From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Ontario Senator Lucie Moncion, who was appointed by Trudeau in 2016, told the Senate she was able to get a August 21 piece published by Senator Donald Plett, who serves as the Opposition Senate leader, edited from its original form.

A Canadian Senator who was appointed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau boasted to her colleagues that she was able to successfully get edits made to a commentary piece published by her political rival in a well-read newspaper. 

Ontario Senator Lucie Moncion, who was appointed by Trudeau in 2016 and is a former banker, recently told the Senate that she was able to get a August 21 piece published by Senator Donald Plett, who serves as the Opposition Senate leader, edited from its original form.  

The incident prompted Plett to state that Canada now has a “Senate communications police.” 

Plett, who is a Conservative Senator, wrote a piece in the Ottawa weekly newspaper the Hill Times titled, “Trudeau’s Experimental Senate Changes Are Turning Out To Be A Dud.” 

As per Blacklock’s Reporter, Moncion took issue with what was written in Plett’s piece, telling Senators, “Inaccurate information was presented,” and that they had to “remain vigilant.”  

According to Moncion, who serves as chair of the Senate committee on internal economy, she was able to get edits made to Plett’s piece. She had members of her staff make the revisions to Plett’s commentary, which included complaints about overspending in the Senate. 

Moncion claimed that “[o]nce a newspaper has the facts it is free to change an article, remove it or leave it as is,” adding, “I repeat: The newspaper is free to make corrections.” 

“In a democracy, it is essential to ensure information that is disseminated about our institutions is true in order to avoid contributing even passively to the spread of misinformation and disinformation that characterize our media landscape,” she said. 

Senators were told that the corrections made to Plett’s piece were not due to libel, or misstatement, but rather because of a technical aspect, according to Moncion. 

The Hill Times is one of Canada’s most heavily subsidized weekly newspapers, getting over $1 million in the last 18 months from grants, subsidies and sole-sourced government contracts. 

Censored Senator blasts edits, says Canada now has a ‘Senate communications police’ 

Plett was not too pleased with the changes made to his commentary, telling his fellow Senators that the Liberals wanted to “minimize” the actual cost increases made in the Senate since Trudeau took power in 2015.

“They wanted to change the meaning of the text, trying to minimize the increase in Senate expenses since Justin Trudeau took power,” he said. 

“This is outrageous. We now have a Senate communications police that will not only ‘fact-check’ what senators say or write outside the chamber, but they will also, in secret, change how you present your thoughts.” 

According to Plett, the Liberal government has a pattern of “doing anything to silence dissent and opposition.”  

Other Conservative Senators expressed their disgust with the fact Plett’s piece was seemingly force-edited by a Liberal-appointed Senator. 

“This should concern each and every one of us,” said Senator Leo Housakos. 

Housakos observed that there can be disagreement on public opinion as well as what is written in op-eds, but Senators “don’t have the right to instruct my staff to call any news outlet in the country to edit anything you say.” 

This is not the first time the Hill Times has been caught editing its news pieces. In 2020, it admitted that it had deleted a column critical of then Governor General Julie Payette, at the request of an unnamed official.  

When it comes to government officials trying to influence people’s opinions via the media, LifeSiteNews recently reported on how disclosed records revealed that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) spent over a quarter of a million dollars tasking employees to create “news” reports, some of which were published by Canadian media.   

Trudeau has pumped billions into propping up the mostly state-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) as well as large payouts for legacy media outlets ahead of the 2025 federal election. In total, the subsidies are expected to cost taxpayers $129 million over the next five years. 

Despite the interplay of the state in media, Trudeau has claimed that Canadians must continue subsidizing the CBC and others to “protect our democracy.”  

From Resource Works

When it comes to Canada and carbon taxes, times have certainly changed in very little time.

We had wondered how long Ottawa’s national carbon-tax system would last when, after implementing it as a mandatory national scheme, the feds suddenly announced an exemption for home heating oil in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Pressed by NL Premier Andrew Furey, a Liberal, and Liberal MP Ken McDonald, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the exemption last October, saying it would help Atlantic Canadians with the cost of living.

The exemption would last until March 31, 2027. And for NL households that burn oil, the feds said it would mean an average $250 annual savings.

Alberta and Saskatchewan saw the exemption as unmitigated vote-buying politics, and they weren’t alone.

On Jan. 1, 2024, Saskatchewan stopped collecting the federal carbon tax on natural gas used for home heating in that province. Premier Scott Moe declared that this was in response to Ottawa’s “unfair” exemption for Newfoundland and Labrador.

“Trudeau has provided a carbon tax exemption on home heating for families in one part of the country, but not here. It’s unfair, it’s unacceptable.”

Saskatchewan went on to challenge the exemption, in federal court, on constitutional grounds, and won a temporary injunction. Later, pending a final court decision, Saskatchewan and Ottawa agreed that the province would be responsible for “50 percent of the outstanding tax amounts.”

But Ottawa’s carbon tax (oops, sorry, Ottawa likes to call it “carbon pricing” and “carbon pollution pricing”) has now run into new political trouble.

First, national NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, who had voted for the carbon tax, pulled out of a deal supporting Trudeau’s Liberal Party in government.

Singh then went on to slam Trudeau’s approach of exempting fuels in favored geography. And he said the NDP would come up with a system that doesn’t “put the burden on the backs of working people.”

Then, British Columbia Premier David Eby, long a strong supporter of the carbon tax — but facing an election on Oct. 19 — suddenly declared: “I think it’s critical to also recognize that the context and the challenge for British Columbians have changed. A lot of British Columbians are struggling with affordability.

“If the federal government decides to remove the legal backstop requiring us to have a consumer carbon tax in British Columbia, we will end the consumer carbon tax in British Columbia.”

Would Prime Minister Trudeau remove the backstop requirement?

Apparently not. Instead, Environment and Climate Change Canada is looking to run a $7-million “climate literacy and action” advertising campaign to promote the carbon tax and the quarterly rebates that many Canadians receive under it.

And the prime minister, earlier this year, declined to meet the premiers of Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador on the issue.

“The carbon tax has contributed to increasing stress and financial pain for millions of Canadians,” Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wrote to the prime minister.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford wrote: “While we all have a role in protecting the environment, it cannot be done on the backs of hardworking people.”

But Trudeau turned down the call for a meeting: “We had a meeting on carbon pricing and every single premier came together to work on establishing a pan-Canadian framework on climate change years ago.

“And part of it was that there would be a federal backstop to make sure that pollution wasn’t free anywhere across the country.”

Whether the carbon tax has “worked” or not to reduce pollution is an open question. Supporters say yes. Opponents say no.

A poll late last year found that Canadians were feeling slightly more confident in the carbon tax’s effectiveness at combating climate change — but uncertainty was still high.

But the Liberal government is already getting a message from voters — having lost in two recent by-elections in Manitoba and Quebec, and in an earlier one in a “safe seat” in Ontario (Toronto-St. Paul’s).

In the Quebec one on Monday, the Liberals lost their longtime safe seat of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun to the NDP, by just over 200 votes. It had been a Liberal stronghold for years, won by more than 20 percent of the vote in previous campaigns.

The next federal election will take place on or before October 2025, and Trudeau’s opponents have already been loudly cranking up “Axe the Tax” campaigns.

And that means the carbon tax.