Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Uncategorized

Inside the Shocking Parliamentary Ethics Hearing That Reveals the Depth of Media Bias in Canada

Published

9 minute read

CTV’s Richard Gray 

“CTV spliced together three short soundbites… to create an entirely made-up sentence. Literally fake news that entirely changed the meaning of what Pierre Poilievre said.” — Michael Cooper

It’s no secret that the mainstream media is a propaganda machine for the liberal elite, but the recent Parliamentary Ethics Committee hearing exposed just how deep this rot goes. The first hour of the committee meeting was a clinic on media corruption, and guess what? CTV News is at the center of it. This isn’t some tiny newsroom mistake—we’re talking about the manipulation of news to actively undermine Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.

Let’s break down what we saw in that first hour, because it’s a lot more than just journalistic malpractice—it’s corporate media colluding with Trudeau’s Liberals to smear their political opposition.

CTV Gets Caught Red-Handed

In September 2024, CTV ran a story about Pierre Poilievre’s opposition to Trudeau’s carbon tax. Sounds simple, right? Except that the clip CTV aired wasn’t Poilievre’s actual words. They spliced together three different soundbites, in a way that fabricated an entirely new message. They deleted Poilievre’s key reference to the “carbon tax election,” making his comments sound more benign than they were.

The outcome? Canadians saw a falsified version of Poilievre’s stance on one of the most critical issues facing voters. And, surprise, surprise—it conveniently played into Trudeau’s hands by diluting Poilievre’s criticism of the carbon tax.

CTV’s manipulation wasn’t exposed by some internal review or journalistic conscience. No, it was called out by a Conservative staffer. Let that sink in. The most trusted name in Canadian news, caught fabricating news to attack the leader of the opposition—only to issue an apology after being called out.

Michael Barrett Drops the Hammer

The star of this hearing? Conservative MP Michael Barrett. He didn’t pull any punches when he confronted Richard Gray, Vice President of CTV News. Barrett’s opening salvo hit at the heart of the issue: “We’ve seen a lot of examples of CTV acting as activism masquerading as journalism.”

And he’s right. Barrett systematically tore apart CTV’s defense, pointing out that this wasn’t some innocent error. CTV deliberately altered Poilievre’s statements to undermine him politically. Barrett challenged Gray to explain why CTV had turned into an arm of Liberal propaganda, essentially parroting Trudeau’s talking points in their coverage.

Gray’s response? The same tired excuse we’ve heard time and again—“It was a mistake.” Well, no, it wasn’t. You don’t accidentally splice soundbites together to create a new sentence. That’s deliberate manipulation. And you certainly don’t edit out key phrases like “carbon tax election” without knowing exactly what you’re doing.

Barrett’s performance was masterful, exposing Gray’s weak defense and making it clear that CTV can’t be trusted to cover conservative leaders fairly. And why would they? Their cozy relationship with Trudeau and his Liberal government guarantees them favorable treatment, including regulatory relief worth millions.

Media-Political Collusion Exposed

Here’s where it gets even more disturbing. CTV is owned by Bell Media, a corporate giant that benefits directly from the Liberal government’s policies. Andrew Scheer hammered this point home during his cross-examination. Scheer pointed out that while CTV loses millions in its news operations, Bell Canada profits off government regulatory favors—to the tune of $40 million in “regulatory relief.” So, you think Bell Media has an incentive to help Trudeau out? Absolutely.

This isn’t just about biased reporting. This is about a corrupt relationship between a corporate media empire and the Liberal government. Trudeau’s regime is propping up CTV with regulatory favors while CTV is turning around and attacking Conservative leaders. It’s not a conspiracy theory—it’s fact.

Richard Gray’s Pathetic Defense

What was Richard Gray’s defense? Predictable. He fired two employees and insisted that this was an isolated incident. But here’s the kicker—Gray never even spoke to those employees directly to find out their intent. That’s right, the head of CTV News didn’t bother to personally investigate the two people who altered the clip of Poilievre. Instead, Gray claimed there was no “malicious intent” based on an internal investigation he didn’t personally conduct.

Even Liberal MP Anthony Housefather, who was hardly interested in holding CTV accountable, pressed Gray on this point. Housefather rightly asked how Gray could possibly testify about the employees’ intent if he never personally interviewed them. The answer? He couldn’t.

Gray kept repeating the same line—that there was no malicious intent—but how could he know? The truth is, CTV got caught, and now they’re scrambling to limit the damage without addressing the deeper issue of institutional bias.

NDP and Bloc MPs Play Softball

To no one’s surprise, the NDP and Bloc Québécois didn’t push CTV nearly hard enough. René Villemure of the Bloc briefly raised the question of whether CTV was dealing with just the consequences and not the intent behind the manipulation, but Gray dodged, and Villemure let it slide. Meanwhile, Matthew Green of the NDP expressed concerns about the incident undermining public trust but failed to dig deeper into why these mistakes always seem to hurt conservatives and help Liberals.

Here’s what the NDP and Bloc MPs missed: This isn’t just about one bad news clip. It’s about the systemic bias that runs through CTV and the rest of the mainstream media. These so-called “mistakes” always seem to happen when it comes to conservatives, don’t they? Funny how the Liberal government and its media allies get a free pass every time.

The Liberal-Media Swamp Is Real

This committee hearing made one thing crystal clear: CTV News is compromised. They aren’t interested in fair, unbiased reporting. They’re interested in maintaining their cozy relationship with the Trudeau government and attacking anyone who dares challenge Liberal orthodoxy.

Richard Gray’s weak defense and the media’s failure to self-police is just another sign that the swamp runs deep in Canada. Mainstream media outlets like CTV aren’t just making “mistakes.” They’re deliberately manipulating the news to protect their financial interests and political allies.

If you’re still watching CTV or any other mainstream outlet expecting fair coverage, you’re part of the problem. Turn them off. Find your news elsewhere. Because CTV—and the Liberal media establishment—sure as hell aren’t looking out for you.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

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

Uncategorized

New report warns WHO health rules erode Canada’s democracy and Charter rights

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has released a new report titled Canada’s Surrender of Sovereignty: New WHO health regulations undermine Canadian democracy and Charter freedoms. Authored by Nigel Hannaford, a veteran journalist and researcher, the report warns that Canada’s acceptance of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) revised International Health Regulations (IHR) represents a serious erosion of national independence and democratic accountability.

The IHR amendments, which took effect on September 19, 2025, authorize the WHO Director-General to declare global “health emergencies” that could require Canada to follow directives from bureaucrats in Geneva, bypassing the House of Commons and the will of Canadian voters.

The WHO regards these regulations as “binding,” despite having no ability or legal authority to impose such regulations. Even so, Canada is opting to accept the regulations as binding.

By accepting the WHO’s revised IHR, the report explains, Canada has relinquished its own control over future health crises and instead has agreed to let the WHO determine when a “pandemic emergency” exists and what Canada must do to respond to it, after which Canada must report back to the WHO.

In fact, under these International Health Regulations, the WHO could demand countries like Canada impose stringent freedom-violating health policies, such as lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or travel restrictions without debate, evidence review, or public accountability, the report explains.

Once the WHO declares a “Pandemic Emergency,” member states are obligated to implement such emergency measures “without delay” for a minimum of three months.

Importantly, following these WHO directives would undermine government accountability as politicians may hide behind international “commitments” to justify their actions as “simply following international rules,” the report warns.

Canada should instead withdraw from the revised IHR, following the example of countries like Germany, Austria, Italy, Czech Republic, and the United States. The report recommends continued international cooperation without surrendering control over domestic health policies.

Constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic said, “[b]y treating WHO edicts as binding, the federal government has effectively placed Canadian sovereignty on loan to an unelected international body.”

“Such directives, if enforced, would likely violate Canadians’ Charter rights and freedoms,” she added.

Mr. Hannaford agreed, saying, “Canada’s health policies must be made in Canada. No free and democratic nation should outsource its emergency powers to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva.”

The Justice Centre urges Canadians to contact their Members of Parliament and demand they support withdrawing from the revised IHR to restore Canadian sovereignty and reject blind compliance with WHO directives.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

CNN’s Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trump’s Energy Agenda

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

As the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress move aggressively to roll back the climate alarm-driven energy policies of the Biden presidency, proponents of climate change theory have ramped up their scare tactics in hopes of shifting public opinion in their favor.

But CNN’s energetic polling analyst, the irrepressible Harry Enten, says those tactics aren’t working. Indeed, Enten points out the climate alarm messaging which has permeated every nook and cranny of American society for at least 25 years now has failed to move the public opinion needle even a smidgen since 2000.

Appearing on the cable channel’s “CNN News Central” program with host John Berman Thursday, Enten cited polling data showing that just 40% of U.S. citizens are “afraid” of climate change. That is the same percentage who gave a similar answer in 2000.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

How much has been spent on climate alarm messaging since that year? When Climate science critic Steve Milloy, who runs the Junkscience.org website, asked X’s AI tool, Grok 3, to provide an estimate of “the value of pro-global warming propaganda from the media since 2000,” Grok 3 returned an answer of $722 billion. Given that Grok’s estimate includes both direct spending on such propaganda as well as earned media, that actually seems like a low number when one considers that virtually every legacy media outlet parrots and amplifies the prevailing climate change narrative with near-religious zeal.

Enten’s own report is an example of this fealty. Saying the findings “kind of boggles the mind,” Enten emphasized the fact that, despite all the media hysteria that takes place in the wake of any weather disaster or wildfire, an even lower percentage of Americans are concerned such events might impact them personally.

“In 2006, it was 38%,” Enten says of the percentage who are even “sometimes worried” about being hit by a natural disaster, and adds, “Look at where we are now in 2025. It’s 32%, 38% to 32%. The number’s actually gone down.”

In terms of all adults who worry that a major disaster might hit their own hometown, Enten notes that just 17% admit to such a concern. Even among Democrats, whose party has been the major proponent of climate alarm theory in the U.S., the percentage is a paltry 27%.

While Enten and Berman both appear to be shocked by these findings, they really aren’t surprising. Enten himself notes that climate concerns have never been a driving issue in electoral politics in his conclusion, when Berman points out, “People might think it’s an issue, but clearly not a driving issue when people go to the polls.”

“That’s exactly right,” Enten says, adding, “They may worry about in the abstract, but when it comes to their own lives, they don’t worry.”

This reality of public opinion is a major reason why President Donald Trump and his key cabinet officials have felt free to mount their aggressive push to end any remaining notion that a government-subsidized ‘energy transition’ from oil, gas, and coal to renewables and electric vehicles is happening in the U.S. It is also a big reason why congressional Republicans included language in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to phase out subsidies for those alternative energy technologies.

It is key to understand that the administration’s reprioritization of energy and climate policies goes well beyond just rolling back the Biden policies. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is working on plans to revoke the 2010 endangerment finding related to greenhouse gases which served as the foundation for most of the Obama climate agenda as well.

If that plan can survive the inevitable court challenges, then Trump’s ambitions will only accelerate. Last year’s elimination of the Chevron Deference by the Supreme Court increases the chances of that happening. Ultimately, by the end of 2028, it will be almost as if the Obama and Biden presidencies never happened.

The reality here is that, with such a low percentage of voters expressing concerns about any of this, Trump and congressional Republicans will pay little or no political price for moving in this direction. Thus, unless the polls change radically, the policy direction will remain the same.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Trending

X