Connect with us

National

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

National

Women and girls beauty pageant urges dismissal of transgender human rights complaint

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

There has not been a human rights case in Canada that has dealt with whether children’s emotional, mental, and physical safety should take precedence over a transwoman’s desire to access a female changeroom.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that Canada Galaxy Pageants (CGP), a beauty competition based in Mississauga, Ontario, continues to face a drawn-out human rights complaint filed in 2019 by Ms. Jessica Yaniv (also known as Ms. Jessica Simpson). Despite repeated delays, missed deadlines, and inadequate filings by Ms. Simpson, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) has allowed the case to continue—imposing years of uncertainty, stress, and reputational harm on pageant activities and its organizers.

On July 8, 2025, lawyers provided by the Justice Centre wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the complaint against the pageant be dismissed.

The conflict began in 2019, when Ms. Jessica Simpson (identifying at the time as Ms. Jessica Yaniv) was asked whether she had fully transitioned to female prior to competing in a CGP beauty pageant. Ms. Simpson refused to answer and filed a complaint with the Tribunal, seeking $10,000 in damages for “injury to dignity and feelings” and a ruling against the pageant that it must allow biological males to participate alongside biological females and young girls.

CPG pageants are private events that include female competitors as young as six years old, and require participants to change together backstage.

The pageant has a policy of accommodating fully transitioned transgender women, but has expressed safety and privacy concerns about allowing individuals with intact male genitals to access these female-only spaces.

There has not been a human rights case in Canada that has dealt with whether children’s emotional, mental, and physical safety should take precedence over a transwoman’s desire to access a female changeroom.

In January 2025, the Tribunal directed both parties to file hearing materials. While the pageant complied, submitting nine witness statements, including from concerned parents, Ms. Simpson repeatedly failed to meet deadlines and produced inadequate submissions. Ms. Simpson was nevertheless granted multiple extensions, but still failed to submit a proper case summary or witness list beyond naming her own mother.

The Tribunal has not yet indicated whether it will proceed to a hearing or will finally dismiss the claim.

Constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic stated, “This beauty pageant has already made reasonable accommodations for fully transitioned transgender females without male genitals.”

“It is imperative that biological women and girls have safe, secure, female-only places where they won’t have to worry about seeing male genitals, or about having individuals with male genitals looking at them,” Ms. Pejovic continued. “Little girls should not be exposed to male genitals. Period.”

Canada Galaxy Pageants continues to express gratitude for the legal support it has received from the Justice Centre.

The Tribunal is expected to decide in the coming weeks whether it will finally dismiss the complaint or extend further leniency to Ms. Simpson.

Continue Reading

National

How Long Will Mark Carney’s Post-Election Honeymoon Last? – Michelle Rempel Garner

Published on

From Energy Now

By Michelle Rempel Garner

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney seems to be enjoying a bit of a post-election honeymoon period with voters. This is a normal phenomenon in Canadian politics – our electorate tends to give new leaders the benefit of the doubt for a time after their election.


Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here


So the obvious question that arises in this circumstance is, how long will it last?

I’ve had a few people ask me to speculate about that over the last few weeks. It’s not an entirely straightforward question to answer, because external factors often need to be considered. However, leaders have a lot of control too, and on that front, questions linger about Mark Carney’s long-term political acumen. So let’s start there.

Having now watched the man in action for a hot minute, there seems to be some legs to the lingering perception that, as a political neophyte, Mr. Carney struggles to identify and address political challenges. In the over 100 days that he’s now been in office, he’s laid down some proof points on this front.

For starters, Mr. Carney seems to not fully grasp that his post-election honeymoon is unfolding in a starkly different political landscape than that of his predecessor in 2015. When former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau secured a majority government, he inherited a balanced federal budget, a thriving economy, and a stable social fabric from the prior Conservative government. These favorable conditions gave Trudeau the time and flexibility to advance his political agenda. By contrast, Canadians today are grappling with crises in affordability, employment, and crime – issues that were virtually non-existent in 2015. As a result, public patience with a new political leader may wear thin much more quickly now than it did a decade ago.

So in that, Carney doesn’t have much time to make material progress on longstanding irritants like crime and affordability, but to date, he really hasn’t. In fact, he hasn’t even dedicated much space in any of his daily communications to empathizing with the plight of the everyday Canadian, eschewing concern for bread and butter issues for colder corporate speak. So if predictions about a further economic downturn in the fall ring true, he may not have the longer term political runway Justin Trudeau once had with the voting public, which doesn’t bode well for his long term favourables.

Carney’s apparent unease with retail politics won’t help him on that front, either. For example, at the Calgary Stampede, while on the same circuit, I noticed him spending the bulk of his limited time at events – even swish cocktail receptions – visibly eyeing the exit, surrounded by an entourage of fartcatchers whose numbers would have made even Trudeau blush. Unlike Trudeau, whose personal charisma secured three election victories despite scandals, Carney struggles to connect with a crowd. This political weakness may prove fatal to his prospects for an extended honeymoon, even with the Liberal brand providing cover.

It’s also too early to tell if Carney has anyone in his inner circle capable of grasping these concepts. That said, leaders typically don’t cocoon themselves away from people who will give blunt political assessments until the very end of their tenures when their political ends are clear to everyone but them. Nonetheless, Carney seems to have done exactly that, and compounded the problem of his lack of political acumen, by choosing close advisors who have little retail political experience themselves. While some have lauded this lack of political experience as a good thing, not having people around the daily table or group chat who can interject salient points about how policy decisions will impact the lives of day to day Canadians probably won’t help Carney slow the loss of his post-election shine.

Further proof to this point are the post-election grumblings that have emerged from the Liberal caucus. Unlike Trudeau, who started his premiership with an overwhelming majority of his caucus having been freshly elected, Carney has a significant number of old hands in his caucus who carry a decade of internal drama, inflated sense of worth, and personal grievances amongst them. As a political neophyte, Carney not only has to prove to the Canadian public that he has the capacity to understand their plight, he also has to do the same for his caucus, whose support he will uniformly need to pass legislation in a minority Parliament.

To date, Carney has not been entirely successful on that front. In crafting his cabinet, he promoted weak caucus members into key portfolios like immigration, kept loose cannons in places where they can cause a lot of political damage (i.e. Steven Guilbeaut in Heritage), unceremoniously dumped mavericks who possess big social media reach without giving them a task to keep them occupied, and passed over senior members of the caucus who felt they should either keep their jobs or have earned a promotion after carrying water for a decade. Underestimating the ability of a discontented caucus to derail a leader’s political agenda – either by throwing a wrench into the gears of Parliamentleaking internal drama to media, or underperformance – is something that Carney doesn’t seem to fully grasp. Said differently, Carney’s (in)ability to manage his caucus will have an impact on how long the shine stays on him.

Mark Carney’s honeymoon as a public figure also hinges upon his (arguably hilarious) assumption that the federal public service operates in the same way that private sector businesses do. Take for example, a recent (and hamfistedly) leaked headline, proactively warning senior public servants that he might fire them. In the corporate world, where bonuses and promotions are tied to results, such conditions are standard (and in most cases, entirely reasonable). Yet, after a decade of Liberal government expansion and lax enforcement of performance standards, some bureaucrats have grown accustomed to and protective of Liberal slipshod operating standards. Carney may not yet understand that many of these folks will happily leak sensitive information or sabotage policy reforms to preserve their status quo, and that both elegance and political will is required to enact change within the Liberal’s bloated government.

On that front, Mr. Carney has already gained a reputation for being dismissive and irritable with various players in the political arena. While this quick-tempered demeanor may have remained understated during his relatively brief ascent to the Prime Minister’s office, continued impatience could soon become a prominent issue for both him and his party. Whether dismissing reporters or publicly slighting senior cabinet members, if Carney sustains this type of arrogance and irritability he won’t be long for the political world. Without humility, good humor, patience, and resilience he won’t be able to convince voters, the media, the bureaucracy, and industry to support his governing agenda.

But perhaps the most important factor in judging how long Mr. Carney’s honeymoon will last is that to date he has shown a striking indifference to nuclear-grade social policy files like justice, immigration, and public safety. His appointment of underperforming ministers to these critical portfolios and the absence of a single government justice bill in Parliament’s spring session – despite crime being a major voter concern – is a big problem. Carney himself rarely addresses these issues – likely due to a lack of knowledge and care – leaving them to the weakest members of his team. None of this points to long term political success for Carney.

So Mr. Carney needs to understand that Canadians are not sterile, esoteric units to be traded in a Bay Street transaction. They are real people living real lives, with real concerns that he signed up to address. He also needs to understand that politics (read, the ability to connect with one’s constituents and deliver for them) isn’t an avocation – it’s a learned skill of which he is very much still a novice practitioner.

Honeymoon or not, these laws of political gravity that Mr. Carney can’t avoid for long, particularly with an effective opposition litigating his government’s failures.

In that, I think the better question is not if Mark Carney can escape that political gravity well, but whether he’ll stick around once his ship inevitably gets sucked into it.

Only time – and the country’s fortunes under his premiership – will tell.

Continue Reading

Trending

X