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.
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.
A new Ontario-wide survey conducted by Nanos Research on behalf of Canada Action finds strong public consensus that Canadian oil and gas revenues are critical to jobs, economic growth, and trade – and that Canada should lean into its energy advantage at home and abroad.
“Our polling feedback shows that a majority of Ontarians recognize the vital, irreplaceable role oil and gas has to play in our national economy. Canadians are telling us they want to see more support for the oil and gas sector, which is foundational to our standard of living and economy at large,” said Canada Action spokesperson, Cody Battershill.
The online survey of 1,000 Ontarians shows that more than four in five (84 per cent) respondents believe oil and gas revenues are important for creating jobs for Canadians and building a stronger economy. Additionally, four-in-five (80 per cent) support Canada developing a strategy to become a preferred oil supplier to countries, while Ontarians are more than eight times as likely to support as to oppose Canada supplying oil and gas, provided it remains a major source of energy worldwide.
“Building new trade infrastructure, including pipelines to the coasts that would get our oil and gas resources to international markets, can help Canadians diversify our trading partners, maximize the value of our resources, and secure a strong and prosperous future for our families,” Battershill said.
Also, nearly four-in-five (79 per cent) of Ontarians say oil and gas revenues are important for keeping energy costs manageable for Canadians.
“Our poll is just one of many in Canada since the start of 2025 that show a majority of Canadians are supportive of oil and gas development. It’s time we get moving forward on these projects without delay and learn from the lessons of our past, where we saw multiple pipelines cancelled to the detriment of Canada’s long-term economic success.”
Additional findings include:
Four-in-five (80 per cent) of Ontarians support Canada supplying oil and gas, provided it remains a major source of energy worldwide.
Four-in five (80 per cent) of Ontarians believe oil and gas revenues are important when it comes to building stronger trading partnerships.
Nearly four-in-five (79 per cent) of Ontarians say oil and gas revenues are important for keeping energy costs manageable for Canadians.
Nearly four-in-five (78 per cent) of Ontarians support Canada stepping up to provide our key NATO allies with secure energy sources.
Nearly four-in-five (78 per cent) of Ontarians support Canada increasing oil and gas exports around the world, about six and a half times more likely than to oppose.
Nearly four-in-five (77 per cent) of Ontarians support Canada providing Asia and Europe with oil and gas so that they are less reliant on authoritarian suppliers.
Nearly three-in-four (74 per cent) of Ontarians support Canada increasing oil and gas exports around the world, five times more likely than to oppose.
Nearly three-in-four (74 per cent) of Ontarians say oil and gas revenues are important to reducing taxes for Canadians.
More than seven-in-ten (71 per cent) of Ontarians support building new energy infrastructure projects without reducing environmental protections and safety.
More than six-in-ten (63 per cent) of Canadians say they are important for paying for social programs, including health care, education, and other public services.
Respondents were nine times more likely to say the government approval process for energy infrastructure projects is too slow (46 per cent) rather than too fast (5 per cent).
About the survey
The survey was conducted by Nanos Research for Canada Action using a representative non-probability online panel of 1,000 Ontarians aged 18 and older between December 10 and 12, 2025.
While a margin of error cannot be calculated for non-probability samples, a probability sample of 1,000 respondents would have a margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Pathways Alliance CEO Kendall Dilling is interviewed at the World Petroleum Congress in Calgary, Monday, Sept. 18, 2023.THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh
Carbon capture gives biggest bang for carbon tax buck CCS much cheaper than fuel switching: report
Canada’s climate change strategy is now joined at the hip to a pipeline. Two pipelines, actually — one for oil, one for carbon dioxide.
The MOU signed between Ottawa and Alberta two weeks ago ties a new oil pipeline to the Pathways Alliance, which includes what has been billed as the largest carbon capture proposal in the world.
One cannot proceed without the other. It’s quite possible neither will proceed.
The timing for multi-billion dollar carbon capture projects in general may be off, given the retreat we are now seeing from industry and government on decarbonization, especially in the U.S., our biggest energy customer and competitor.
But if the public, industry and our governments still think getting Canada’s GHG emissions down is a priority, decarbonizing Alberta oil, gas and heavy industry through CCS promises to be the most cost-effective technology approach.
New modelling by Clean Prosperity, a climate policy organization, finds large-scale carbon capture gets the biggest bang for the carbon tax buck.
Which makes sense. If oil and gas production in Alberta is Canada’s single largest emitter of CO2 and methane, it stands to reason that methane abatement and sequestering CO2 from oil and gas production is where the biggest gains are to be had.
A number of CCS projects are already in operation in Alberta, including Shell’s Quest project, which captures about 1 million tonnes of CO2 annually from the Scotford upgrader.
What is CO2 worth?
Clean Prosperity estimates industrial carbon pricing of $130 to $150 per tonne in Alberta and CCS could result in $90 billion in investment and 70 megatons (MT) annually of GHG abatement or sequestration. The lion’s share of that would come from CCS.
To put that in perspective, 70 MT is 10% of Canada’s total GHG emissions (694 MT).
The report cautions that these estimates are “hypothetical” and gives no timelines.
All of the main policy tools recommended by Clean Prosperity to achieve these GHG reductions are contained in the Ottawa-Alberta MOU.
One important policy in the MOU includes enhanced oil recovery (EOR), in which CO2 is injected into older conventional oil wells to increase output. While this increases oil production, it also sequesters large amounts of CO2.
Under Trudeau era policies, EOR was excluded from federal CCS tax credits. The MOU extends credits and other incentives to EOR, which improves the value proposition for carbon capture.
Under the MOU, Alberta agrees to raise its industrial carbon pricing from the current $95 per tonne to a minimum of $130 per tonne under its TIER system (Technology Innovation and Emission Reduction).
The biggest bang for the buck
Using a price of $130 to $150 per tonne, Clean Prosperity looked at two main pathways to GHG reductions: fuel switching in the power sector and CCS.
Fuel switching would involve replacing natural gas power generation with renewables, nuclear power, renewable natural gas or hydrogen.
“We calculated that fuel switching is more expensive,” Brendan Frank, director of policy and strategy for Clean Prosperity, told me.
Achieving the same GHG reductions through fuel switching would require industrial carbon prices of $300 to $1,000 per tonne, Frank said.
Clean Prosperity looked at five big sectoral emitters: oil and gas extraction, chemical manufacturing, pipeline transportation, petroleum refining, and cement manufacturing.
“We find that CCUS represents the largest opportunity for meaningful, cost-effective emissions reductions across five sectors,” the report states.
Fuel switching requires higher carbon prices than CCUS.
Measures like energy efficiency and methane abatement are included in Clean Prosperity’s calculations, but again CCS takes the biggest bite out of Alberta’s GHGs.
“Efficiency and (methane) abatement are a portion of it, but it’s a fairly small slice,” Frank said. “The overwhelming majority of it is in carbon capture.”
From left, Alberta Minister of Energy Marg McCuaig-Boyd, Shell Canada President Lorraine Mitchelmore, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell Ben van Beurden, Marathon Oil Executive Brian Maynard, Shell ER Manager, Stephen Velthuizen, and British High Commissioner to Canada Howard Drake open the valve to the Quest carbon capture and storage facility in Fort Saskatchewan Alta, on Friday November 6, 2015. Quest is designed to capture and safely store more than one million tonnes of CO2 each year an equivalent to the emissions from about 250,000 cars. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson
Credit where credit is due
Setting an industrial carbon price is one thing. Putting it into effect through a workable carbon credit market is another.
“A high headline price is meaningless without higher credit prices,” the report states.
“TIER credit prices have declined steadily since 2023 and traded below $20 per tonne as of November 2025. With credit prices this low, the $95 per tonne headline price has a negligible effect on investment decisions and carbon markets will not drive CCUS deployment or fuel switching.”
Clean Prosperity recommends a kind of government-backstopped insurance mechanism guaranteeing carbon credit prices, which could otherwise be vulnerable to political and market vagaries.
Specifically, it recommends carbon contracts for difference (CCfD).
“A straight-forward way to think about it is insurance,” Frank explains.
Carbon credit prices are vulnerable to risks, including “stroke-of-pen risks,” in which governments change or cancel price schedules. There are also market risks.
CCfDs are contractual agreements between the private sector and government that guarantees a specific credit value over a specified time period.
“The private actor basically has insurance that the credits they’ll generate, as a result of making whatever low-carbon investment they’re after, will get a certain amount of revenue,” Frank said. “That certainty is enough to, in our view, unlock a lot of these projects.”
From the perspective of Canadian CCS equipment manufacturers like Vancouver’s Svante, there is one policy piece still missing from the MOU: eligibility for the Clean Technology Manufacturing (CTM) Investment tax credit.
“Carbon capture was left out of that,” said Svante co-founder Brett Henkel said.
Svante recently built a major manufacturing plant in Burnaby for its carbon capture filters and machines, with many of its prospective customers expected to be in the U.S.
The $20 billion Pathways project could be a huge boon for Canadian companies like Svante and Calgary’s Entropy. But there is fear Canadian CCS equipment manufacturers could be shut out of the project.
“If the oil sands companies put out for a bid all this equipment that’s needed, it is highly likely that a lot of that equipment is sourced outside of Canada, because the support for Canadian manufacturing is not there,” Henkel said.
Henkel hopes to see CCS manufacturing added to the eligibility for the CTM investment tax credit.
“To really build this eco-system in Canada and to support the Pathways Alliance project, we need that amendment to happen.”
