Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

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.

Uncategorized

Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Carson Binda 

BC Government promised carbon tax would reduce CO2 by 33%. It has done nothing.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the British Columbia government to scrap the carbon tax as new data shows the province’s carbon emissions have continued to rise, despite the oldest carbon tax in the country.

“The carbon tax isn’t reducing carbon emissions like the politicians promised,” said Carson Binda, B.C. Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “Premier David Eby needs to axe the tax now to save British Columbians money.”

Emissions data from the provincial government shows that British Columbia’s emissions have risen since the introduction of a carbon tax.

Total emissions in 2007, the last year without a provincial carbon tax, stood at 65.5 MtCO2e, while 2022 emissions data shows an increase to 65.6 MtCO2e.

When the carbon tax was introduced, the B.C. government pledged that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 per cent.

The Eby government plans to increase the B.C. carbon tax again on April 1, 2025. After that increase, the carbon tax will add 21 cents to the cost of a litre of natural gas, 25 cents per litre of diesel and 18 cents per cubic meter of natural gas.

“The carbon tax has cost British Columbians a lot of money, but it hasn’t helped the environment as promised,” Binda said. “Eby has a simple choice: scrap the carbon tax before April 1, or force British Columbians to pay even more to heat our homes and drive to work.”

If a family fills up the minivan once per week for a year, the carbon tax will cost them $728. The carbon tax on natural gas will add $435 to the average family’s home heating bills in the 12 months after the April 1 carbon tax hike.

Other provinces, like Saskatchewan, have unilaterally stopped collecting the carbon tax on essentials like home heating and have not faced consequences from Ottawa.

“British Columbians need real relief from the costs of the provincial carbon tax,” Binda said. “Eby needs to stop waiting for permission from the leaderless federal government and scrap the tax on British Columbians.”

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

The problem with deficits and debt

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Jake Fuss

This fiscal year (2024/25), the federal government and eight out of 10 provinces project a budget deficit, meaning they’re spending more than collecting in revenues. Unfortunately, this trend isn’t new. Many Canadian governments—including the federal government—have routinely ran deficits over the last decade.

But why should Canadians care? If you listen to some politicians (and even some economists), they say deficits—and the debt they produce—are no big deal. But in reality, the consequences of government debt are real and land squarely on everyday Canadians.

Budget deficits, which occur when the government spends more than it collects in revenue over the fiscal year, fuel debt accumulation. For example, since 2015, the federal government’s large and persistent deficits have more than doubled total federal debt, which will reach a projected $2.2 trillion this fiscal year. That has real world consequences. Here are a few of them:

Diverted Program Spending: Just as Canadians must pay interest on their own mortgages or car loans, taxpayers must pay interest on government debt. Each dollar spent paying interest is a dollar diverted from public programs such as health care and education, or potential tax relief. This fiscal year, federal debt interest costs will reach $53.7 billion or $1,301 per Canadian. And that number doesn’t include provincial government debt interest, which varies by province. In Ontario, for example, debt interest costs are projected to be $12.7 billion or $789 per Ontarian.

Higher Taxes in the Future: When governments run deficits, they’re borrowing to pay for today’s spending. But eventually someone (i.e. future generations of Canadians) must pay for this borrowing in the form of higher taxes. For example, if you’re a 16-year-old Canadian in 2025, you’ll pay an estimated $29,663 over your lifetime in additional personal income taxes (that you would otherwise not pay) due to Canada’s ballooning federal debt. By comparison, a 65-year-old will pay an estimated $2,433. Younger Canadians clearly bear a disproportionately large share of the government debt being accumulated currently.

Risks of rising interest rates: When governments run deficits, they increase demand for borrowing. In other words, governments compete with individuals, families and businesses for the savings available for borrowing. In response, interest rates rise, and subsequently, so does the cost of servicing government debt. Of course, the private sector also must pay these higher interest rates, which can reduce the level of private investment in the economy. In other words, private investment that would have occurred no longer does because of higher interest rates, which reduces overall economic growth—the foundation for job-creation and prosperity. Not surprisingly, as government debt has increased, business investment has declined—specifically, business investment per worker fell from $18,363 in 2014 to $14,687 in 2021 (inflation-adjusted).

Risk of Inflation: When governments increase spending, particularly with borrowed money, they add more money to the economy, which can fuel inflation. According to a 2023 report from Scotiabank, government spending contributed significantly to higher interest rates in Canada, accounting for an estimated 42 per cent of the increase in the Bank of Canada’s rate since the first quarter of 2022. As a result, many Canadians have seen the costs of their borrowing—mortgages, car loans, lines of credit—soar in recent years.

Recession Risks: The accumulation of deficits and debt, which do not enhance productivity in the economy, weaken the government’s ability to deal with future challenges including economic downturns because the government has less fiscal capacity available to take on more debt. That’s because during a recession, government spending automatically increases and government revenues decrease, even before policymakers react with any specific measures. For example, as unemployment rises, employment insurance (EI) payments automatically increase, while revenues for EI decrease. Therefore, when a downturn or recession hits, and the government wants to spend even more money beyond these automatic programs, it must go further into debt.

Government debt comes with major consequences for Canadians. To alleviate the pain of government debt on Canadians, our policymakers should work to balance their budgets in 2025.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X