituency office, as other constituency offices do people come with immigration help or they’ve got legitimate claims. We see some people come with help with illegitimate claims

Adam Sadinsky

40:34-42:46

We have to be very careful when we talk about categorizing claims as frivolous. There is no question people make refugee claims in Canada that have no merit. You’ll not hear from me, you’ll not hear from our organization saying that every 100% of refugee claims made in Canada, are with merit. The issue is how we determine. At that initial stage that you’re saying, oh, let’s, let’s deal quickly with frivolous claims. How do you determine if a claim is frivolous? What if someone, you know, I do a lot of appeal work, we get appeals of claims prepared by immigration consultants, or not even immigration consultants. And, you know, there’s a core of a very strong refugee claim there that wasn’t prepared properly.

Nate Erskine-Smith

42:46-42:46

Yeah, we see it too. That’s a good point

.

Adam Sadinsky

42:46-42:46

How that claim was prepared has nothing to do with what the person actually faces back home. We have to be very careful in terms of, quick negative claims, and clearing the decks of what some might think are frivolous claims. But there may be some legitimate and very strong core there. What could be done, and you alluded to this, is there are significant claims in the refugee board’s backlog that are very, very strong just based on the countries they come from or the profiles of the individuals who have made those claims, where there are countries that have 99% success rate. And that’s not because the board is super generous. It’s because the conditions in those countries are very, very bad. And so the government could implement policies and this would be done without legislation to grant pathways for folks from, for example, Eritrea 99ish percent success rate. However, the government wants to deal with that in terms of numbers, but there’s no need for the board to spend time determining whether this claim is in the 1%, that doesn’t deserve to be accepted. Our view is that 1% being accepted is, a trade off for, a more efficient system.

Nate Erskine-Smith

42:46-43:30

Similarly though, individuals who come into my office and they’ve been here for more than five years. They have been strong contributors to the community. They have jobs. They’re oftentimes connected to a faith organization. They’re certainly connected to a community based organization that is going to bat for them. There’s, you know, obviously no criminal record in many cases they have other family here. And they’ve gone through so many appeals at different times. I look at that and I go, throughout Canadian history, there have been different regularization programs. Couldn’t you kick a ton of people not a country specific basis, but a category specific basis of over five years, economic contributions, community contributions, no criminal record, you’re approved.

Adam Sadinsky

43:30-44:20

Yeah, I’d add to your list of categories, folks who are working in, professions, that Canada needs workers in. give the example of construction. We are facing a housing crisis. So many construction workers are not Canadian. Many of my clients who are refugee claimants waiting for their hearings are working in the construction industry. And the government did that, back in the COVID pandemic, creating what was, what became known as the Guardian Angels Program, where folks who were working in the healthcare sector, on the front lines, combating the pandemic, supporting, folks who needed it, that they were allowed to be taken again out of the refugee queue with a designated, pathway to permanent residents on the basis of the work and the contribution they were doing. All of these could be done.

Adam Sadinsky

44:20-45:05

The refugee system is built on Canada’s international obligations under the refugee convention, to claim refugee protection, to claim asylum is a human right. Every person in the world has the right to claim asylum. Individuals who are claiming asylum in Canada are exercising that right. Each individual has their own claim, and that’s the real value that the refugee board brings to bear and why Canada has had a gold standard. The refugee system, replicated, around the world, every individual has their day in court, to explain to an expert tribunal why they face persecution. This bill would take that away.

Nate Erskine-Smith

45:05-46:18

Yeah, I can’t put my finger on what the other rationale would be though, because why the, why this change now? Well, we have right now, a huge number over a million people who are going to eventually be without status because they’re not gonna have a pathway that was originally, that they originally thought would be there. The one frustration I have sometimes in the system is there are people who have come into my office with, the original claim, being unfounded. But then I look at it, and they’ve been here partly because the process took so long, they’ve been here for over five years. If you’ve been here for over five years and you’re contributing and you’re a member of the community, and now we’re gonna kick you out. Like your original claim might have been unfounded, but this is insane. Now you’re contributing to this country, and what a broken system. So I guess I’m sympathetic to the need for speed at the front end to ensure that unfounded claims are deemed unfounded and people are deported and legitimate claims are deemed founded, and they can be welcomed. So cases don’t continue to come into my office that are over five or over six years long where I go, I don’t even care if it was originally unfounded or not. Welcome to Canada. You’ve been contributing here for six years anyway.

Adam Sadinsky

46:18-46:33

But if I can interject? Even if the bill passes as written, each of these individuals is still going to have what’s called a pre-removal risk assessment.

Nate Erskine-Smith

46:31-46:33

They’re still gonna have a process. Yeah, exactly.

Adam Sadinsky

46:33-46:55

They’re still gonna have a process, and they’re still going to wait time. All these people are still in the system. The bill is a bit of a shell game where folks are being just transferred from one process to another and say, oh, wow. Great. Look, we’ve reduced the backlog at the IRB by however many thousand claims,

Nate Erskine-Smith

46:53-46:55

And we’ve increased the backlog in the process.

Adam Sadinsky

46:55-48:25

Oh, look at the wait time at IRCC, and I’m sure you have constituents who come into your office and say, I filed a spousal sponsorship application two and a half years ago. I’m waiting for my spouse to come and it’s taking so long. IRCC is not immune from processing delays. There doesn’t seem to be, along with this bill, a corresponding hiring of hundreds and hundreds more pro officers. So, this backlog and this number of claims is shifting from one place to another. And another point I mentioned earlier within the refugee system within the board, when a person appeals a negative decision, right? Because, humans make decisions and humans make mistakes. And that’s why we have legislative appeal processes in the system to allow for mistakes to be corrected. That appeal process happens within the board, and a person is protected from deportation while they’re appealing with a pro. With this other system, it’s different. The moment that an officer makes a negative decision on a pro that person is now eligible to be deported. CBSA can ask them to show up the next day and get on a plane and go home. Yes, a person can apply for judicial review in the federal court that does not stop their deportation. If they can bring a motion to the court for a stay of removal.

Nate Erskine-Smith

48:19-48:25

You’re gonna see a ton of new work for the federal court. You are gonna see double the work for the federal court

Adam Sadinsky

48:25-48:39

Which is already overburdened. So unless the government is also appointing many, many new judges, and probably hiring more Council Department of Justice, this backlog is going to move from one place to another.

Nate Erskine-Smith

48:39-48:41

It’s just gonna be industry whack-a-mole with the backlog.

Adam Sadinsky

48:41-48:52

The only way to clear the backlog is to clear people out of it. There’s no fair way to clear folks out of it in a negative way. So the only way to do that is positively.

Nate Erskine-Smith

48:52-49:37

In the limited time we got left, the bill also empowers the governor and council of the cabinet to cancel documents, to suspend documents. And just so I’ve got this clearer in my mind, so if, for example: say one is a say, one is a student on campus, or say one is on a, on a work permit and one is involved in a protest, and that protest the government deems to be something they don’t like. The government could cancel the student’s permit on the basis that they were involved in the protest. Is that right? The law? Not to say that this government would do that. But this would allow the government to legally do just that. Am I reading it wrong?

Adam Sadinsky

49:37-50:46

The bill gives broad powers to the government to cancel documents. I think you’re reading it correctly. To me, when I read the bill, I don’t particularly understand exactly what is envisioned. Where it would, where the government would do this, why a government would want to put this in. But you are right. I would hope this government would not do that, but this government is not going to be in power forever. When you put laws on the books, they can be used by whomever for whatever reason they can they want, that’s within how that law is drafted. You know, we saw down south, you know, the secretary of State a few months ago said, okay, we’re gonna cancel the permits of everyone from South Sudan, in the US because they’re not taking back people being deported. It’s hugely problematic. It’s a complete overreach. It seems like there could be regulations that are brought in. But the power is so broad as written in this law, that it could definitely be used, for purposes most Canadians would not support.

Nate Erskine-Smith

50:46-51:07

And, obviously that’s a worst case scenario when we think about the United States in today’s political climate. But, it’s not clear to your point what the powers are necessary for. If we are to provide additional powers, we should only provide power as much as necessary and proportionate to the goal we want to achieve. Is there anything else you want to add?

Adam Sadinsky

51:07-51:43

I just wanna touch, and I’m sure you got into a lot of these issues, on the privacy side but. The privacy issues in this bill bleed over into the refugee system with broad search powers, um, particularly requiring service providers to provide information, we are concerned these powers could be used by CBSA, for example, to ask a women’s shelter, to hand over information about a woman claiming refugee protection or who’s undocumented, living in a shelter, we have huge concerns that, you know, these powers will not just be used by police, but also by Canada Border Services and immigration enforcement. I’m not the expert on privacy issues, but we see it we see the specter of those issues as well.

Nate Erskine-Smith

51:43-52:22

That’s all the time we got, but in terms of what would help me to inform my own advocacy going forward is, this bill is gonna get to committee. I’m gonna support the bill in committee and see if we can amend it. I know, the position of CARL is withdraw. The position of a number of civil society organizations is to withdraw it. I think it’s constructive to have your voice and others at committee, and to make the same arguments you made today with me. Where you have. I know your argument’s gonna be withdrawn, you’ll say then in the alternative, here are changes that should be made. When you’ve got a list of those changes in detailed, legislative amendment form, flip them to me and I’ll share the ideas around the ministry and around with colleagues, and I appreciate the time. Appreciate the advocacy.

Adam Sadinsky

52:22-52:24

Absolutely. Thank you.

After a hiatus, we’ve officially restarted the Uncommons podcast, and our first long-form interview is with Professor Taylor Owen to discuss the ever changing landscape of the digital world, the fast emergence of AI and the implications for our kids, consumer safety and our democracy.

Taylor Owen’s work focuses on the intersection of media, technology and public policy and can be found at taylorowen.com. He is the Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communications and the founding Director of The Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy at McGill University where he is also an Associate Professor. He is the host of the Globe and Mail’s Machines Like Us podcast and author of several books.

Taylor also joined me for this discussion more than 5 years ago now. And a lot has happened in that time.

Upcoming episodes will include guests Tanya Talaga and an episode focused on the border bill C-2, with experts from The Citizen Lab and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

We’ll also be hosting a live event at the Naval Club of Toronto with Catherine McKenna, who will be launching her new book Run Like a Girl. Register for free through Eventbrite.

As always, if you have ideas for future guests or topics, email us at [email protected]

Chapters:

0:29 Setting the Stage

1:44 Core Problems & Challenges

4:31 Information Ecosystem Crisis

10:19 Signals of Reliability & Policy Challenges

14:33 Legislative Efforts

18:29 Online Harms Act Deep Dive

25:31 AI Fraud

29:38 Platform Responsibility

32:55 Future Policy Direction

Further Reading and Listening:

Public rules for big tech platforms with Taylor Owen — Uncommons Podcast

“How the Next Government can Protect Canada’s Information Ecosystem.” Taylor Owen with Helen Hayes, The Globe and Mail, April 7, 2025.

Machines Like Us Podcast

Bill C-63

Transcript:

Nate Erskine-Smith

00:00-00:43

Welcome to Uncommons, I’m Nate Erskine-Smith. This is our first episode back after a bit of a hiatus, and we are back with a conversation focused on AI safety, digital governance, and all of the challenges with regulating the internet. I’m joined by Professor Taylor Owen. He’s an expert in these issues. He’s been writing about these issues for many years. I actually had him on this podcast more than five years ago, and he’s been a huge part of getting us in Canada to where we are today. And it’s up to this government to get us across the finish line, and that’s what we talk about. Taylor, thanks for joining me. Thanks for having me. So this feels like deja vu all over again, because I was going back before you arrived this morning and you joined this podcast in April of 2020 to talk about platform governance.

Taylor Owen

00:43-00:44

It’s a different world.

Taylor

00:45-00:45

In some ways.

Nate Erskine-Smith

00:45-01:14

Yeah. Well, yeah, a different world for sure in many ways, but also the same challenges in some ways too. Additional challenges, of course. But I feel like in some ways we’ve come a long way because there’s been lots of consultation. There have been some legislative attempts at least, but also we haven’t really accomplished the thing. So let’s talk about set the stage. Some of the same challenges from five years ago, but some new challenges. What are the challenges? What are the problems we’re trying to solve? Yeah, I mean, many of them are the same, right?

Taylor Owen

01:14-03:06

I mean, this is part of the technology moves fast. But when you look at the range of things citizens are concerned about when they and their children and their friends and their families use these sets of digital technologies that shape so much of our lives, many things are the same. So they’re worried about safety. They’re worried about algorithmic content and how that’s feeding into what they believe and what they think. They’re worried about polarization. We’re worried about the integrity of our democracy and our elections. We’re worried about sort of some of the more acute harms of like real risks to safety, right? Like children taking their own lives and violence erupting, political violence emerging. Like these things have always been present as a part of our digital lives. And that’s what we were concerned about five years ago, right? When we talked about those harms, that was roughly the list. Now, the technologies we were talking about at the time were largely social media platforms, right? So that was the main way five years ago that we shared, consumed information in our digital politics and our digital public lives. And that is what’s changing slightly. Now, those are still prominent, right? We’re still on TikTok and Instagram and Facebook to a certain degree. But we do now have a new layer of AI and particularly chatbots. And I think a big question we face in this conversation in this, like, how do we develop policies that maximize the benefits of digital technologies and minimize the harms, which is all this is trying to do. Do we need new tools for AI or some of the things we worked on for so many years to get right, the still the right tools for this new set of technologies with chatbots and various consumer facing AI interfaces?

Nate Erskine-Smith

03:07-03:55

My line in politics has always been, especially around privacy protections, that we are increasingly living our lives online. And especially, you know, my kids are growing up online and our laws need to reflect that reality. All of the challenges you’ve articulated to varying degrees exist in offline spaces, but can be incredibly hard. The rules we have can be incredibly hard to enforce at a minimum in the online space. And then some rules are not entirely fit for purpose and they need to be updated in the online space. It’s interesting. I was reading a recent op-ed of yours, but also some of the research you’ve done. This really stood out. So you’ve got the Hogue Commission that says disinformation is the single biggest threat to our democracy. That’s worth pausing on.

Taylor Owen

03:55-04:31

Yeah, exactly. Like the commission that spent a year at the request of all political parties in parliament, at the urging of the opposition party, so it spent a year looking at a wide range of threats to our democratic systems that everybody was concerned about originating in foreign countries. And the conclusion of that was that the single biggest threat to our democracy is the way information flows through our society and how we’re not governing it. Like that is a remarkable statement and it kind of came and went. And I don’t know why we moved off from that so fast.

Nate Erskine-Smith

04:31-05:17

Well, and there’s a lot to pull apart there because you’ve got purposeful, intentional, bad actors, foreign influence operations. But you also have a really core challenge of just the reliability and credibility of the information ecosystem. So you have Facebook, Instagram through Meta block news in Canada. And your research, this was the stat that stood out. Don’t want to put you in and say like, what do we do? Okay. So there’s, you say 11 million views of news have been lost as a consequence of that blocking. Okay. That’s one piece of information people should know. Yeah. But at the same time.

Taylor Owen

05:17-05:17

A day. Yeah.

Nate Erskine-Smith

05:18-05:18

So right.

Taylor Owen

05:18-05:27

11 million views a day. And we should sometimes we go through these things really fast. It’s huge. Again, Facebook decides to block news. 40 million people in Canada. Yeah.

Taylor

05:27-05:29

So 11 million times a Canadian.

Taylor Owen

05:29-05:45

And what that means is 11 million times a Canadian would open one of their news feeds and see Canadian journalism is taken out of the ecosystem. And it was replaced by something. People aren’t using these tools less. So that journalism was replaced by something else.

Taylor

05:45-05:45

Okay.

Taylor Owen

05:45-05:46

So that’s just it.

Nate Erskine-Smith

05:46-06:04

So on the one side, we’ve got 11 million views a day lost. Yeah. And on the other side, Canadians, the majority of Canadians get their news from social media. But when the Canadians who get their news from social media are asked where they get it from, they still say Instagram and Facebook. But there’s no news there. Right.

Taylor Owen

06:04-06:04

They say they get.

Nate Erskine-Smith

06:04-06:05

It doesn’t make any sense.

Taylor Owen

06:06-06:23

It doesn’t and it does. It’s terrible. They ask Canadians, like, where do you get people who use social media to get their news? Where do they get their news? and they still say social media, even though it’s not there. Journalism isn’t there. Journalism isn’t there. And I think one of the explanations— Traditional journalism. There is—

Taylor

06:23-06:23

There is—

Taylor Owen

06:23-06:47

Well, this is what I was going to get at, right? Like, there is—one, I think, conclusion is that people don’t equate journalism with news about the world. There’s not a one-to-one relationship there. Like, journalism is one provider of news, but so are influencers, so are podcasts, people listening to this. Like this would be labeled probably news in people’s.

Nate Erskine-Smith

06:47-06:48

Can’t trust the thing we say.

Taylor Owen

06:48-07:05

Right. And like, and neither of us are journalists, right? But we are providing information about the world. And if it shows up in people’s feeds, as I’m sure it will, like that probably gets labeled in people’s minds as news, right? As opposed to pure entertainment, as entertaining as you are.

Nate Erskine-Smith

07:05-07:06

It’s public affairs content.

Taylor Owen

07:06-07:39

Exactly. So that’s one thing that’s happening. The other is that there’s a generation of creators that are stepping into this ecosystem to both fill that void and that can use these tools much more effectively. So in the last election, we found that of all the information consumed about the election, 50% of it was created by creators. 50% of the engagement on the election was from creators. Guess what it was for journalists, for journalism? Like 5%. Well, you’re more pessimistic though. I shouldn’t have led with the question. 20%.

Taylor

07:39-07:39

Okay.

Taylor Owen

07:39-07:56

So all of journalism combined in the entire country, 20 percent of engagement, influencers, 50 percent in the last election. So like we’ve shifted, at least on social, the actors and people and institutions that are fostering our public.

Nate Erskine-Smith

07:56-08:09

Is there a middle ground here where you take some people that play an influencer type role but also would consider themselves citizen journalists in a way? How do you – It’s a super interesting question, right?

Taylor Owen

08:09-08:31

Like who – when are these people doing journalism? When are they doing acts of journalism? Like someone can be – do journalism and 90% of the time do something else, right? And then like maybe they reveal something or they tell an interesting story that resonates with people or they interview somebody and it’s revelatory and it’s a journalistic act, right?

Taylor

08:31-08:34

Like this is kind of a journalistic act we’re playing here.

Taylor Owen

08:35-08:49

So I don’t think – I think these lines are gray. but I mean there’s some other underlying things here which like it matters if I think if journalistic institutions go away entirely right like that’s probably not a good thing yeah I mean that’s why

Nate Erskine-Smith

08:49-09:30

I say it’s terrifying is there’s a there’s a lot of good in the in the digital space that is trying to be there’s creative destruction there’s a lot of work to provide people a direct sense of news that isn’t that filter that people may mistrust in traditional media. Having said that, so many resources and there’s so much history to these institutions and there’s a real ethics to journalism and journalists take their craft seriously in terms of the pursuit of truth. Absolutely. And losing that access, losing the accessibility to that is devastating for democracy. I think so.

Taylor Owen

09:30-09:49

And I think the bigger frame of that for me is a democracy needs signals of – we need – as citizens in a democracy, we need signals of reliability. Like we need to know broadly, and we’re not always going to agree on it, but like what kind of information we can trust and how we evaluate whether we trust it.

Nate Erskine-Smith

09:49-10:13

And that’s what – that is really going away. Pause for a sec. So you could imagine signals of reliability is a good phrase. what does it mean for a legislator when it comes to putting a rule in place? Because you could imagine, you could have a Blade Runner kind of rule that says you’ve got to distinguish between something that is human generated

Taylor

10:13-10:14

and something that is machine generated.

Nate Erskine-Smith

10:15-10:26

That seems straightforward enough. It’s a lot harder if you’re trying to distinguish between Taylor, what you’re saying is credible, and Nate, what you’re saying is not credible,

Taylor

10:27-10:27

which is probably true.

Nate Erskine-Smith

10:28-10:33

But how do you have a signal of reliability in a different kind of content?

Taylor Owen

10:34-13:12

I mean, we’re getting into like a journalistic journalism policy here to a certain degree, right? And it’s a wicked problem because the primary role of journalism is to hold you personally to account. And you setting rules for what they can and can’t do and how they can and can’t behave touches on some real like third rails here, right? It’s fraught. However, I don’t think it should ever be about policy determining what can and can’t be said or what is and isn’t journalism. The real problem is the distribution mechanism and the incentives within it. So a great example and a horrible example happened last week, right? So Charlie Kirk gets assassinated. I don’t know if you opened a feed in the few days after that, but it was a horrendous place, right? Social media was an awful, awful, awful place because what you saw in that feed was the clearest demonstration I’ve ever seen in a decade of looking at this of how those algorithmic feeds have become radicalized. Like all you saw on every platform was the worst possible representations of every view. Right. Right. It was truly shocking and horrendous. Like people defending the murder and people calling for the murder of leftists and like on both sides. Right. people blaming Israel, people, whatever. Right. And that isn’t a function of like- Aaron Charlie Kirk to Jesus. Sure. Like- It was bonkers all the way around. Totally bonkers, right? And that is a function of how those ecosystems are designed and the incentives within them. It’s not a function of like there was journalism being produced about that. Like New York Times, citizens were doing good content about what was happening. It was like a moment of uncertainty and journalism was doing or playing a role, but it wasn’t And so I think with all of these questions, including the online harms ones, and I think how we step into an AI governance conversation, the focus always has to be on those systems. I’m like, what is who and what and what are the incentives and the technical decisions being made that determine what we experience when we open these products? These are commercial products that we’re choosing to consume. And when we open them, a whole host of business and design and technical decisions and human decisions shape the effect it has on us as people, the effect it has on our democracy, the vulnerabilities that exist in our democracy, the way foreign actors or hostile actors can take advantage of them, right? Like all of that stuff we’ve been talking about, the role reliability of information plays, like these algorithms could be tweaked for reliable versus unreliable content, right? Over time.

Taylor

13:12-13:15

That’s not a – instead of reactionary –

Taylor Owen

13:15-13:42

Or like what’s most – it gets most engagement or what makes you feel the most angry, which is largely what’s driving X, for example, right now, right? You can torque all those things. Now, I don’t think we want government telling companies how they have to torque it. But we can slightly tweak the incentives to get better content, more reliable content, less polarizing content, less hateful content, less harmful content, right? Those dials can be incentivized to be turned. And that’s where the policy space should play, I think.

Nate Erskine-Smith

13:43-14:12

And your focus on systems and assessing risks with systems. I think that’s the right place to play. I mean, we’ve seen legislative efforts. You’ve got the three pieces in Canada. You’ve got online harms. You’ve got the privacy and very kind of vague initial foray into AI regs, which we can get to. And then a cybersecurity piece. And all of those ultimately died on the order paper. Yeah. We also had the journalistic protection policies, right, that the previous government did.

Taylor Owen

14:12-14:23

I mean – Yeah, yeah, yeah. We can debate their merits. Yeah. But there was considerable effort put into backstopping the institutions of journalism by the – Well, they’re twofold, right?

Nate Erskine-Smith

14:23-14:33

There’s the tax credit piece, sort of financial support. And then there was the Online News Act. Right. Which was trying to pull some dollars out of the platforms to pay for the news as well. Exactly.

Taylor

14:33-14:35

So the sort of supply and demand side thing, right?

Nate Erskine-Smith

14:35-14:38

There’s the digital service tax, which is no longer a thing.

Taylor Owen

14:40-14:52

Although it still is a piece of past legislation. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It still is a thing. Yeah, yeah. Until you guys decide whether to negate the thing you did last year or not, right? Yeah.

Nate Erskine-Smith

14:52-14:55

I don’t take full responsibility for that one.

Taylor Owen

14:55-14:56

No, you shouldn’t.

Nate Erskine-Smith

14:58-16:03

But other countries have seen more success. Yeah. And so you’ve got in the UK, in Australia, the EU really has led the way. 2018, the EU passes GDPR, which is a privacy set of rules, which we are still behind seven years later. But you’ve got in 2022, 2023, you’ve got Digital Services Act that passes. You’ve got Digital Markets Act. And as I understand it, and we’ve had, you know, we’ve both been involved in international work on this. And we’ve heard from folks like Francis Hogan and others about the need for risk-based assessments. And you’re well down the rabbit hole on this. But isn’t it at a high level? You deploy a technology. You’ve got to identify material risks. You then have to take reasonable measures to mitigate those risks. That’s effectively the duty of care built in. And then ideally, you’ve got the ability for third parties, either civil society or some public office that has the ability to audit whether you have adequately identified and disclosed material risks and whether you have taken reasonable steps to mitigate.

Taylor Owen

16:04-16:05

That’s like how I have it in my head.

Nate Erskine-Smith

16:05-16:06

I mean, that’s it.

Taylor Owen

16:08-16:14

Write it down. Fill in the legislation. Well, I mean, that process happened. I know. That’s right. I know.

Nate Erskine-Smith

16:14-16:25

Exactly. Which people, I want to get to that because C63 gets us a large part of the way there. I think so. And yet has been sort of like cast aside.

Taylor Owen

16:25-17:39

Exactly. Let’s touch on that. But I do think what you described as the online harms piece of this governance agenda. When you look at what the EU has done, they have put in place the various building blocks for what a broad digital governance agenda might look like. Because the reality of this space, which we talked about last time, and it’s the thing that’s infuriating about digital policy, is that you can’t do one thing. There’s no – digital economy and our digital lives are so vast and the incentives and the effect they have on society is so broad that there’s no one solution. So anyone who tells you fix privacy policy and you’ll fix all the digital problems we just talked about are full of it. Anyone who says competition policy, like break up the companies, will solve all of these problems. is wrong, right? Anyone who says online harms policy, which we’ll talk about, fixes everything is wrong. You have to do all of them. And Europe has, right? They updated their privacy policy. They’ve been to build a big online harms agenda. They updated their competition regime. And they’re also doing some AI policy too, right? So like you need comprehensive approaches, which is not an easy thing to do, right? It means doing three big things all over.

Nate Erskine-Smith

17:39-17:41

Especially minority parlance, short periods of time, legislatively.

Taylor Owen

17:41-18:20

Different countries have taken different pieces of it. Now, on the online harms piece, which is what the previous government took really seriously, and I think it’s worth putting a point on that, right, that when we talked last was the beginning of this process. After we spoke, there was a national expert panel. There were 20 consultations. There were four citizens’ assemblies. There was a national commission, right? Like a lot of work went into looking at what every other country had done because this is a really wicked, difficult problem and trying to learn from what Europe, Australia and the UK had all done. And we kind of taking the benefit of being late, right? So they were all ahead of us.

Taylor

18:21-18:25

People you work with on that grant committee. We’re all quick and do our own consultations.

Taylor Owen

18:26-19:40

Exactly. And like the model that was developed out of that, I think, was the best model of any of those countries. And it’s now seen as internationally, interestingly, as the new sort of milestone that everybody else is building on, right? And what it does is it says if you’re going to launch a digital product, right, like a consumer-facing product in Canada, you need to assess risk. And you need to assess risk on these broad categories of harms that we have decided as legislators we care about or you’ve decided as legislators you cared about, right? Child safety, child sexual abuse material, fomenting violence and extremist content, right? Like things that are like broad categories that we’ve said are we think are harmful to our democracy. All you have to do as a company is a broad assessment of what could go wrong with your product. If you find something could go wrong, so let’s say, for example, let’s use a tangible example. Let’s say you are a social media platform and you are launching a product that’s going to be used by kids and it allows adults to contact kids without parental consent or without kids opting into being a friend. What could go wrong with that?

Nate Erskine-Smith

19:40-19:40

Yeah.

Taylor

19:40-19:43

Like what could go wrong? Yeah, a lot could go wrong.

Taylor Owen

19:43-20:27

And maybe strange men will approach teenage girls. Maybe, right? Like if you do a risk assessment, that is something you might find. You would then be obligated to mitigate that risk and show how you’ve mitigated it, right? Like you put in a policy in place to show how you’re mitigating it. And then you have to share data about how these tools are used so that we can monitor, publics and researchers can monitor whether that mitigation strategy worked. That’s it. In that case, that feature was launched by Instagram in Canada without any risk assessment, without any safety evaluation. And we know there was like a widespread problem of teenage girls being harassed by strange older men.

Taylor

20:28-20:29

Incredibly creepy.

Taylor Owen

20:29-20:37

A very easy, but not like a super illegal thing, not something that would be caught by the criminal code, but a harm we can all admit is a problem.

Taylor

20:37-20:41

And this kind of mechanism would have just filtered out.

Taylor Owen

20:41-20:51

Default settings, right? And doing thinking a bit before you launch a product in a country about what kind of broad risks might emerge when it’s launched and being held accountable to do it for doing that.

Nate Erskine-Smith

20:52-21:05

Yeah, I quite like the we I mean, maybe you’ve got a better read of this, but in the UK, California has pursued this. I was looking at recently, Elizabeth Denham is now the Jersey Information Commissioner or something like that.

Taylor Owen

21:05-21:06

I know it’s just yeah.

Nate Erskine-Smith

21:07-21:57

I don’t random. I don’t know. But she is a Canadian, for those who don’t know Elizabeth Denham. And she was the information commissioner in the UK. And she oversaw the implementation of the first age-appropriate design code. That always struck me as an incredibly useful approach. In that even outside of social media platforms, even outside of AI, take a product like Roblox, where tons of kids use it. And just forcing companies to ensure that the default settings are prioritizing child safety so that you don’t put the onus on parents and kids to figure out each of these different games and platforms. In a previous world of consumer protection, offline, it would have been de facto. Of course we’ve prioritized consumer safety first and foremost. But in the online world, it’s like an afterthought.

Taylor Owen

21:58-24:25

Well, when you say consumer safety, it’s worth like referring back to what we mean. Like a duty of care can seem like an obscure concept. But your lawyer is a real thing, right? Like you walk into a store. I walk into your office. I have an expectation that the bookshelves aren’t going to fall off the wall and kill me, right? And you have to bolt them into the wall because of that, right? Like that is a duty of care that you have for me when I walk into your public space or private space. Like that’s all we’re talking about here. And the age-appropriate design code, yes, like sort of developed, implemented by a Canadian in the UK. And what it says, it also was embedded in the Online Harms Act, right? If we’d passed that last year, we would be implementing an age-appropriate design code as we speak, right? What that would say is any product that is likely to be used by a kid needs to do a set of additional things, not just these risk assessments, right? But we think like kids don’t have the same rights as adults. We have different duties to protect kids as adults, right? So maybe they should do an extra set of things for their digital products. And it includes things like no behavioral targeting, no advertising, no data collection, no sexual adult content, right? Like kind of things that like – Seem obvious. And if you’re now a child in the UK and you open – you go on a digital product, you are safer because you have an age-appropriate design code governing your experience online. Canadian kids don’t have that because that bill didn’t pass, right? So like there’s consequences to this stuff. and I get really frustrated now when I see the conversation sort of pivoting to AI for example right like all we’re supposed to care about is AI adoption and all the amazing things AI is going to do to transform our world which are probably real right like not discounting its power and just move on from all of these both problems and solutions that have been developed to a set of challenges that both still exist on social platforms like they haven’t gone away people are still using these tools and the harms still exist and probably are applicable to this next set of technologies as well. So this moving on from what we’ve learned and the work that’s been done is just to the people working in this space and like the wide stakeholders in this country who care about this stuff and working on it. It just, it feels like you say deja vu at the beginning and it is deja vu, but it’s kind of worse, right? Cause it’s like deja vu and then ignoring the

Taylor

24:25-24:29

five years of work. Yeah, deja vu if we were doing it again. Right. We’re not even, we’re not even

Taylor Owen

24:29-24:41

Well, yeah. I mean, hopefully I actually am not, I’m actually optimistic, I would say that we will, because I actually think of if for a few reasons, like one, citizens want it, right? Like.

Nate Erskine-Smith

24:41-24:57

Yeah, I was surprised on the, so you mentioned there that the rules that we design, the risk assessment framework really applied to social media could equally be applied to deliver AI safety and it could be applied to new technology in a useful way.

Taylor Owen

24:58-24:58

Some elements of it. Exactly.

Nate Erskine-Smith

24:58-25:25

I think AI safety is a broad bucket of things. So let’s get to that a little bit because I want to pull the pieces together. So I had a constituent come in the office and he is really like super mad. He’s super mad. Why is he mad? Does that happen very often? Do people be mad when they walk into this office? Not as often as you think, to be honest. Not as often as you think. And he’s mad because he believes Mark Carney ripped him off.

Taylor Owen

25:25-25:25

Okay.

Nate Erskine-Smith

25:25-26:36

Okay. Yep. He believes Mark Carney ripped him off, not with broken promise in politics, not because he said one thing and is delivering something else, nothing to do with politics. He saw a video online, Mark Carney told him to invest money. He invested money and he’s out the 200 bucks or whatever it was. And I was like, how could you possibly have lost money in this way? This is like, this was obviously a scam. Like what, how could you have been deceived? But then I go and I watched the video And it is, okay, I’m not gonna send the 200 bucks and I’ve grown up with the internet, but I can see how- Absolutely. In the same way, phone scams and Nigerian princes and all of that have their own success rate. I mean, this was a very believable video that was obviously AI generated. So we are going to see rampant fraud. If we aren’t already, we are going to see many challenges with respect to AI safety. What over and above the risk assessment piece, what do we do to address these challenges?

Taylor Owen

26:37-27:04

So that is a huge problem, right? Like the AI fraud, AI video fraud is a huge challenge. In the election, when we were monitoring the last election, by far the biggest problem or vulnerability of the election was a AI generated video campaign. that every day would take videos of Polyevs and Carney’s speeches from the day before and generate, like morph them into conversations about investment strategies.

Taylor

27:05-27:07

And it was driving people to a crypto scam.

Taylor Owen

27:08-27:11

But it was torquing the political discourse.

Taylor

27:11-27:11

That’s what it must have been.

Taylor Owen

27:12-27:33

I mean, there’s other cases of this, but that’s probably, and it was running rampant on particularly meta platforms. They were flagged. They did nothing about it. There were thousands of these videos circulating throughout the entire election, right? And it’s not like the end of the world, right? Like nobody – but it torqued our political debate. It ripped off some people. And these kinds of scams are –

Taylor

27:33-27:38

It’s clearly illegal. It’s clearly illegal. It probably breaks his election law too, misrepresenting a political figure, right?

Taylor Owen

27:38-27:54

So I think there’s probably an Elections Canada response to this that’s needed. And it’s fraud. And it’s fraud, absolutely. So what do you do about that, right? And the head of the Canadian Banking Association said there’s like billions of dollars in AI-based fraud in the Canadian economy right now. Right? So it’s a big problem.

Taylor

27:54-27:55

Yeah.

Taylor Owen

27:55-28:46

I actually think there’s like a very tangible policy solution. You put these consumer-facing AI products into the Online Harms Act framework, right? And then you add fraud and AI scams as a category of harm. And all of a sudden, if you’re meta and you are operating in Canada during an election, you’d have to do a risk assessment on like AI fraud potential of your product. Responsibility for your platform. And then it starts to circulate. We would see it. They’d be called out on it. They’d have to take it down. And like that’s that, right? Like so that we have mechanisms for dealing with this. But it does mean evolving what we worked on over the past five years, these like only harms risk assessment models and bringing in some of the consumer facing AI, both products and related harms into the framework.

Nate Erskine-Smith

28:47-30:18

To put it a different way, I mean, so this is years ago now that we had this, you know, grand committee in the UK holding Facebook and others accountable. This really was creating the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. And the platforms at the time were really holding firm to this idea of Section 230 and avoiding host liability and saying, oh, we couldn’t possibly be responsible for everything on our platform. And there was one problem with that argument, which is they completely acknowledged the need for them to take action when it came to child pornography. And so they said, yeah, well, you know, no liability for us. But of course, there can be liability on this one specific piece of content and we’ll take action on this one specific piece of content. And it always struck me from there on out. I mean, there’s no real intellectual consistency here. It’s more just what should be in that category of things that they should take responsibility for. And obviously harmful content like that should be – that’s an obvious first step but obvious for everyone. But there are other categories. Fraud is another one. When they’re making so much money, when they are investing so much money in AI, when they’re ignoring privacy protections and everything else throughout the years, I mean, we can’t leave it up to them. And setting a clear set of rules to say this is what you’re responsible for and expanding that responsibility seems to make a good amount of sense.

Taylor Owen

30:18-30:28

It does, although I think those responsibilities need to be different for different kinds of harms. Because there are different speech implications and apocratic implications of sort of absolute solutions to different kinds of content.

Taylor

30:28-30:30

So like child pornography is a great example.

Taylor Owen

30:30-31:44

In the Online Harms Bill Act, for almost every type of content, it was that risk assessment model. But there was a carve out for child sexual abuse material. So including child pornography. And for intimate images and videos shared without consent. It said the platforms actually have a different obligation, and that’s to take it down within 24 hours. And the reason you can do it with those two kinds of content is because if we, one, the AI is actually pretty good at spotting it. It might surprise you, but there’s a lot of naked images on the internet that we can train AI with. So we’re actually pretty good at using AI to pull this stuff down. But the bigger one is that we are, I think, as a society, it’s okay to be wrong in the gray area of that speech, right? Like if something is like debatable, whether it’s child pornography, I’m actually okay with us suppressing the speech of the person who sits in that gray area. Whereas for something like hate speech, it’s a really different story, right? Like we do not want to suppress and over index for that gray area on hate speech because that’s going to capture a lot of reasonable debate that we probably want.

Nate Erskine-Smith

31:44-31:55

Yeah, I think soliciting investment via fraud probably falls more in line with the child pornography category where it’s, you know, very obviously illegal.

Taylor Owen

31:55-32:02

And that mechanism is like a takedown mechanism, right? Like if we see fraud, if we know it’s fraud, then you take it down, right? Some of these other things we have to go with.

Nate Erskine-Smith

32:02-32:24

I mean, my last question really is you pull the threads together. You’ve got these different pieces that were introduced in the past. And you’ve got a government that lots of similar folks around the table, but a new government and a new prime minister certainly with a vision for getting the most out of AI when it comes to our economy.

Taylor

32:24-32:25

Absolutely.

Nate Erskine-Smith

32:25-33:04

You have, for the first time in this country, an AI minister, a junior minister to industry, but still a specific title portfolio and with his own deputy minister and really wants to be seized with this. And in a way, I think that from every conversation I’ve had with him that wants to maximize productivity in this country using AI, but is also cognizant of the risks and wants to address AI safety. So where from here? You know, you’ve talked in the past about sort of a grander sort of tech accountability and sovereignty act. Do we do piecemeal, you know, a privacy bill here and an AI safety bill and an online harms bill and we have disparate pieces? What’s the answer here?

Taylor Owen

33:05-34:14

I mean, I don’t have the exact answer. But I think there’s some like, there’s some lessons from the past that we can, this government could take. And one is piecemeal bills that aren’t centrally coordinated or have no sort of connectivity between them end up with piecemeal solutions that are imperfect and like would benefit from some cohesiveness between them, right? So when the previous government released ADA, the AI Act, it was like really intention in some real ways with the online harms approach. So two different departments issuing two similar bills on two separate technologies, not really talking to each other as far as I can tell from the outside, right? So like we need a coordinating, coordinated, comprehensive effort to digital governance. Like that’s point one and we’ve never had it in this country. And when I saw the announcement of an AI minister, my mind went first to that he or that office could be that role. Like you could – because AI is – it’s cross-cutting, right? Like every department in our federal government touches AI in one way or another. And the governance of AI and the adoption on the other side of AI by society is going to affect every department and every bill we need.

Nate Erskine-Smith

34:14-34:35

So if Evan pulled in the privacy pieces that would help us catch up to GDPR. Which it sounds like they will, right? Some version of C27 will probably come back. If he pulls in the online harms pieces that aren’t related to the criminal code and drops those provisions, says, you know, Sean Frazier, you can deal with this if you like. But these are the pieces I’m holding on to.

Taylor Owen

34:35-34:37

With a frame of consumer safety, right?

Nate Erskine-Smith

34:37-34:37

Exactly.

Taylor Owen

34:38-34:39

If he wants...

Nate Erskine-Smith

34:39-34:54

Which is connected to privacy as well, right? Like these are all... So then you have thematically a bill that makes sense. And then you can pull in as well the AI safety piece. And then it becomes a consumer protection bill when it comes to living our lives online. Yeah.

Taylor Owen

34:54-36:06

And I think there’s an argument whether that should be one bill or whether it’s multiple ones. I actually don’t think it... I think there’s cases for both, right? There’s concern about big omnibus bills that do too many things and too many committees reviewing them and whatever. that’s sort of a machinery of government question right but but the principle that these should be tied together in a narrative that the government is explicit about making and communicating to publics right that if if you we know that 85 percent of canadians want ai to be regulated what do they mean what they mean is at the same time as they’re being told by our government by companies that they should be using and embracing this powerful technology in their lives they’re also seeing some risks. They’re seeing risks to their kids. They’re being told their jobs might disappear and might take their... Why should I use this thing? When I’m seeing some harms, I don’t see you guys doing anything about these harms. And I’m seeing some potential real downside for me personally and my family. So even in the adoption frame, I think thinking about data privacy, safety, consumer safety, I think to me, that’s the real frame here. It’s like citizen safety, consumer safety using these products. Yeah, politically, I just, I mean, that is what it is. It makes sense to me.

Nate Erskine-Smith

36:06-36:25

Right, I agree. And really lean into child safety at the same time. Because like I’ve got a nine-year-old and a five-year-old. They are growing up with the internet. And I do not want to have to police every single platform that they use. I do not want to have to log in and go, these are the default settings on the parental controls.

Taylor

36:25-36:28

I want to turn to government and go, do your damn job.

Taylor Owen

36:28-36:48

Or just like make them slightly safer. I know these are going to be imperfect. I have a 12-year-old. He spends a lot of time on YouTube. I know that’s going to always be a place with sort of content that I would prefer he doesn’t see. But I would just like some basic safety standards on that thing. So he’s not seeing the worst of the worst.

Nate Erskine-Smith

36:48-36:58

And we should expect that. Certainly at YouTube with its promotion engine, the recommendation function is not actively promoting terrible content to your 12 year old.

Taylor Owen

36:59-37:31

Yeah. That’s like de minimis. Can we just torque this a little bit, right? So like maybe he’s not seeing content about horrible content about Charlie Kirk when he’s a 12 year old on YouTube, right? Like, can we just do something? And I think that’s a reasonable expectation as a citizen. But it requires governance. That will not – and that’s – it’s worth putting a real emphasis on that is one thing we’ve learned in this moment of repeated deja vus going back 20 years really since our experience with social media for sure through to now is that these companies don’t self-govern.

Taylor

37:31-37:31

Right.

Taylor Owen

37:32-37:39

Like we just – we know that indisputably. So to think that AI is going to be different is delusional. No, it’ll be pseudo-profit, not the public interest.

Taylor

37:39-37:44

Of course. Because that’s what we are. These are the largest companies in the world. Yeah, exactly. And AI companies are even bigger than the last generation, right?

Taylor Owen

37:44-38:00

We’re creating something new with the scale of these companies. And to think that their commercial incentives and their broader long-term goals of around AI are not going to override these safety concerns is just naive in the nth degree.

Nate Erskine-Smith

38:00-38:38

But I think you make the right point, and it’s useful to close on this, that these goals of realizing the productivity possibilities and potentials of AI alongside AI safety, these are not mutually exclusive or oppositional goals. that it’s you create a sandbox to play in and companies will be more successful. And if you have certainty in regulations, companies will be more successful. And if people feel safe using these tools and having certainly, you know, if I feel safe with my kids learning these tools growing up in their classrooms and everything else, you’re going to adoption rates will soar. Absolutely. And then we’ll benefit.

Taylor Owen

38:38-38:43

They work in tandem, right? And I think you can’t have one without the other fundamentally.

Nate Erskine-Smith

38:45-38:49

Well, I hope I don’t invite you back five years from now when we have the same conversation.

Taylor Owen

38:49-38:58

Well, I hope you invite me back in five years, but I hope it’s like thinking back on all the legislative successes of the previous five years. I mean, that’ll be the moment.

Taylor

38:58-38:59

Sounds good. Thanks, David. Thanks.

Nate and Carolyn Whitzman talk about her recent book Home Truths, Canada's housing needs, and different historical and international approaches that should inform how we build market, non-market, and supportive housing. Carolyn is a housing and social policy researcher, an expert advisor to UBC's Housing Assessment Resource Tools, and a senior housing researcher at U of T's School of Cities. She is also the author of Home Truths, Fixing Canada's Housing Crisis.

How many homes do we need to build? How should we go about building them? And who should we be serving?

Chapters:

00:00 Introduction to Housing Crisis in Canada01:52 Understanding Housing Needs Assessments05:14 Historical Context of Housing in Canada09:09 Long-Term Solutions for Housing16:10 Market vs. Non-Market Housing22:24 Addressing NIMBYism and Zoning Reform27:39 International Examples of Non-Market Housing34:53 Financing Non-Market Housing39:56 Protecting Renters and Tenant Rights41:21 Addressing Homelessness with Compassion46:39 Conclusion and Future Directions

Transcript:

Nate:Welcome to Uncommons. I'm Nate Erskine-Smith. For those of you who are tuning in more recently, I'm the Member of Parliament for Beaches-East York. And this Uncommons podcast is a series of interviews with experts in their respective fields with colleagues of mine in parliament really focused on Canadian politics and policy in relation to that politics.

And today I'm joined by Carolyn Whitzman. She is an expert in housing policy, one of the most important issues at all levels of government that need to be addressed in a comprehensive, serious way. You'll hear all politicians sort of trip over themselves with different housing plans.

And the question for Carolyn is, how many homes do we need to build? How should we go about building them? And who should we be serving? And how are we going to get out of this housing crisis that this country faces and that all regions face in their own respective ways?

Now, Carolyn is a housing and social policy researcher. She's an expert advisor to UBC's housing assessment resource tools. She's a senior housing researcher at U of T's School of Cities. And most importantly, having just read her book, she is the author of Home Truths, Fixing Canada's Housing Crisis.

Nate:Carolyn, thanks for joining me.

Caroyln:Great to join you, Nate.

Nate:So you came highly recommended to me by virtue of Mark Richardson, who's a constituent and an advocate on housing and someone I, you know, anything he says on housing is to be believed.

And he's, you know, he highly recommended your book, Home Truths, but he also suggested you as a podcast guest. So I really, really appreciate the time. And much of your work, you know, your main work, other than being an expert in all things housing, but a core expertise that you have is really on the needs assessment in terms of what the housing market in Canada needs in particular in different regions. And there are different needs.

There are market needs, there are non-market needs, there's deeply affordable needs for people who are experiencing homelessness.

And so how would you break down, you know, if you've got Sean Fraser coming to you and saying, what are the needs assessments? How would you break down the needs assessments on housing in this country?

Caroyln:Well, funny you should say that because Sean's office and housing and infrastructure has come to me. So I did some work with a project called the Housing Assessment Resource Tools Project based at UBC that was funded by the CMHC that did what the CMHC used to do and unfortunately no longer does, which is look at housing need by income categories.

Canada has been doing that since 1944 during World War II when a report by a relatively conservative economist named Curtis said that for low-income people, probably some form of public housing was going to be necessary to meet their needs.

For middle-income people, there needed to be a lot more purpose-built rental housing, he said that in 1944. And he also said in 1944 that there needed to be some way to control rent increases and he suggested cooperative housing. And then for higher-income people, definitely scale up while located home ownership.

To some extent the Canadian government listened. Between 1944 and 1960, there were about a million homes enabled through government land financing design replication that were for moderate-income starter households.

In those days it was mostly one-earner households, like a man at home and a woman, sorry, a woman at home and a man at work. And the homes were two to three bedrooms between $7,000 and $8,000. So pretty remarkably that's like $80,000 to $90,000 in today's terms.

Nate:That would be nice.

Carolyn:Yeah, wouldn't it be nice? Once they were sold, they lost our affordability.

So since then, and certainly in the 1970s and 1980s when the federal government was building, well again enabling, about one in five homes to be built by public housing, cooperative housing, other non-profit housing, that housing was affordable to what they called low- and moderate-income households, so the lowest two quintiles of household income. Home ownership was easily affordable to moderate in most places and middle-income households.

So there's always been some housing needs, but there wasn't widespread homelessness. There wasn't the kinds of craziness that you see today where new rental housing isn't affordable to middle-income earners, where new homeowners are limited to the highest quintile, like the highest 20% of population.

So we simply use the same kinds of categories, also the kinds of categories that are used in the U.S. and other countries. Low income, moderate income, median income, and then higher income.

Unfortunately with provincial social assistance rates being what they are, we have to add a very low income, which is like 20% of median income, and really isn't enough to afford a room let alone an apartment. But yeah, that's the way we look at housing need.

Nate:But then, so let's be maybe, that's at a high level for how we look, how we analyze it,

and then when we look at the Canadian context today, so you talk about the Curtis Report

post-war and on my reading of, I found your historical examples very interesting, international

examples interesting too, which we'll get to, but this was one of the most interesting

ones because here you have the Curtis Report proposing annual targets that you say is effectively the equivalent of 4 million homes over 10 years. But then they break this down into a particular categories.

Then you've got, you know, two years ago, two and a bit of years ago, you had CMHC issued a report to say we effectively need 5.8 million homes by 2030. So 2.3 million in business as usual. And then you've got this 3.5 million additional homes required. And that's impossible for us to achieve based upon the current trajectory at all levels of government, frankly, but especially at the provincial level.

And so when you look at the needs assessment today, so Curtis Report has 4 million over

10 years, what do we need today? Is CMHC right?

It's 5.8 million, although they don't break it down into these different categories, or should we be more specific to say, as you do, it's 200,000 new or renovated deeply affordable supportive homes over 10 years, and then you've got different categories for market and non-market.

Carolyn:Well, I think it's important to prioritize people whose lives are literally being shortened because of lack of housing. So I think that ending homelessness should be a priority. And there's no doubt that we can't end homelessness without a new generation of low-cost housing.

So I wouldn't disagree that we need 6,000 new homes. I did a report last year for the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate that argued that we need 3 million new and acquired homes for low-income people alone at rents of about $1,000 a month or less, certainly less if you're on social assistance.

So the deed is pretty large. We have to recognize the fact that it's taken 30 to 50 years of inaction, particularly federal inaction, but also the Fed's downloaded to provinces, and as you say, provinces have done an extremely poor job to get there.

And I think that what we see from countries that work, like France and Finland, Austria, is that they think in terms of like 30-year infrastructure categories, just like any other infrastructure. If we were to have a really viable public transit system, we'd need to start thinking in terms of what are we going to do over the next 30 years.

Similarly, I think we need to look at a kind of 30-year time span when it comes to housing, and I think we need to look once again at that rule of thirds, which is a rule that's used in a lot of, in Germany and again in France and Finland, Denmark, about a third of it needs to be pretty deeply affordable low-income housing, about a third of it needs to be moderate-income rental, but with renter rights to ensure that the rents don't go up precipitously, and about a third of it needs to be for home ownership.

Nate:You mentioned a 30-year window a few times there, and it strikes me that we need more honesty in our politics in that there's no quick solution to most of these challenges. That it's, you know, in your telling of the story, which I think is exactly right, this is decades in the making, and it will be decades in undoing this challenge and in addressing this as fulsome as we should.

Now, that's not to say, you're right, we should prioritize people whose lives are being shortened by a lack of housing. There's some things we can do immediately to get more rapid housing built and really drive at that in a shorter window of time.

But when you look at non-market housing, when you look at the market housing we need to build, no politician should stand at the microphone and say, we're going to build the homes we need without really overhauling how we do things and understanding that these homes are not going to get built tomorrow, that this is putting down track, policy track, to make sure homes get built in the next five years, in the next 10 years and beyond.

Carolyn:Absolutely. And I think it's really important to start off with some aspirational goals. Like, for

instance, it was 1987 when Finland said, we're going to end homelessness, and this is how we're going to do it. France in 2000 said 20% of all housing should be non-market, in other words, public cooperative, non-profit.

And in both Finland and France, there's been federal government changes as well as changes at the municipal level, etc. And those goals have remained the same through right wing and left wing governments.

It does worry me, Nate, when politicians, I won't name any names, use sort of three word slogans, and that's going to somehow change things in the term of the government.

Nate:I will will homes into existence by rhyming.

Carolyn:So, you know, it takes building up systems, including good information systems to monitor and track how well we're doing and course correct. And that's something kind of basic that's been missing from federal policy as well.

There's one report that says there's 655,000 non-market homes. Another report two years later says that there's 980,000 non-market homes and those weren't built in two years. So, you know, what is our current housing stock? How are our policies working to create certain kinds of housing, housing for people with disabilities or housing for seniors?

Student housing need wasn't even included in the last few censuses. So, we don't really know how many students need housing at what cost and where. These are all examples of things that would be in a real national housing strategy.

Nate:That seems to me like the basics, right? Like you measure why I want to start the

conversation with a needs assessment, because if you don't start with that, then you're not working in a serious direction to any end goal.

But I was also struck by your book just and you mentioned a couple of international examples and I'll say again, I want to get there, but I want to start the historical examples because part of us we live in this Overton window and we've had the federal government, not this federal government, but previous federal governments walk away from their responsibilities on housing.

As you say, the story is a story of downloading responsibilities. There's been some uploading of responsibilities back through the last two national housing strategies as far as it goes, but we could talk about whether there ought to be more of that even and I think there probably should be more fiscal firepower when I look at the international examples and what's spent in France and Germany and other countries.

But I was also struck by the historical ability to build in this country. And this is one thing that jumped out, but I'd also be curious what when you were writing this book, like what really jumped out is you as, so we're building fewer homes now than we were in the mid 1970s when the population was half what it is now. I found that absolutely shocking.

I also found it shocking if new home construction had stayed at 1970s levels, we'd have an additional 6 to 7 million homes, meaning we'd be where we should be.

Carolyn:Yeah, yeah. So what happened? And I think a couple of things happened. One is, and this happened in a couple of countries. It happened in Sweden too.

Sweden said, we'll build a million homes in a country of 8 million, which is pretty impressive. And they did. And then they had a slight surplus of homes. They had some vacancies.

And instead of going, yay, vacancies, tenants have a choice. They went, oh my God, vacancies,

what are we doing? There was also a change of government, of course. So they course corrected.

Part of it is that a good housing system includes about 4 to 8% vacancies, just because people move,there's vacancies in between people moving. You want people to have a choice. We know that vacancies help bring rents down in sort of...

Nate:And standards up, right?

Carolyn:And standards up using classic supply and demand. So we want to see some vacancies. We don't want to have a zero vacancy system. That's number one.

Number two is just this increasing belief in the late 1970s and early 1980s. And it came from both the right and the left to distrust government.

I think Robert Moses, the chief planner of New York City for decades has a lot to answer for because people started looking at this big, heavy-handed planning and said, we don't want anything of it.

And so activists in central cities said, we don't want our heritage knocked down, which I completely understand, but then created such restrictive zoning that only very rich households can live in the majority of well-located neighborhoods in Toronto, for instance.

But from the right as well, there was this belief that the market can solve all problems, including the problem of housing for low-income people. And there's never been any proof that that particular contention is true. Whereas there's plenty of evidence that the needs of low-cost, low-income people can only be met through a kind of social perspective.

Just like if you said, hey, you have to pay the real costs of healthcare. Well, 20% of you won't be able to, and that's too bad for you. Or everyone needs to pay the real cost of primary education. Well, sorry, many of you will have to remain illiterate.

So housing is a basic need, a basic social determinant of health, just as education and healthcare is. And although housing is unlike healthcare and education in that the majority of it is provided by the private sector, just like food, there does need to be some consideration for the fact that everybody needs housing, just like they need healthcare and education and food.

Nate:There's a lot there. And really, I think I was on the road a lot last year for an ultimately unsuccessful bid on the provincial leadership side. But I talked about housing a lot because it was, I think it's got to be the overriding focus for all levels of government, but especially provincial governments as it relates to zoning reform.

And the line I would use, and I believe in this, I think this is how to articulate it at a high level that governments need to get out of the way on the market side so homes can be built and governments have to get back in the game in a serious way on getting social housing built and public housing built. And at a high level, those are the two objectives.

Now, let's start with, there's a lot in what you said on both fronts, but let's start with market housing.

You've got a tragic situation where you've got a doubling of home prices, but wages have only increased by 7% over the last five, six years. You've set out a target on this front in your own analysis to say we need 2 million homes with affordable monthly rents.

So that's our goal. And to get there, part of this is ending exclusionary zoning. And then every level of government has role to play.

The federal government has the Housing Accelerator Fund, which is one of the programs I quite like, although I know it's subject to maybe getting cut under the next government.

Carolyn:I do too. I just wish that there was the same kind of conditional funding with provinces. I mean, it seems like the federal government has gone, yeah, let's bully some municipalities and I have no problem with that, or let's provide targets to municipalities.

Nate:I'm okay with the firm sort of like carrots and sticks. And in this case, yeah, it's a combination of the two.

Carolyn:It is.

Nate:And we should be firm with municipalities that don't do their jobs on any restrictive zoning. But when a province can end it with the stroke of a pen across the board, surely we should be even more forceful with provincial governments.

Carolyn:Well, let me give the example of supportive housing. So the federal government announced

the Rapid Housing Initiative, which in many ways has been the most successful national housing strategy program, although it came along as a COVID era additional.

Nate:It's the only program I really like talking about, other than the half, the Housing Accelerator Fund, because I can see real results. I can see Toronto, for example, working to change their zoning rules and other municipalities across the province and country, frankly.

The Rapid Housing is the only other piece. And there was a housing accelerator or a housing innovation fund, affordable housing innovation fund that was sort of a precursor to it. That's the only program I really point to to show like that's results oriented. There are real outcomes I can point to of homes that have been built where there are people that have moved out of the shelter system that are living in these homes. And, you know, people can debate it, but I see it as a broad success.

Carolyn:I'm in furious agreement. It met and exceeded targets. The only problem was that in many cases it was supportive housing or housing with supports. And those supports can't be provided by the federal government.

Nate:I know.

Carolyn:It's worth of the provincial responsibility. And I think there was a little bit of wishful thinking that the provinces would come along, but in many cases, and Ontario is one of them, they just didn't come along.

So what would it be like if the federal government said, okay, as part of our health transfer dollars, we're going to transfer money directly into the health and social support services that we know are necessary in order to keep people with mental and physical health needs housed and we'll just claw it out of the health transfer payment.

I think that would be fair. It's still going to the people who need it the most through municipalities, but it would have the impact of showing that these targets are serious and also hopefully pointing provinces towards genuine plans to end homelessness. And the province has so many levers that could help prevent and end homelessness.

It has landlord-tenant relations and eviction protection. It has health and social services, which are an essential part of housing for people with disabilities, older people, et cetera. So the province can't wash its hands of the kind of housing policy that the federal government and municipalities are talking about.

They are the laggard in terms of the three levels of government, as far as I'm concerned.

Nate:Do you think, so I have an example locally of 60 units built modular housing. It was through the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund, that's how I even know it exists, but the precursor to sort of rapid housing.

And I think of it as a success. It was some local opposition. It was challenging to get through some of those conversations. There's probably a bit more legwork that could have been done to make sure that it's all single units and it could have been probably, there are demographics to serve that drive this and I do understand that, but I do think in some of these cases, some of the literature I've read suggests that having some mix of single and family units can be helpful in the longer term.

I've read some stuff from John Sewell and others. So I don't know, maybe some of that could have been part of the mix in a way to respond to local concerns, but overall it's been a success.

And yet the city puts up the parking lot, the feds bring in the capital dollars, it gets built and the missing partner of the table on the wraparound ongoing supports is the province of Ontario.

So we fill this locally with a particular project, but it happens everywhere. And you're right. I do think we need to be more forceful on the provincial side. So then what does that look to you?

You did in your book suggest a couple of different things. You have a different idea that you propose there, but one piece is around requiring infrastructure dollars. So you have more, you're pushing provinces to add more density in transit oriented areas and you tie federal infrastructure dollars.

The half is obviously an example of using some federal dollars to try and change dynamics. We've got now a version of this where there's billions of dollars in loans available to provinces that opt into sort of the BC model, BC bills and doing things in a better way.

If you're advising the housing minister on this front, how much more forceful can we be at the federal level around addressing NIMBYism, do you think?

Caroyln:Well, I think the big cure to NIMBYism is a lot more front-end work when it comes to community planning.

There's some really good work that's been done by a group called Renovate the Public Hearing, NBC. It's a black-clad group out of Simon Fraser and they use citizen juries, for instance, which are randomly chosen individuals in a community. Actually, Mark was part of one many years ago in Toronto out by Jennifer Keesmaat and they make kind of high-level decisions around planning.

Usually people, just everyday people off the street, given all the facts and all the evidence, will make pretty good decisions. But I don't think that residents should be asked to make decisions about every single development. I think there needs to be a lot more enabling environment quite radically, I suppose.

I think that four stories as of right with unlimited units would allow a whole new generation of small apartment buildings.

Nate:That seems the minimum, by the way, so this is something that, you know, the half pushes and other changes have been proposed by other municipal leaders are on four stories as of right. Sorry, four units.

Carolyn:It's not four units, it's four stories.

Nate:Okay, so four stories would be more radical, but it's certainly less radical though than, the example I love from your book was Japan, which has incredibly permissive zoning rules that is rightly focused their zoning permissions on nuisances and real nuisances that affect quality of life, and not just they keep certain people out of this community and keep my property values up.

Carolyn:And that's about mix as well. That's about having small grocery stores next to homes, next to trial care centers, next to high schools or whatever.

So I think a lot of the land use zoning is infamously two-dimensional. Like it says, this is what the land use will bein this particular area. And that's really problematic in terms of the kind of walkable communities that many of us are talking about as well as transit-oriented communities.

Of course,the minimum heights would need to be greater near transit stations and even bus stops, I'd argue, but certainly that sort of baseline that would allow, they'd allow multiplexes, they'd allow people to build granny flats and give the main house to one of their kids or two of their kids if the kids subdivided or whatever.

I think that that's sort of the retail change that needs to happen. There's sort of the wholesale change, which are big new developments on government land or near transit stations, et cetera.

But the sort of retail change is really important. A lot of neighborhoods in Toronto, and I know you live in Toronto, have lower densities than they did 30 years ago. They have smaller households, more single-person households, et cetera. So the built form needs to, you know, we need to have a lot more flexible housing to make a long story short.

And even if in the best case scenario, non-market housing was 20% of all housing, 80% would still be provided by the private sector. It's really hard for homeowners to say, hey, I'm going to subdivide into three units.

The municipal government makes it difficult through approvals and development taxes. Finance providers say, what's your experience as a developer? You know, so I think we need a far more enabling environment to make the kind of changes we need.

Nate:Well, my last comment I would say on the market side is, and density, and in general, and encouraging density. It does strike me, one other tool that the feds could potentially use is when we, one thing is, you know, okay, tying infrastructure dollars to density around transit. That seems like no brainer stuff.

But there's also when the mayor of Norfolk County comes to me and says, we need real investments in wastewater. Well, great. Federal investments on the infrastructure side tied to some action on density. And I think different municipalities will have different needs.

And similarly, some municipalities may balk to go, well, if we add so much density, well, how do we manage the healthcare capacity in these areas, the school capacity in these areas, the childcare capacity in these areas.

And so there are infrastructure related needs to adding density and the feds and the province are in a much better position to write those large checks to make that happen.

Anyway, so I think there's, you know, maybe housing accelerator fund, but just pushed to, you know, the next level even. So it's not just dollars related housing, but it's dollars related infrastructure more broadly.

Okay, but on the, you mentioned non-market and I do want to spend a good amount of time on that, because I actually think that is the missing piece. We can talk about market housing forever, but you rightly know in your book that, you know, market housing is not going to get us out of the crisis that we're in, especially for so many people who can never imagine owning a home right now, given where home prices are at and how much they've run away from wages.

And I want you to talk a little bit about, for those who maybe don't get through, who don't get to your book, the examples, you mentioned France, you mentioned, there's a range of different examples in your book though, focus on non-market housing. We used to do this in Canada in a more serious way.

What are some of the things we should be doing that other countries do in this space? What would be your top three, four or five hit lists of, you know, France does this and Denmark does this, and if Canada really wanted to re-energize, writing big checks is one of it, but if Canada really wanted to re-energize the space, what's your hit list?

Carolyn:

Well, one of them is something I'm working on today, actually, in response to a request from the federal government, which is, what's the capacity of developers across Canada to create large-scale developments on government land? So, there are some really exciting large-scale developments.

In Vancouver alone, there's SINOC, which is a Squamish-led development that's going to produce 6,000 apartments, very well located next to Burrard Bridge, as well as Jericho Lands, which again is Canada Lands Company plus three First Nations. Those are the kinds of large-scale development that can really show a way forward.

And if you look at St. Lawrence neighborhood, people used to come from all over the world to look at St. Lawrence neighborhood. What an amazing development that was, 50 years old now, and 4,000 homes, a third each, public housing, cooperative housing, condos, again the rule of thirds.

It was considered such a radical idea to have schools at the bottom and grocery stores at the bottom and a church and a pub and a restaurant and everything at the bottom, but it really works knit along that linear park. It's still a really lovely neighborhood, and it was a game-changer.

At that time, talking about families living in eight-story buildings was considered, you know, crazy radical stuff, but it worked. So, we need about 100 more St. Lawrence neighborhoods, and then we need a lot of small-scale enablers such as, as I say, four-story buildings that I was recently on the housing industry task force, and there's so many innovative prefabricated housing producers, and they said all we need is a certain level of guaranteed demand.

We'll build the factories, we'll hire the people, and of course you get a much more diverse labor force working for factories than you might in construction industries.

The construction industry right now is an aging population with a high level of retirements expected, so we need prefab housing.

Prefab housing can be awesome. What would it be like if the federal government did a guaranteed order of, I don't know, 200,000 homes a year, most ambitiously. Okay, let's call it 50,000, be a little bit less ambitious.

We know already that modular student housing works in Quebec. UTILE builds affordable student homes really cheaply using modular. We know that the Rapid Housing Initiative was on the back of a kind of four-story special with the ground floor being community services and the social workers, and three stories of housing above it.

So, we have those kinds of models that will work nationally, and if you did that sort of a pre-order, you could really build up Canada's prefab industry in a really exciting way. It's really important for the north where construction seasons are slow.

You know, it ticks so many boxes.

Nate:Yeah, it really does. I like that idea a lot.

Well, and one thing that struck me, I mentioned Denmark. One thing that struck me was, but before we get to Denmark, actually the stat from France struck me, and people should know, so France produces 110,000 non-market homes a year, more in one year than the total number of non-market homes created in Canada over the last 24 years.

Like, that blew my brain. Like, I just like, what are we even doing here? If France is doing that and we're doing this, like, whoa, what are we even doing here?

Carolyn:It's really important to emphasize how beautiful many of those homes are. I mean, I don't know whether you've been to Paris recently, but I was in Paris.

Nate:Not recently, no. Paris. I got kids. It's hard to travel these days.

Carolyn:Oh, but you know, you can just offer them a chocolate croissant.

Anyhow, so Cazane de Relay, which is on a former military barracks, and it is, it's got student housing, it's got family housing, but it's knitted around in the former, like, Chondemar, the former military parade ground, this beautiful park that has cafes in it.

And it's in a very ritzy part of Paris near a subway line, and people love it, because it's an adaptive reuse of space with a beautiful park in the middle of it. Again, you can make beautiful, socially inclined, environmentally sound architecture, and it's nothing to be ashamed of.

Nate:Yeah, of course, yeah.

Carolyn:For a long time, I mean, people think of the original version of Regent Park, and they think about these very dire projects.

But, you know, think about St. Lawrence neighborhood. Think about in Ottawa, Beaver Barracks, which again, has this beautiful set of community gardens in the middle of it, and district heating, and all kinds of cool stuff. We can make beautiful things.

Nate:I mentioned France just because it's such a frustrating comparison that they are building so much more. But Denmark, I found an interesting example because it's a practical sort of solution-oriented example.

It's not just, this, France is doing way more than Canada, sorry, Canada. But Denmark's National Building Fund provides 45-year mortgages, 30 years to pay off the building costs, and then 15 years to fund the next new project.

Other countries have just, if you compare CMHC financing for non-market versus what these other countries are doing, I mean, other countries are just way lower cost and longer-term financing. And that seems like, I don't know, it seems like low-hanging fruit to me. I don't know how much pushback there is from CMHC, but if we can't do that, then we're not going to solve this problem at all.

Carolyn:Well, that's the secret sauce. That was the secret sauce in the 1970s and 1980s when up to 20% of new homes were non-market. It was 40-year mortgages at 2% at the time, when crime was 6%.

So it is a challenge, or let's put it this way, it's not CMHC as much as it is the finance ministers who tend not to love that.

But you can get to the point, it's not just Denmark, it's Austria and France as well, where you have a revolving loan fund and it refreshes itself.

And that goes back to our earlier conversation of the need for thinking long-term. Infrastructure financing is always long-term and the payback from infrastructure financing is always long-term.

Nate:I want to get to a conversation, sort of conclude with addressing homelessness, but before we get there, just on the protecting renters. We've promised a bill of rights for tenants and that's obviously in some ways tough because the federal jurisdiction is going to require, again, sort of a carrot-stick approach, although interesting again to note the historical example of national rent control, I think it was in the 1940s, but regardless.

Carolyn:1940s and 1941 and 1975.

Okay, so even more recent than that. You know Pierre, said in 1975, thou shalt have rent control and all the provinces said, okay.

Nate:Interesting. And even where we have some rent control, obviously Ontario is a classic example where you've got rent control while the unit is lived in and then there's such a massive disincentive to keep the unit up or to respond to tenant concerns because, oh, if the tenant leaves, shrug my shoulders, I actually make more money because I can now, the rent control disappears.

Carolyn:It's a huge incentive for evictions and it was brought in, that exemption vacancy control was brought in by conservative government.

Nate:Does not surprise me on that front. So on the protecting renters front, there's a window here at least with the tenants bill of rights, although maybe a short life left in this parliament, but there is a window there.

I think there's probably a window to collaborate with the NDP on something like that or the Bloc on something like that to really get something done. So there's at least some space to maybe fulfill on the implementation side.

Beyond that space or maybe even in that space, what would you want to see in Canada on renter protections?

Carolyn:I'm doing some work right now with an investor group called SHARE, S-H-A-R-E, that is on ESG guidelines for investors in housing. And I think it's really important, we now have environmental guidelines for investment in housing, but we don't yet have social guidelines on investment.

And I sometimes think that soft-suasion is as important as we've been talking about the bully function of federal government. I think it is really that I've seen ESG guidelines have a huge impact on investors.

I think that unions, to give one specific example, are uncomfortable with the fact that several of their pension funds invest in and actually have entirely owned REITs who evict current and former union members. I think that's an uncomfortable place to be.

So I think that investor guidelines are really important and they would be a world first if they were developed in Canada. So that's kind of exciting.

What else is needed in terms of tenant rights? Look, countries in Europe, including countries that are majority renter and richer than Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, they tend to have longer leases and tend to have far harder roads towards eviction.

So it's partly, absolutely rent, some level of rent negotiation. What Denmark does, one of the things I love about Denmark, is it has, it funds tenant unions and the tenant unions negotiate sort of the landlord.

Nate:Better bargaining power.

Carolyn:It's a bargaining situation and there is an emphasis on fair cost-based rent increases each year, which seems like a fair and transparent process, but also longer leases is part of the trick. I think that you want to create a situation where you can live for a long time as a renter, invest in other forms of requirement savings other than homes.

But right now, definitely being a renter is a second class situation and that leads a lot of people to get into really, really scary debt in order to become homeowners. And that's not necessarily a good situation as well, or living very far away from your work or having to move away from where your family is.

Nate:Well, it speaks to, and maybe we should have started here instead of finishing here, but it speaks to what are the twin goals in some ways, like what is a home and to deliver for someone that sense of home and shelter and safety.

You have a rundown of different things that have to be considered here. But I think what I would want from a policy lens is at a minimum, you want sure there's some semblance of affordability, and you want to make sure that there's security of tenure, that you want to make sure that people, whether they're a tenant, tenants shouldn't be at such a disadvantage here that they don't have security of tenure, that there isn't that stability in their lives and they can't invest in their property in the same way.

They can't know that they're going to be near this school and near this workplace, as you say. That is such an essential part of a home that goes, I think, under discussed in our politics in a really big way.

I also, just to finish with on a rent supplement side, you don't have to comment on it because I don't want to get to homelessness in the sort of three minutes you got left, but this stuck out to me too.

So France, Germany, and Denmark all spend 0.7% of their GDP on just rent supplements. Canada spends less on all housing related expenditures combined. Anyway, your book broke my brain in a number of different ways.

Okay, so to finish with homelessness and addressing homelessness, because you've talked about rapid housing, you've talked about industrial, if the government of Canada committed to 50,000 modular units a year or something like that, we know where we could direct them at a minimum, which is to replace encampments with homes.

And we now have Premier in Ontario, at least, who's talking about, he hasn't done it yet, but talking about, you know, send me a letter of mayors calling for the use of the notwithstanding clause as if you should replace encampments using the notwithstanding clause instead of just building homes.

It's like in support of housing. And so on the homelessness front, this is a problem that needs to be resolved in a compassionate, evidence-based way. And that is the hope. And I hope it doesn't get, it's being weaponized in our politics in a big way. And I hope we can push back against that.

And so to do that, but to do that successfully, are we looking at just a broad expansion of the rapid housing program, committing to that industrial building, the modular units, and then hopefully really aggressively pushing the provinces, as you say, on the supportive housing front, knowing that, you know, a housing first approach is the answer?

Carolyn:That would help a lot. I mean, Canada, under the Harper government, funded the largest international experiment in housing first, which is simply providing homeless people with a permanent home with the supports that they need. And it worked.

You know, it was 3000 people. The rates of people losing their homes was very low. The rates of people staying home and having better health and economic outcomes was huge.

But you can't have housing first without having the housing comma first. That's what the films say. So that's what we need. We need a whole new generation of low-cost housing and many cases with supports that people need because such a high number of people who are homeless have various forms of disability.

And if they don't have severe physical and mental health issues before they become homeless, they sure get them very quickly once they become homeless. So what we need to do, it's so self-evident when it comes to housing, when it comes to homelessness.

And it doesn't just make moral sense. It makes economic sense.

Nate:That's the part that bothers me, by the way. It's so frustrating in our politics.

I speak to people like the, you know, small business owners who go, this is affecting my ability to earn an income. People are not coming to downtown London in Ontario as much as they were before because we have a homelessness challenge.

You've got parks that parents go, that park is supposed to be so my kid can play in that green space, not for an encampment. And you kind of pull your hair out and go, why can't we just build supportive homes?

Carolyn:Hospital emergency rooms aren't made to, you know, it's not of efficient use of hospital emergency rooms to get 200 visits a year.

Nate:Exactly.

Carolyn:You know, so it makes so much sense. I don't understand why at some basic level, why every province doesn't have a plan to end homelessness. It's a shame and it's also dumb.

I mean, it's dumb on so many levels. So yeah, I mean, you know, I agree with you. I was reading Jane Philpott’s book on Health For All, and I was going, yeah, the answers are pretty darn simple when it comes to health. Why don't we just do it?

You know, and to me, the answers are pretty simple when it comes to housing. Why don't we just do it? You know, so I guess this book's Home Truths is intended to say to people, I know it looks really complex and it is, but the answers aren't that hard to figure out. It's not rocket science.

Nate:Yeah. My takeaway was very much that, and this is the last data point that I throw at listeners from your book, but this one really stuck out. You talk about housing first approach in Finland and how the Finnish consider it.

Over a period from 1985 to 2016, they went from over 2,100 shelter beds to 52. And then how do they do that?

Well, they're cutting emergency shelter beds.

How? Because they're increasing supportive housing from 127 to over 1,300. And they're replacing what is a reactive emergency response, which is a more expensive response, frankly.

They're replacing that with a long-term housing first approach through supportive housing and non-market housing. And again, it seems obvious.

The challenge, of course, is we should have started doing this a decade ago, two decades ago yesterday. And I'm not dismissive of the rapid housing program. I'm not dismissive of the housing accelerator fund. I'm not dismissive of the loans and the grants that are going towards and the new co-op fund. I don't want to be dismissive of all that. We're going in the right direction.

It does seem, though, that the scale of the direction we're heading in the right direction, the scale is just not where it needs to be to get us to where we need to get in 30 years.

Carolyn:Yep. We've done some really good pilot programs, and now it's time to scale it up and have some real targets. And it's been a pleasure talking policy wonk stuff with you, Nate.

Nate:Well, that's what this is for. And I do appreciate the book. I'm glad Mark suggested that you'd be a guest because it prompted me to read your book. And I'm a much better advocate on housing for having done so.

Carolyn:Well, thank you, Mark.

Nate:I say that regularly on the housing file. Anyway, thanks, Carolyn, for your time.

Carolyn:Thank you, Nate. Take care. Bye-bye.

Nate:Thanks for joining me on this episode of Uncommons. I hope you found, yes, it was a

deeper dive in policy, but I hope you found some of those stats interesting. They were eye-popping to me, frankly.

I do think we have a certain Overton window in our politics sometimes, including on housing, and understanding historical examples, understanding what happens in other countries can be incredibly informative in helping to shift that window and delivering greater ambition, especially on such an important file.

With that, if you have suggestions for guests or future topics, you can reach me at info at beynate.ca. You can reach me online, of course, on an increasingly variety of platforms. I'm on Bluesky now, but you can reach me at beynate on all those channels. And otherwise, otherwise, until next time.