Connect with us

National

PROC – The Uninvited Ovation of the notorious Waffen-SS at the HoC

Published

14 minute read

Liberal Waterloo MP, Bardish Chagger

From The Opposition News Network

Unmasking the Hunka Fiasco, A Tale of Evasion, Applause, and the Art of Political Cover-Up

Yesterday, at Meeting No. 111 of the PROC – the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs – things got heated, to say the least. We witnessed yet another chapter in what can only be described as the Bloc/NDP/Liberal cover-up coalition’s ongoing saga. Let’s delve into the heart of this matter, shall we?

Rewind to September 22, 2023. Imagine a scene straight out of a political thriller, but this isn’t fiction; it’s the reality we’re living in Canada today. The House of Commons, a revered chamber of democracy, was transformed into a stage for what can only be described as a bewildering spectacle. The center of attention? Yaroslav Hunka, a veteran of the SS Division Galicia, part of the notorious Waffen-SS. And who were leading the standing ovation for this figure? None other than Speaker Anthony Rota, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and, shockingly, during a visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the entire assembly rose in applause.

This moment, surreal as it may seem, unfolded right before our eyes. It’s a scene that, if pitched for a screenplay, would be rejected for its implausibility. Yet, here we are, folks. Speaker Anthony Rota, in the aftermath, claimed full responsibility for this egregious error in judgment. However, this explanation fell short for many, particularly Conservatives who argued that the responsibility doesn’t just lie with Rota but extends to the Prime Minister’s Office for failing to properly vet the guest list.

This incident isn’t just a domestic blunder; it has international ramifications. Russia, amid their war with Ukraine, has been accusing the West, particularly Ukraine, of Nazification to justify their invasion. This event in Canada’s House of Commons, unfortunately, plays right into their narrative. It’s a talking point that was even highlighted in the Tucker Carlson/Vladimir Putin interview on February 8, 2024.

So, what do we have here? A narrative unfolding that would have any observer scratching their head in disbelief. MP Eric Duncan raised a question that cut to the core of the issue, only to be shut down by a Liberal cohort seemingly intent on narrowing the scope of inquiry to a suffocating point. The question wasn’t just relevant; it was crucial. It highlighted not just a single lapse in judgment but a systemic failure in vetting processes that spanned beyond the walls of the House of Commons to other official events. And yet, here we are, witnessing the procedural gymnastics designed to shield the Trudeau administration from further embarrassment.

Let’s dissect the maneuvering, shall we? The Honourable Bardish Chagger, in her role, made an effort to corral the discussion strictly within the confines of what happened in the House of Commons. But why? Is it because the broader implications of this debacle, spanning across multiple events, might further tarnish the image of Trudeau’s government? It seems clear as day that the aim here is to pad the damage, to keep the fallout as contained and as minimal as possible. But at what cost? The truth?

The stench of political maneuvering is all too familiar, folks. From foreign interference to now what’s being dubbed as ‘Nazi-gate,’ it’s the same old dance. Limit the questions, control the narrative, and hope the public’s attention shifts elsewhere. But here’s the thing – the Canadian public deserves to have all their questions asked and answered. It’s not of mere consequence to the likes of Chagger or anyone else looking to shield their party from the fallout; it’s a matter of public interest, of national embarrassment. And speaking of consequences, let’s talk about Waterloo, where MP Bardish Chagger hails from. The latest polls indicate a shifting landscape: LPC at 32% ± 6%, CPC at 38% ± 7%, NDP at 19% ± 5%, and GPC at 8% ± 4%. It seems the constituents are as fed up with these shenanigans as we are. The prospect of Chagger being dethroned in the next election? Well, let’s just say, it wouldn’t be a moment too soon. To rid the committees of this sort of maneuvering would be a breath of fresh air.

The narrative thickens, as MP Eric Duncan doggedly peels back the layers of this bewildering saga, it’s like watching a detective piecing together clues from a crime scene. Only in this case, the crime is against common sense and competence. Duncan, in his relentless pursuit of clarity, tries to navigate through the smoke and mirrors of governmental protocol and accountability—or, more accurately, the lack thereof.

His line of questioning, aimed at understanding past mistakes to prevent future blunders, is met with the kind of resistance you’d expect from an administration knee-deep in damage control. The conversation veers into the territory of the Prime Minister’s infamous trip to India—a diplomatic disaster that still haunts the halls of Canadian politics. A known terrorist ends up on the guest list, and suddenly, Canada’s international reputation is dancing on the edge of a knife.

The witness’s acknowledgment of this past mistake underlines a crucial point: the importance of vetting, the need for thorough background checks, and the dire consequences of neglecting such processes. It’s a lesson in governance, served cold, courtesy of a glaring blunder on the international stage.

Yet, as Duncan digs deeper, seeking to apply these hard-learned lessons to the current debacle, he’s met with interruptions, procedural objections—tactics to derail, to deflect. It’s the political equivalent of throwing sand in the gears of accountability.

MP Cathay Wagentall point of order captures the essence of the frustration many feel: the need to prevent such embarrassments from recurring, the imperative to shield the Prime Minister from repeated international faux pas. But the irony is palpable. The very mechanisms supposed to protect the integrity of the office are the ones undermining it through their relentless efforts to obscure the truth. This charade, this theater of the absurd we’re witnessing, is more than just a procedural dance. It’s a symptom of a deeper malaise—a government so entangled in its missteps that it seems to have lost sight of its duty to its citizens, its responsibility to uphold the dignity of its office on the world stage.

Luc Berthold stepped into the fray, armed with the kind of questions that make the Trudeau government’s allies squirm in their well-cushioned seats. The issue at hand? The inexplicable invitation of Mr. Hunka to a high-profile event, an invitation that has the fingerprints of incompetence all over it. When Berthold pressed for answers on the how and why of Mr. Hunka’s seating and invitation—moments that should have had clear, straightforward protocols—the responses he received were as clear as mud. The protocol office, seemingly a key player in this drama, claimed ignorance about who gets the golden ticket to the House of Commons gallery. But here’s where it gets interesting: Berthold, with the precision of a prosecutor, pointed out the obvious role the protocol office plays when it comes to diplomatic corps seats. Yet, when it came to Mr. Hunka, suddenly, it’s as if everyone’s memory turned as foggy as a morning in Nova Scotia.

The Liberals tried to shut down the conversation faster than you can say “cover-up.” But Berthold, undeterred, highlighted the gaping holes in their story. The Toronto event, a sideshow in this circus, became a focal point. The witness admitted—oh so reluctantly—that the invitation to Mr. Hunka came from none other than the PMO’s office, upon the suggestion of the Ukrainian embassy. How convenient. But here’s the kicker, folks: despite all attempts to navigate through this mess, the Liberals and their coalition pals, the Bloc and NDP, decided it was time to pull the plug on this embarrassing episode. “Meeting adjourned,” they declared, hoping to sweep the whole affair under the rug. But let me tell you, this isn’t just some parliamentary ping-pong match; this is a glaring testament to the Trudeau government’s disregard for accountability.

And so, as the committee wrapped up, with the cover-up coalition patting themselves on the back for dodging another bullet, one can’t help but marvel at the audacity of it all. Transparency in the Trudeau government? As extinct as the dodo bird.

It’s clear as day, folks. The halls of Ottawa are reeking, and let me tell you, it’s not the scent of maple syrup—it’s the stink of a swamp, a bog of obfuscation that’s determined to muddy the windows through which you, the voter, should be able to see the gears of your government at work. But what we’ve got instead is a theatrical production, a performance so dedicated to the art of cover-up and evasion that it would give Broadway a run for its money.

I, for one, am counting down the days until this Liberal/NDP cover-up coalition is shown the door, kicked to the curb by the very voters they’ve attempted to blindfold. It’s not just a desire; it’s a necessity. It’s a clarion call to the next administration that we, the voters, are fed up. We’re done tolerating the smoke screens, the sleights of hand, and, let’s just say it outright, the outright bullshit that’s been paraded around as governance.

The stench from this swamp has wafted far and wide, but the wind is changing. It’s about time we clear the air, clean house, and restore some semblance of transparency and integrity to the halls of power. So, as we look ahead to the next election, let it be known: the Canadian public is awake, alert, and absolutely unwilling to stomach any more of this. The message is loud and clear—enough is enough.

So, to the powers that be, consider this your official notice. The jig is up. We’re on to you, and we’re not standing for it any longer. It’s time for a clean sweep, a breath of fresh air. Because, at the end of the day, it’s our country, our future, and our very democracy at stake. And that, dear friends, is something worth fighting for.

For the full experience,  subscribe

Dan Knight

Writer for the Opposition Network/ Former amateur MMA champion / Independent journalist / Political commentator / Podcaster / Unbiased reporting 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Media

Reporters determined to drive their industry and its reputation into the abyss one Tweet at a time

Published on

Last week, my column for The Hub was about why journalists, for the sake of journalism, should avoid posting on Twitter/X.

It took mere hours for my advice to be wrapped up in a ball and shoved right back at me when Robert Fife, a reporter of many years experience (he’s even older than I am) and the Globe and Mail’s Ottawa bureau chief, posted in response to the House of Commons’ vote on a Conservative motion to approve pipelines that:

“Conservatives persist with cute legislative tricks, while the government tries to run a country.”

The Rewrite is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

While he’s free to do so and obviously views things differently, it is quite beyond me why the bureau chief of a distinguished journalism organization would expose himself so casually to accusations of bearing a bias – particularly given public concern about government funding of media – and so I responded by sharing Fife’s post with the comment:

“I’m old-fashioned enough to think reporters shouldn’t be blatantly stating biases. Not a great way to retain public trust.”

Now, I was aware that Fife was sharing a headlined opinion column by a colleague, Robyn Urback. But Urback is perfectly capable of promoting her own work and if Fife’s sole motivation was to neutrally share her column, it would’ve been fine if he had posted something like: “Here’s one perspective on yesterday’s House of Commons vote.”

Some people suggested the post was OK because it was only sharing someone else’s viewpoint and a headline. But Fife’s appearance on CBCNN’s Power and Politics – in which he enthusiastically described the Opposition as “childish” and criticized it for criticizing the government – made it appear the Tweet was otherwise motivated. Not everyone in today’s newsrooms shares my view that reporters should do everything in their power to be viewed as objective. Fair enough. While the aspiration remains popular with the public, it is no longer favoured by many, maybe even most, modern journalists.

Fife’s been a good reporter for decades going back to long before Twitter. He’s been announced as the 2026 recipient of the Public Policy Forum’s Hy Solomon award for excellence in public policy journalism. There are also some exceptionally good reporters at the Globe and Mail such as Grant Robertson, who has won nine National Newspaper Awards – more than anyone, ever, and eight more than me. There is no evidence I can find that Robertson, like a lot of other very good journalists, even has an account on X/Twitter. I have absolutely no idea or suspicions concerning what he thinks about anything going on in the world and I think that is how journalists should aspire to be perceived. But when social media posts by other reporters bring into question journalists’ reputations as fair brokers of the events of the day, his prudent behaviour isn’t enough to keep the entire craft from suffering reputational damage. As the old saying goes, newspapers don’t report when airplanes land safely – a phrase that applies equally to reporters, of which, according to the latest Global Media and Internet Concentration Project report, there were 1,600 fewer in Canada last year.

All that said, I don’t think anyone cares enough to do anything about it. Despite considerable evidence detailing journalism’s decline as a trusted institution, the overwhelming majority of its practitioners appear to me to have no intention whatsoever of altering course.

It looks like time has passed me by. As Leonard Cohen sang, “I’m old and the mirrors don’t lie.” So I will just continue to tilt at windmills for a little longer and then decide if there aren’t more rewarding things to do.

So Tweet away, journos, Tweet away. Tweet all the way into the abyss.


The colloquial nature of many newsrooms continues to fascinate, the latest example being treatment of Bill C-9, which expands the powers of Canada’s hate criminal speech legislation. Already problematic from a free speech perspective, the deal Justice Minister Sean Fraser struck with the Bloc Quebecois to ensure its passage has alarmed both the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Council of Canadian Muslims.

Share

That’s because in exchange for the Bloc’s support, Fraser will amend C-9 so that it removes the exemption given to statements made based on sincerely held religious beliefs. The exemption states: “if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.”

But, just as our media refuse to acknowledge developments beyond our borders on trans issues and health care models, they remain rube-ishly reluctant to look at what happens when quoting from the Bible becomes a police matter. I wrote about it elsewhere and, given that I am planning a Christmas break, will re-post that piece next week. In the meantime it will be interesting to see if any Canadian media or commentators pick up on the case of Päivi Räsänen, a medical doctor and Member of the Finnish Parliament. She and Bishop Juhana Pohjola of the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland, twice acquitted, are awaiting the outcome of their third trial on allegations of criminal hate for quoting passages of the Bible regarding a church Pride event. If found guilty, they will face up to two years in prison, the same as in Canada.


The bad news for journalists working within traditional media structures continues.

The Nieman Lab predictions for 2026 forecast that Artificial Intelligence will continue to grow as a source of information for the public.

The good news?

“Tech companies will face pressure in the year ahead to bolster the information ecosystem.”

The bad news?

“Tech companies will realize they don’t need journalism to give people the answers they need.”

The conclusion?

“The threats we (journalists) face are existential, but we can reframe them as opportunities.”


Postmedia columnist Brian Lilley is definitely playing journalism with his elbows up these days.

Last week, he challenged his colleagues in the industry to question the activist group Coastal First Nations on its funding by US interests.

“Here’s an open challenge to the Parliamentary Press Gallery who will be covering the CEO of Coastal First Nations appearing in Ottawa,” he posted on Twitter. “Ask them what rights and title they hold to any of the land in question.

“Ask them about American funding.”

Near as I could tell, he didn’t get any takers and the industry will continue to present the anti-pipeline group as organic. But, just in case, I checked and Lilley’s response was “Hahahahahahhaha!”

Earlier, he firmly put CBCNN Power and Politics host David Cochrane in his place with a Facebook post stating “I’ve never seen an anchor in any country, on any network, push left-wing Liberal talking points as hard as Cochrane.”

Whew! Brian won’t be popular at parties.


Finally, a bouquet to Peter Mazereeuw of The Hill Times for the literary flourish with which he described the anonymous sources so routinely used by press gallery journalists who pretend they aren’t authorized to speak.

Justice Minister Sean “Fraser is currently in a bit of hot water with the PMO, which sent forth some of its anonymous flying monkeys yesterday to tell the CBC that he had not gotten its approval for his deal with the Bloc Québécois ….”

Remember that term.


Happy Hannukah. May your candles burn bright.


Readers will notice a new DONATE button has been added. Please consider making use of it and help us save journalism from bad journalism.

Donate

(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)

The Rewrite is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Business

Storm clouds of uncertainty as BC courts deal another blow to industry and investment

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Jason Clemens

Recent court decision adds to growing uncertainty in B.C.

A recent decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal further clouds private property rights and undermines investment in the province. Specifically, the court determined British Columbia’s mineral claims system did not follow the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), which incorporated the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into law.

DRIPA (2019) requires the B.C. provincial government to “take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration,” meaning that all legislation in B.C. must conform to the principles outlined in the UNDRIP, which states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” The court’s ruling that the provincial government is not abiding by its own legislation (DRIPA) is the latest hit for the province in terms of ongoing uncertainty regarding property rights across the province, which will impose massive economic costs on all British Columbians until it’s resolved.

Consider the Cowichan First Nations legal case. The B.C. Supreme Court recently granted Aboriginal title to over 800 acres of land in Richmond valued at $2.5 billion, and where such aboriginal title is determined to exist, the court ruled that it is “prior and senior right” to other property interests. Put simply, the case puts private property at risk in BC.

The Eby government is appealing the case, yet it’s simultaneously negotiating bilateral agreements that similarly give First Nations priority rights over land swaths in B.C.

Consider Haida Gwaii, an archipelago on Canada’s west coast where around 5,000 people live—half of which are non-Haida. In April 2024, the Eby government granted Haida Aboriginal title over the land as part of a bilateral agreement. And while the agreement says private property must be honoured, private property rights are incompatible with communal Aboriginal title and it’s unclear how this conflict will be resolved.

Moreover, the Eby government attempted to pass legislation that effectively gives First Nations veto power over public land use in B.C. in 2024. While the legislation was rescinded after significant public backlash, the Eby’s government’s continued bilateral negotiations and proposed changes to other laws indicate it’s supportive of the general move towards Aboriginal title over significant parts of the province.

UNDRIP was adopted by the United Nations in 2007 and the B.C. Legislature adopted DRIPA in 2019. DRIPA requires that the government must secure “free, prior and informed consent” before approving projects on claimed land. Premier Eby is directly tied to DRIPA since he was the attorney general and actually drafted the interpretation memo.

The recent case centres around mineral exploration. Two First Nations groups—the Gitxaala Nation and the Ehattesaht First Nation—claimed the duty to consult was not adequately met and that granting mineral claims in their land “harms their cultural, spiritual, economic, and governance rights over their traditional territories,” which is inconsistent with DRIPA.

According to a 2024 survey of mining executives, more uncertainty is the last thing B.C. needs. Indeed, 76 per cent of respondents for B.C. said uncertainty around protected land and disputed land claims deters investment compared to only 29 per cent and 44 per cent (respectively) for Saskatchewan.

This series of developments have and will continue to fuel uncertainty in B.C. Who would move to or invest in B.C. when their private property, business, and investment is potentially at risk?

It’s no wonder British Columbians are leaving the province in droves. According to the B.C. Business Council, nearly 70,000 residents left B.C. for other parts of Canada last year. Similarly, business investment (inflation-adjusted) fell by nearly 5 per cent last year, exports and housing starts were down, and living standards in the province (as measured by per-person GDP) contracted in both 2023 and 2024.

B.C.’s recent developments will only worsen uncertainty in the province, deterring investment and leading to stagnant or even declining living standards for British Columbians. The Eby government should do its part to reaffirm private property rights, rather than continue fuelling uncertainty.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X