Here's when local federal candidates will join CBC K-W's The Morning Edition for panel discussions
Voters go to the polls in this federal election on April 28 and to help inform local voters, CBC Kitchener-Waterloo's The Morning Edition will be hosting candidate panels.
The candidates of the four parties with MPs in the House of Commons are invited to take part.
Here's when to tune in to hear your local candidates:
Guelph: Wednesday, April 16.
Cambridge: Thursday, April 17.
Kitchener Centre: Tuesday, April 22.
Kitchener-Conestoga: Wednesday, April 23.
Kitchener South-Hespeler: Thursday, April 24.
Waterloo: Friday, April 25.
Do you have a question for the candidates in your riding? Email us to let us know. You can also record a voice memo and email it or leave a question on our CBC K-W talk back line: 519-581-0636.
Voters go to the polls on April 28.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
16 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Why Toronto's streets keep ending up as a battleground — and what the fight should really be about
The big number 25 % the percentage of customers that business owners believed drove to access their stores along Bloor Street, according to a 2017 study. The actual number was less than 10 per cent. Hey, did you hear the story about the group fighting a proposed change to a Toronto street? They're really worked up about it, claiming that the proposal from Toronto city hall will devastate small businesses, bring traffic to a standstill, and maybe even usher in a 'Mad Max'-style apocalypse. 'Wait, which street?' you might be wondering. And the answer is, well, a whole lot of them. I've seen so darn many of these street fights in my decade-plus covering Toronto city hall, with the civic equivalent of knock-down drag-out brawls occurring again and again. And the street fighters just keep coming. Last week, an advocacy group dubbed the Downtown Concerned Citizens Association held a press conference to state its opposition to a bike lane extension planned for the Esplanade, between Yonge and Market Streets. 'Bike lanes restrict road space,' the group declared, according to a report by the CBC. 'Bike lanes have turned streets into parking lots, with residents unable to shop, get their kids to events, and seriously impact emergency services and Wheel-Trans.' Their opposition follows a similar — and at least partly AI-aided — uproar over city hall's plans to install transit-priority lanes on Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street. And a local tiff over a bit of bike infrastructure on North York's Marlee Avenue. And the ongoing fight over keeping bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue, where even Premier Doug Ford got involved. Go back further and there are more examples. Remember the street fighters who claimed prioritizing the King streetcar would mark the end of King West? Or the 'citizen's revolt' over bike lanes on Woodbine Avenue? Or the ' Save Our St. Clair' group that sued to try to stop the construction of the streetcar right-of-way on St. Clair? Heck, you can even go back to the '90s, when opposition groups along Spadina Avenue warned that removing the angled on-street parking to make way for dedicated streetcar lanes would somehow destroy the vibrancy of the street. They really loved those angled parking spaces. The frustrating thing isn't just the sheer repetition of the street fight stories, but also that the pile of accumulated data from these same fights never seems to change anything. Because when you do look at the record, the record is clear: where these kinds of projects have been allowed to go forward, and where traffic has been given enough time to adjust to the new street layouts, the result has been basically fine. The uproar and opposition inevitably fade away. People get used to the new bike lanes or the new transit lanes. The apocalyptic warnings are forgotten about. The apocalypse never arrives. At this point, with so many fights waged — not just in Toronto, but in other cities, too — you'd think there'd be at least a handful of examples where the dire warnings proved prophetic. Where bike lanes, bus lanes and the removal of some on-street parking led directly to boarded-up storefronts and permanently gridlocked traffic. But I've struggled to find real case studies that document that kind of catastrophic failure in any city anywhere in the world. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW The repeated claim that transit lanes and bus lanes will destroy businesses deserves a special call-out because it seems to be based on a perception problem. The Centre for Active Transportation, for example, found via a 2017 study that Bloor Street retailers believed that about 25 per cent of their customers arrived via car. The actual percentage? Less than 10 per cent. Part of the issue might be that merchants were about five times more likely to drive to work than their customers. They drive, so they assume their customers do too. Meanwhile, data suggests the transit priority project on King Street and the bike lanes on Bloor Street actually led to increased retail spending. Go figure. None of this should be read as a suggestion that Toronto city hall and its plans are always perfectly on point. The transportation department tends to make change harder than it has to be. On Bloor West, for example, opposition to the bike lanes was likely made more intense by the baffling decision to install the lanes without making adjustments to signal timing at intersections. And the department is generally still not fast enough at addressing clear bottlenecks that could be eased with minor tweaks. Toronto's street fighters would be better served by focusing their energy on getting city hall to address those kinds of specific issues more quickly and efficiently, rather than always trying to land a knockout blow against any kind of change. When your punches are this weak, it's probably time to stop throwing hands.
Canada Standard
a day ago
- Canada Standard
Liberals Table Bill to Speed Up Approvals for Major 'National Interest' Projects
Prime Minister Mark Carney's government introduced legislation Friday that would grant it new powers to quickly push forward major projects the federal cabinet deems to be in the national interest. Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc tabled a bill in the House of Commons that would give Ottawa the authority to draw up a list of large projects it wants to prioritize and to expedite their federal approval, The Canadian Press reports. Carney said it has become too hard to build new projects in Canada and vowed that this legislation will change that. "We're in an economic crisis," Carney told a news conference on Parliament Hill on Friday. "We're still facing intensifying, unjustified tariffs from our largest trading partner and the best way to respond to that is to respond at home, build strength at home." Bill C-5, the "free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act," is twinned legislation meant to break down internal trade barriers and cut red tape for major projects. The bill was a marquee election promise by Carney, who campaigned on a pledge to make the country an "energy superpower" and build up a more resilient economy in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's global trade war. The prime minister said he will do everything possible to get the legislation passed this summer and did not rule out having Parliament sit longer. The House is only scheduled to sit for another two weeks and the Liberals are governing with a precarious minority, forcing them to seek the support of MPs from other parties to advance their agenda. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre described the new bill as a small step in the right direction. He also said it amounts to an admission by the Liberals that their laws have inhibited building and urged the government to take much bolder action. "We do not need baby steps. We need breakthroughs," he said. Poilievre said he wants the government to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.'s northern coast, terminate the oil and gas sector's emissions cap and scrap the Impact Assessment Act that sets out a process for environmental reviews. He said he will consult with his caucus about how to approach the bill in Parliament but added that Conservatives would "vote in favour of accelerating even one project." Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CEO Lisa Baiton said she is "encouraged by the federal government's flexibility and efforts to work with the provinces to accelerate the approval process for major projects." But environmental groups warned the new process could upend efforts to fight climate change. Jessica Clogg, executive director of West Coast Environmental Law, said that past experience shows "rushed approvals without assessment of risks are a recipe for conflict, legal challenges and future environmental disasters." Keith Stewart of Greenpeace Canada said the government should not fast track new fossil-fuel projects, as Carney has suggested. "To even consider designating oil and gas expansion projects as in the national interest is a slap in the face to not just the next generation, but every Canadian struggling right now to deal with climate change-fueled wildfires," he said. The legislation would create a new federal office to take the lead on streamlining approvals for major projects and task the intergovernmental affairs minister with overseeing the final permitting decision. The government said the goal of the bill is to send a clear signal to businesses and quickly build up investor confidence. Carney said the current approval process forces projects to undergo multiple reviews and assessments one after another, rather than at the same time. "That process is arduous," he said. "It takes too long and it's holding our country back." "For too long, when federal agencies examined a project, their immediate question has been, 'Why?' With this new bill, we will ask ourselves, 'How?'" The bill sets out five criteria to evaluate whether a project is in the national interest. They include the project's likelihood of success, whether it would strengthen the country's resiliency and advance the interests of Indigenous peoples, and whether it would contribute to economic growth in an environmentally responsible way. The new federal review office will work toward a goal of approving projects within two years. That's a political promise rather than a hard-and-fast rule; the legislation does not mention timelines. While the bill would give the government broad power to skirt environmental laws to push projects forward, one expert said it remains to be seen how Ottawa will use it. "This is the kind of consolidation that you sometimes see in times of national emergency. We see it in wartime, we saw it in COVID to some extent. That consolidation can let you move more quickly, which can be a good thing, but it can also be a risky thing," said Stewart Elgie, the Jarislowsky chair in clean economy at the University of Ottawa. He warned that trying to "shortcut environmental interests" does not help expedite projects. "The Harper government never got a major pipeline built, and it's because they gave short shrift to environment and Indigenous concerns. It ended up with blockades and litigation that ultimately slowed down the projects," Elgie said. Carney said the legislation requires meaningful consultation with Indigenous Peoples consistent with the Constitution and the Crown's duty to consult. The federal review office will also include an Indigenous Advisory Council with First Nation, Inuit and Metis representation. The legislation comes with a sunset clause that forces a review of the law after five years. Carney met with the premiers earlier in the week in Saskatoon, where they privately discussed various projects the premiers want to see quickly launched - including pipelines, trade corridors and mining projects. The new legislation does not touch on any provincial approvals that might be needed to allow a project to go ahead. - With files from Sarah Ritchie and Nick Murray This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2025. Source: The Energy Mix
a day ago
Experts warn of Bill C-2 as 'anti-refugee' and 'anti-immigrant' giving Canada 'unchecked powers' like the U.S.
Mbonisi Zikhali came to Canada in 2009 from Zimbabwe to pursue a master's in journalism at Carleton University. Post-graduation, the international student found himself homeless in Windsor and applied for refugee status – a privilege soon unavailable if Bill C-2 becomes the law. The bill is unnecessary and not sympathetic at all to people's well-being, Zikhali said. Many experts and community groups working with newcomers in Canada agree. They are calling the Liberal government's sweeping new legislation, Bill C-2 or the Strong Borders Act, anti-immigrant and anti-refugee, and say they hoping the legislation does not become law. Zikhali said he came on scholarship and in 2012 found himself in Windsor picking tomatoes at a greenhouse. Soon enough, he was living on the streets, and lost his passport which also had his study permit in it. Applying for refugee status, Zikhali said, was his saving grace and worries this bill will deprive vulnerable people of a safe haven. What is Bill C-2? The legislation proposes changes to a number of laws including the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Specifically it allows officials to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents immediately, pause the acceptance of new applications and cancel applications already in process if deemed in the public interest. Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? Critics say new border legislation aligns Canada's immigration system with the U.S. 2 days agoDuration2:43The Liberal government proposed new border legislation this week. But critics say they worry the law will do more harm than good. The CBC's Pratyush Dayal reports. Asylum claims would also have to be made within a year of entering the country, including for international students and temporary residents. Take this hypothetical: An Afghan international student who came to study here in July 2020. When the Taliban takes over in August 2021 and things become uncertain back home, that student could have applied for asylum. But with this bill, the one-year time period would have lapsed and they would be ineligible. The immigration changes would also require irregular border crossers — people who enter Canada between official ports of entry — to make an asylum claim within 14 days of arriving in Canada. Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab is defending the measures (new window) . There's a lot of applications in the system. We need to act fairly, and treat people appropriately who really do need to claim asylum and who really do need to be protected to stay in Canada, Diab told CBC News. We need to be more efficient in doing that. At the same time, Canadians demand that we have a system that works for everyone. 'Very U.S.-like' bill: refugee help centre director says Windsor's Matthew House gives refugees a place to live and helps them with resettlement. Mike Morency, the organization's executive director, says he worries this bill will put more vulnerable people at greater harm. It continues to align our immigration system with that of the United States, Morency said. Refugee claimants are not the problem. The one year-ban is a major concern for us. The other major concern for us is the ability of the government to declare an emergency and suspend applications. That one to me feels very U.S.-like. Morency said he understands the government's will to try to cut back on international students and migrant workers making a refugee claim as a way to stay in Canada, but worries for people who have a legitimate need for protection being unfairly targeted. It also feels very much like a workaround to our commitment to the Geneva Convention. If the government wants to step out of the Geneva Convention, then then we need to do it with integrity and we need to approach the UN and say we're going to withdraw, he said. Syed Hussan, spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network, agrees saying the bill violates Canada's most basic legal obligations and is immoral . 'Gives the government unchecked power to take away people's status': Migrant Rights Network Hussan asserts the bill infringes upon Canada's legal commitments and ethical standards by granting the government excessive authority to cancel permits. Every refugee gets to have the right to have their case heard. That's now being taken away, he said. Collectively it's a bill that gives the government unchecked power to take away people's status… This is an anti-immigrant and anti-refugee bill. It's illegal. Without any ability for people to appeal or have their case individually heard, Hussan said, the bill allows the government to make people undocumented or just throw people out of the country in the hundreds of thousands . Syed Hussan says the Migrant Rights Network condemns Bill C-2's anti-Refugee and mass deportation provisions. Photo: CBC The changes also allow the federal immigration department to share information more widely with different agencies within Canada. Hussan said anyone who was not a citizen or later became a citizen will have their data impacted by the bill. Hassan said this is similar to the US immigration policies. This is Carney's first test and he's failed it. He's no different from Donald Trump. 'Major rollback of rights,' 'disservice to refugees': Queen's university law professor Sharry Aiken, professor of law at Queen's University, also finds the bill troubling. Very disappointing. It's a betrayal of many Canadians that supported this government in the most recent election, she said, noting these issues weren't part of the Liberal election campaign. The omnibus bill, she said, is quite complicated with 16 different parts and neither serves to reform the asylum system nor address Canadians' privacy rights. Typically, omnibus bills don't get the degree of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight, she said, which is concerning. Aiken said the one year-bar for asylum claimants represents a major rollback of rights . No longer are these claimants eligible for a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division, she said. The division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) hears and decides claims for refugee protection in Canada. Aikens said this arbitrary bill will also very quickly develop a backlog. The bill proposes a legislative fix for a problem that doesn't require new law. It requires operational intervention, she said. This one year rule mimics what's in place in the U.S. and what has been the subject of extensive international criticism… This bill does a disservice to refugees and betrays the Canadian public's trust in the Liberal government for ensuring a fair refugee determination system consistent with international standards. She urges the MPs to separate out the provisions having the issues desegregated. 'Will make the process more cumbersome': immigration lawyer Toronto-based immigration lawyer, Mario Bellissimo, said with the bill creating arbitrary distinctions of 14 days and one year after June 2020, an individualized assessment approach is being taken away. While the number of refugee claimants have recently dipped, Bellissimo said the bill signals that Canada wants to potentially limit immigration. It wants to send messages to individuals who want to traverse the system over many years without legitimate claims that this is not a destination of choice for you, he said. Bellissimo agrees that targeting individuals who impact the immigration system in a negative way is important but the bill will end up targeting individuals in genuine need of assistance. Pratyush Dayal (new window) · CBC News
