Latest news with #Liberal
Toronto Sun
an hour ago
- Politics
- Toronto Sun
New laws against blocking access to places of worship, schools coming, Fraser says
Published Jun 28, 2025 • 3 minute read Newly-appointed Minister of Justice Sean Fraser in his new office at the Justice building on Parliament Hill Wednesday. Photo by JULIE OLIVER / Postmedia OTTAWA — Justice Minister Sean Fraser says the Liberal government will press ahead with plans for new criminal provisions against blocking access to places or worship, schools and community centres. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account The measures, promised during the recent federal election campaign, would also create a criminal offence of wilfully intimidating or threatening people attending events at these venues. The minister's statement comes as civil libertarians point to existing provisions intended to curb such behaviour and push back against the idea of new measures that could infringe on freedom of expression and assembly. Tensions have risen in Canadian communities over public protests, many prompted by the ongoing hostilities in the Middle East. Several Canadian municipalities have taken steps recently to mandate 'bubble zones' that restrict protest activity near such places as religious institutions, schools and child care centres. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'It's not lost on me that there will be different levels of government that try to address this challenge in different ways,' Fraser said, adding that the federal government has an opportunity _ where behaviour crosses a criminal threshold — to legislate in that space. 'We clearly have seen challenges when it comes to certain religious communities in Canada who are facing extraordinary discrimination — antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate,' Fraser said in a recent interview. 'People need to know that in Canada they are free to pray to the God of their choice and to, at the same time, freely express themselves, but not to the point where you threaten the protected Charter rights of a religious minority.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, said he questions the need for new provisions and suggests politicians are proposing penalties simply to appear to be doing something. He said existing laws against mischief, nuisance and interfering with religious celebrations can be used to deal with the kinds of behaviour the federal government wants to address. 'I haven't heard a single thing that isn't already illegal, so it's a waste of time. It adds confusion to the Criminal Code and it suggests that they're only engaged in performative activity,' Turk said. 'They want to be seen to be doing something about this pressure they're under.' Anais Bussieres McNicoll, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, also said she wonders about the scope of the proposed new federal provisions 'and if they are necessary or simply duplicative of existing criminal offences.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Bussieres McNicoll said it's important to remember that a protest might be disruptive but also protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee of peaceful assembly. 'As a parent myself, I know that any protest can be sometimes scary for a child. We're talking about loud voices, huge crowds, emotions are running high,' she said. 'So I believe it's part of my role as a parent to teach my child about what living in a democracy means, why we need protests, why we need space in our society for strong language — including language that we disagree with — and to teach my child about what we can do if we personally disagree with speech that we hear.' Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy at B'nai Brith Canada, said that while the organization welcomes the planned new federal provisions, additional federal measures are needed. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. B'nai Brith wants national 'vulnerable infrastructure legislation' that would prohibit protests within a certain distance of a place of worship or school, or perhaps during specific time periods, if they interfere with someone's ability to attend the institutions, Robertson said. 'That would remove the need for municipalities and provinces to adopt legislation, and it would send a clear message that across Canada, individuals do not have the right to prevent others from accessing their houses of worship and their community centres and cultural institutions.' — With files from Anja Karadeglija NHL Sunshine Girls Columnists Sunshine Girls Toronto Raptors
Calgary Herald
3 hours ago
- Automotive
- Calgary Herald
Bell: 'It's lunacy' — Alberta pushes Carney to drop Liberal electric vehicle fantasy
'It's lunacy. Straight-up lunacy.' Article content The words come from Devin Dreeshen, the Alberta government's point man on transportation. Article content Article content He has nothing against electric vehicles, EVs for short. You want one, buy one. Article content He just doesn't think the government in Ottawa should be ramming the purchase of them down people's throats. Article content Article content Oh, the Liberals. Oh, how they like to tell us how to live. Article content Article content Within ten years, all new vehicles must be electric. Article content Dreeshen has plenty to say. On Friday, he fired off a letter to Chrystia Freeland, Prime Minister Mark Carney's minister of transport. Article content Freeland was in Calgary this week and, as my last column pointed out, she said the Carney Liberals love Alberta. Article content We will see how that works out and we will get to that letter in a minute. Article content 'The reason why the Liberals don't reverse this policy is unfathomable. I just don't understand it.' says Dreeshen. Article content 'For ridiculous things like this, where's there is no obvious logic behind it, I think it would have to be just pure partisan Liberal politics where they think this somehow appeals to their base, where they can score political points with their base. Article content Article content 'But it damages and it hurts Canadians and that's where the Liberals, I hope, would be able to look past their partisanship to do what's right for the country.' Article content The Smith government transportation minister speaks of freedom of choice for people 'to buy a vehicle they actually want versus the government forcing them to buy a vehicle they don't want.' Article content Article content 'It's a little unnerving they haven't reversed this policy,' he says. Article content What's the problem? Article content Dumping the policy is easy. Just announce it. Article content Low-hanging fruit, no heavy-lifting, a gift from the political gods.
Winnipeg Free Press
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
New laws against blocking access to places of worship, schools coming, Fraser says
OTTAWA – Justice Minister Sean Fraser says the Liberal government will press ahead with plans for new criminal provisions against blocking access to places or worship, schools and community centres. The measures, promised during the recent federal election campaign, would also create a criminal offence of wilfully intimidating or threatening people attending events at these venues. The minister's statement comes as civil libertarians point to existing provisions intended to curb such behaviour and push back against the idea of new measures that could infringe on freedom of expression and assembly. Tensions have risen in Canadian communities over public protests, many prompted by the ongoing hostilities in the Middle East. Several Canadian municipalities have taken steps recently to mandate 'bubble zones' that restrict protest activity near such places as religious institutions, schools and child care centres. 'It's not lost on me that there will be different levels of government that try to address this challenge in different ways,' Fraser said, adding that the federal government has an opportunity — where behaviour crosses a criminal threshold — to legislate in that space. 'We clearly have seen challenges when it comes to certain religious communities in Canada who are facing extraordinary discrimination — antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate,' Fraser said in a recent interview. 'People need to know that in Canada they are free to pray to the God of their choice and to, at the same time, freely express themselves, but not to the point where you threaten the protected Charter rights of a religious minority.' James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, said he questions the need for new provisions and suggests politicians are proposing penalties simply to appear to be doing something. He said existing laws against mischief, nuisance and interfering with religious celebrations can be used to deal with the kinds of behaviour the federal government wants to address. 'I haven't heard a single thing that isn't already illegal, so it's a waste of time. It adds confusion to the Criminal Code and it suggests that they're only engaged in performative activity,' Turk said. 'They want to be seen to be doing something about this pressure they're under.' Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, also said she wonders about the scope of the proposed new federal provisions 'and if they are necessary or simply duplicative of existing criminal offences.' Bussières McNicoll said it's important to remember that a protest might be disruptive but also protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee of peaceful assembly. 'As a parent myself, I know that any protest can be sometimes scary for a child. We're talking about loud voices, huge crowds, emotions are running high,' she said. 'So I believe it's part of my role as a parent to teach my child about what living in a democracy means, why we need protests, why we need space in our society for strong language — including language that we disagree with — and to teach my child about what we can do if we personally disagree with speech that we hear.' Sundays Kevin Rollason's Sunday newsletter honouring and remembering lives well-lived in Manitoba. Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy at B'nai Brith Canada, said that while the organization welcomes the planned new federal provisions, additional federal measures are needed. B'nai Brith wants national 'vulnerable infrastructure legislation' that would prohibit protests within a certain distance of a place of worship or school, or perhaps during specific time periods, if they interfere with someone's ability to attend the institutions, Robertson said. 'That would remove the need for municipalities and provinces to adopt legislation, and it would send a clear message that across Canada, individuals do not have the right to prevent others from accessing their houses of worship and their community centres and cultural institutions.' — With files from Anja Karadeglia This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 28, 2025.
Hamilton Spectator
6 hours ago
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Carney government's ‘nation-building' bill becomes law despite Senate criticism
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney's controversial legislation to fast-track 'nation-building' development projects received royal assent and became law after the rushed passage of Bill C-5 through the Senate on Thursday. But the legislative accomplishment — the first government bill to pass in both chambers under the minority Liberal administration elected April 28 — was marred by expressions of outrage from some senators, who criticized the legislation's creation of 'so-called Henry VIII' powers that allow the federal cabinet to override laws and regulations to approve development projects. Some also condemned what they saw as the bill's lack of consultation and requirements to respect Indigenous rights, suggesting the new process could get bogged down in the very opposition and delay that it is designed to avoid. 'Bill C-5 is not reconciliation. It's a betrayal of it,' said Sen. Paul Prosper, a Mi'kmaq lawyer from Nova Scotia, who told the red chamber his office received a deluge of 'racist vitriol' after he spoke about his desire to slow down the legislation that sped through the House of Commons last week with the support of opposition Conservatives. Yet some in that party still had concerns about the legislation. Mary Jane McCallum, a Conservative senator from Manitoba, argued Thursday that the bill gives too much power to the federal cabinet to choose projects, and to decide which laws and regulations are relevant to how they are approved. 'Canada is not a dictatorship, yet the so-called Henry VIII clauses in Bill C-5 bring us dangerously close to the precipice,' she said. After two days of debate, the Senate voted down several amendments that would have sent the legislation back to the House, and passed it as written without a recorded vote Thursday afternoon. It received Royal Assent from Gov. Gen. Mary Simon a short time later. Since introducing and pushing to pass the bill before Canada Day, the Carney government has defended the legislation as a necessary framework to boost economic growth and reduce reliance on the United States that has imposed steep tariffs that Ottawa deems illegal and unjustified. Last week, Carney also promised to host summits with Indigenous leaders in July to ensure there is participation on which proposed projects — from pipelines to ports and mines — are chosen for the fast-track process under C-5. The legislation gives the cabinet wide latitude to fast-track a development project based on 'any factor' it deems relevant. Although it's not written in the legislation, the government has pledged to finish the approval of fast-tracked projects so construction can begin within two years, while the special powers the bill creates are set to expire after five years. On Thursday, Sen. Hassan Yusseff, a former labour leader who advocated for the bill in the upper chamber, echoed the government's rationale that the special process to fast-track major projects — and a separate, less contentious part of the bill to lift federal barriers to trade and labour mobility inside Canada — are necessary because of U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war. His voice breaking with emotion, Yusseff made the case that the legislation is needed quickly to bolster the Canadian economy and help workers in the industries targeted by Trump's tariffs, from steel and aluminum to the auto sector. 'The men and women who build this country of ours are watching very closely,' Yusseff said. Throughout the day, senators debated the merits of the bill, with some arguing it forces Indigenous groups and environmentalists to trust the government to respect rights and standards, rather than force the government to do so. Some senators, however, said the bill's references to Indigenous rights in the Constitution, as well as the government's insistence it won't fast-track projects without provincial buy-in and Indigenous consultation, mean these concerns can't be addressed through amending the legislation. 'There's no bill we can pass that will guarantee the honour of the Crown,' said Alberta Sen. Patti LaBoucane-Benson. 'I don't think there's anything more we can do to the text of the bill to protect Indigenous rights.' Others, like Ontario Sen. Bernadette Clement, argued Parliament should take more time to improve the legislation and address concerns raised by environmental groups, Indigenous communities, and organizations like the Assembly of First Nations. 'Growing our economy, nation-building — yeah, that's urgent. It requires a timely an efficient response. But it doesn't require the trampling of Indigenous rights and our environmental protections,' Clement said. Marilou McPhedran, a senator from Manitoba, expressed shock that Conservatives and Liberals in the House voted en masse to surrender 'parliamentary sovereignty' to the cabinet under the bill. 'As we watch the results of the C-5 juggernaut roll out and roll over Canada, please remember this key question: are the constitutionally guaranteed rights to equality, to Aboriginal and treaty rights, the first to go with Bill C-5?' she said. The House of Commons made several amendments to the bill that some senators welcomed, including new reporting requirements on how projects are selected, and the creation of a parliamentary committee to oversee how the legislation is being used. The House also added a requirement to publish details of a project at least 30 days before it is named in the 'national interest,' and introduced limits so no projects can be added to the new process while Parliament is prorogued or dissolved. The legislation also requires the minister responsible for the law — currently Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc — to consult with provinces, territories and Indigenous Peoples whose rights 'may be adversely affected' by a project. The Commons inserted a clause that requires the government to get 'written consent' from a province or territory — but not an Indigenous community — if a project falls within an area of its 'exclusive' jurisdiction. Sen. Marc Gold, the government representative in the chamber, said the bill is 'fundamentally about trust' that all groups — including the government — will act in the best interests of Canadians during a time of crisis after an election he said gave the Liberal minority government a clear mandate to pursue rapid economic growth. 'C-5 is indeed extraordinary, and indeed it entails unprecedented trust,' Gold said. 'This is not about any partisan interest, but in the interest of our country.'
Perth Now
13 hours ago
- Business
- Perth Now
‘Un-Australian': GST change set to cost $60bn
The 'worst policy change in the 21st' century is set to blow out the national budget by $60bn and keep one state in the black for years to come. The goods and services tax (GST) carve up was back in focus this week as state treasurers came out with their budgets. Queensland, NSW, Western Australia, and the ACT all delivered budgets, with one state standing above them all. Mining-rich WA is in the black, with costs tipped to come in at $2.5bn less than predicted spending. The rest, budget deficits. Western Australia has cashed in on changing GST rules. NewsWire / Nicholas Eagar Credit: NewsWire WA Treasurer Rita Saffioti used her speech to focus on the relative strength of the economy compared with other states while warning of an uncertain global outlook. 'This budget is about fortifying WA amid global shocks,' she said. Independent economist Saul Eslake argues that WA has achieved a surplus for the last seven years on the back of soaring GST revenue. 'Between 2016 and 2025, Western Australia essentially had the country by the shorts and they squeezed as hard as they could,' Mr Eslake told NewsWire. 'I call it the worst public policy decision of the 21st century.' So what changed for the WA government to achieve seven years of surplus. WHY IS WA THE LUCKY STATE? Much of WA's success comes back to two changes. The first was a change to the GST in 2018, with Mr Eslake arguing that the then Liberal federal government wanted to appease WA where it held an overwhelming majority of federal seats. Then treasurer Scott Morrison announced a review of Australia's horizontal fiscal equalisation (HFE) system, which determines the distribution of goods and services tax (GST) revenue among states and territories. Then treasurer Scott Morrison enacted the GST reforms. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia After a Productivity Commission inquiry, the system changed so that all states and territories received 70c for every dollar of GST raised in 2022-23. That figure increased to 75c a dollar in the new agreement, WA's GST share was 30 cents in the dollar. High iron ore prices at the time could have meant WA got just 15.6 cents of every dollar of GST raised. 'So what Morrison did was commission the Productivity Commission to do an inquiry into horizontal fiscal equalisation,' Mr Eslake said. 'The terms of reference for that were written in Mathias Cormann's office. It was a classic example of (fictional TV character) Sir Humphrey Appleby's advice that you never call an inquiry unless you know what it's going to say.' HFE's aim is to ensure that every state and territory should have an equal opportunity to provide public services. The key word is should, as states and territories are free to raise additional revenues how they please as well as fund their own state-based services. 'That principle is they are equalising the fiscal capacity of the states and territories,' Mr Eslake continued. 'And the point of that, it matters far less where you live when it comes to the quality of schooling your kids get, the quality of healthcare that you and your family get, the quality of policy or environment you get.' The price of iron ore stayed high. Rebecca Le May Credit: NCA NewsWire Mr Eslake used the example of the US, which does not have HFE, meaning different states have varying life outcomes. 'If we didn't have it, then Victorians and NSW people would have much better public services and pay lower taxes, all else being equal, than Tasmanians or South Australians,' Mr Eslake said. 'And I would argue, and traditionally most Australians have accepted, that's something that makes Australia a better and fairer place than America in particular.' The second major change for WA was the rise of China, or as Paul Keating famously said, the state got 'kissed on the a*se by a big Chinese rainbow'. This kissing, Mr Eslake argues, turned WA from being propped up into a donor state. '(In the early 2000s) WA got a bigger share of whatever federal grants were going around than they would have got if it was distributed equal per capita,' he said. 'Because the (Commonwealth) Grants Commission recognised that when gold was fixed at $35 an ounce, and iron ore was only trading at $20 a tonne and they weren't selling much of it, they couldn't raise much money for mineral oil fees, but they had a relatively high cost of providing services.' NSW used its budget to call out WA's share of GST. NewsWire/ Gaye Gerard Credit: News Corp Australia BUDGET BOTTOM LINE To get other states to support these changes, a no one is worse off provision was added, with the federal government topping up any shortfalls in GST revenues. This policy was also extended until 2029-2030 under the Albanese government. This NOWO provision turns a $9bn budget blow into a $60bn black hole. 'This is the biggest blowout in the cost of any single policy decision ever with the possible exception of the NDIS, which as (economist) Chris Richardson says is at least set up for a noble purpose,' Mr Eslake said. 'It's what is allowing Western Australia to run a budget surplus while everyone else, including the feds, are running a deficit. 'In the longer run, what it will mean is residents of Australia's richest state, WA, will have better public services and lower taxes than people who live in the eastern states, which I say is un-Australian.'
