There are lots better. Unfortunately, they are not prepared to stand in the spotlight for the meager pay.
Pierre Poilievre
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
House of Commons made it through the first day of the Fall sitting so far now today. Liberal House leader Karina Gould kicked off the fall sitting of Parliament Monday by calling Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre a "fraudster" and a "bully" and accusing him of holding a secret agenda that Canadians won't like.
Is it “Abortion” or “Gun Control” or maybe even “Aborting Gun Control” even? "What I heard yesterday from Mr. Poilievre was so over the top, so irresponsible, so immature and something only a fraudster would do," Gould said Monday in Ottawa.
She said the Conservative leader's attacks on carbon pricing are an effort to "distract Canadians from his real agenda … because he knows that they won't like it if they find out."
Gould was referring to a speech Poilievre delivered to his caucus Sunday morning in which he said the government's plan to increase the carbon price would cause a "nuclear winter" for the economy.
"There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high … Our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter," Poilievre said.
"Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere." Here’s the CBC Link:
apple.news
She accused the Conservative leader of bullying reporters and promising to defund the CBC in a time of "incredible disinformation." She said that when Poilievre is challenged by journalists, he responds "as a bully, as someone who will not stand to scrutiny."
As the House of Commons resumed, Pierre Poilievre and his Conservatives demanded a carbon tax election, while Justin Trudeau claimed the Opposition leader doesn’t care about Canada or Canadians.
“After nine years of NDP-Liberals, taxes, up, costs, up, crime’s up, time’s up, and now he wants a 300% carbon tax hike all the way up to 61 cents a litre,” Poilievre said, as Question Period began again.
“Why not let Canadians choose a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime now?”
We all knew that question was coming. What wasn’t known was how the Liberals would try to frame the Conservatives going forward. Now we know, as uncaring and lying partisans just out for themselves and their rich friends.
In other words, the standard Liberal attacks on Conservatives. It doesn’t matter that it’s all lies; it’s worked in the past, and Trudeau’s Liberals desperately hope it will work again.
apple.news
Is it “Abortion” or “Gun Control” or maybe even “Aborting Gun Control” even? "What I heard yesterday from Mr. Poilievre was so over the top, so irresponsible, so immature and something only a fraudster would do," Gould said Monday in Ottawa.
She said the Conservative leader's attacks on carbon pricing are an effort to "distract Canadians from his real agenda … because he knows that they won't like it if they find out."
Gould was referring to a speech Poilievre delivered to his caucus Sunday morning in which he said the government's plan to increase the carbon price would cause a "nuclear winter" for the economy.
"There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high … Our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter," Poilievre said.
"Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere." Here’s the CBC Link:
Liberal House leader calls Poilievre a 'fraudster' and a 'bully' as Commons returns — CBC News
Liberal House leader Karina Gould kicked off the fall sitting of Parliament Monday by calling Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre a "fraudster" and a "bully" and accusing him of holding a secret agenda that Canadians won't like.
As the House of Commons resumed, Pierre Poilievre and his Conservatives demanded a carbon tax election, while Justin Trudeau claimed the Opposition leader doesn’t care about Canada or Canadians.
“After nine years of NDP-Liberals, taxes, up, costs, up, crime’s up, time’s up, and now he wants a 300% carbon tax hike all the way up to 61 cents a litre,” Poilievre said, as Question Period began again.
“Why not let Canadians choose a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime now?”
We all knew that question was coming. What wasn’t known was how the Liberals would try to frame the Conservatives going forward. Now we know, as uncaring and lying partisans just out for themselves and their rich friends.
In other words, the standard Liberal attacks on Conservatives. It doesn’t matter that it’s all lies; it’s worked in the past, and Trudeau’s Liberals desperately hope it will work again.
LILLEY: Poilievre, Trudeau set battle lines as Question Period returns — Toronto Sun
Both leaders look to frame the next election in the minds of voters.
I feel victimized.House of Commons made it through the first day of the Fall sitting so far now today. Liberal House leader Karina Gould kicked off the fall sitting of Parliament Monday by calling Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre a "fraudster" and a "bully" and accusing him of holding a secret agenda that Canadians won't like.
Is it “Abortion” or “Gun Control” or maybe even “Aborting Gun Control” even? "What I heard yesterday from Mr. Poilievre was so over the top, so irresponsible, so immature and something only a fraudster would do," Gould said Monday in Ottawa.
She said the Conservative leader's attacks on carbon pricing are an effort to "distract Canadians from his real agenda … because he knows that they won't like it if they find out."
Gould was referring to a speech Poilievre delivered to his caucus Sunday morning in which he said the government's plan to increase the carbon price would cause a "nuclear winter" for the economy.
"There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high … Our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter," Poilievre said.
"Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere." Here’s the CBC Link:
She accused the Conservative leader of bullying reporters and promising to defund the CBC in a time of "incredible disinformation." She said that when Poilievre is challenged by journalists, he responds "as a bully, as someone who will not stand to scrutiny."Liberal House leader calls Poilievre a 'fraudster' and a 'bully' as Commons returns — CBC News
Liberal House leader Karina Gould kicked off the fall sitting of Parliament Monday by calling Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre a "fraudster" and a "bully" and accusing him of holding a secret agenda that Canadians won't like.
As the House of Commons resumed, Pierre Poilievre and his Conservatives demanded a carbon tax election, while Justin Trudeau claimed the Opposition leader doesn’t care about Canada or Canadians.
“After nine years of NDP-Liberals, taxes, up, costs, up, crime’s up, time’s up, and now he wants a 300% carbon tax hike all the way up to 61 cents a litre,” Poilievre said, as Question Period began again.
“Why not let Canadians choose a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime now?”
We all knew that question was coming. What wasn’t known was how the Liberals would try to frame the Conservatives going forward. Now we know, as uncaring and lying partisans just out for themselves and their rich friends.
In other words, the standard Liberal attacks on Conservatives. It doesn’t matter that it’s all lies; it’s worked in the past, and Trudeau’s Liberals desperately hope it will work again.
LILLEY: Poilievre, Trudeau set battle lines as Question Period returns — Toronto Sun
Both leaders look to frame the next election in the minds of voters.
Holy cow, how many Liberal strongholds does Trudeau have to lose before he appoints a fall guy/gal and exits stage left?
Jagmeet Singh blaming Pierre Poilievre for protester comment spin of the week
Author of the article:Joe Warmington
Published Sep 18, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 3 minute read
Instead of owning up to his own overreaction to benign protesters at Parliament Hill, Jagmeet Singh is now trying to dump it on political opponents who had nothing to do with it.
That whole spectacle was created by Singh and Singh alone.
But now suddenly Pierre Poilievre is to blame for Jagmeet Singh’s bizarre square-off with protesters in Ottawa?
“That’s the country Pierre Poilievre wants,” Singh posted to X. “Me? I believe everyone should feel safe walking our streets. I believe we need to stand up to bullies and shut down hate. Canadians believe in lifting each other up. Not tearing each other down. Stand with us.”
The only problem is what happened had nothing to do with the Poilievre. As the viral video shows, this time, Question Period was not in the House of Commons but outside of it on the street near the West Block.
It was escalated by Singh and not by those who were asking him questions or offering opinions. In fact, a new video posted by Canadian Free Living offers a perspective which shows Singh choosing to not ignore a rude comment made to him and, instead, turn around and come back to look for and confront the person who made it.
The federal NDP leader, who recently ended his supply-and-confidence agreement with the minority Liberal government, took the bait and reacted.
“Corrupted bastard,” was the comment that could be heard from the video shot Tuesday in Ottawa.
Not a nice thing to say but far worse has been said to nearly every politician. All MPs face this kind of stuff. They work for the public who are entitled to ask them questions or comment on their performances and positions.
This particular comment came after an unidentified person asked Singh the pertinent question if he would vote for non-confidence in the Trudeau government. It’s a question everybody is wondering. In this case, Singh ignored it but did react to the “corrupted bastard” comment.
“Who said that?” he said, pointing toward the camera holder and another person.
Singh, who is trained in the martial arts, was aggressive in his approaching of these men — one of whom was wearing an anti-vaccination T-shirt and a Maple Leafs ball cap.
“Was it you?” said Singh.
No one owned up to it.
“You are a coward, you wouldn’t say it to my face,” said Singh.
On X the leader’s brother Gurratan Singh, who faced controversy himself for once holding a “F*** police” posted “my brother has stood up to bullies his whole life, and we all know bullies fold when someone stands up to them. People forget he’s trained in MMA for years — he’s not afraid of these far-right cowards. It’s time we all stand up to them.”
More spin. No one wanted to fight Singh or suggested anything of the sort. It was the NDP boss who was the aggressor.
He’s certainly entitled to chirp back and determine who said the comment to him but to use it for political gain is just politics.
People suggesting the protesters chickened out or turtled are forgetting with three Parliamentary Protective Service officers standing right there, the people who were asking the questions understood that if they made one move, they would be the ones in a whole heap of trouble. So they did the right thing by backing down. Singh took this action all on his own and the law enforcement there rightly let him handle it alone. No one was hurt.
Now, the reaction of most of the media and political world is in favour of what Singh did. But analyze it closer and it’s clear if he had just ignored the comment, as he often does, and just kept walking, there would have been no incident. This time he took issue and engaged people about it but is now placing blame elsewhere.
“For days now, bullies in Ottawa have been spewing hate and harassing Canadians who don’t agree with them,” Singh posted to X. “An Indigenous woman being called a Nazi. Staff being harassed. Journalists being yelled at.”
None of that has anything to do with his exchange. There was no hate directed toward Singh in this instance. He was merely asked a question, and somebody offered a harsh opinion. That’s free speech. Pleasant or not, every Canadian is entitled to it.
As for members of Parliament who dish it out better than they take it, sometimes they need to develop a thicker skin.
torontosun.com
Author of the article:Joe Warmington
Published Sep 18, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 3 minute read
Instead of owning up to his own overreaction to benign protesters at Parliament Hill, Jagmeet Singh is now trying to dump it on political opponents who had nothing to do with it.
That whole spectacle was created by Singh and Singh alone.
But now suddenly Pierre Poilievre is to blame for Jagmeet Singh’s bizarre square-off with protesters in Ottawa?
“That’s the country Pierre Poilievre wants,” Singh posted to X. “Me? I believe everyone should feel safe walking our streets. I believe we need to stand up to bullies and shut down hate. Canadians believe in lifting each other up. Not tearing each other down. Stand with us.”
The only problem is what happened had nothing to do with the Poilievre. As the viral video shows, this time, Question Period was not in the House of Commons but outside of it on the street near the West Block.
It was escalated by Singh and not by those who were asking him questions or offering opinions. In fact, a new video posted by Canadian Free Living offers a perspective which shows Singh choosing to not ignore a rude comment made to him and, instead, turn around and come back to look for and confront the person who made it.
The federal NDP leader, who recently ended his supply-and-confidence agreement with the minority Liberal government, took the bait and reacted.
“Corrupted bastard,” was the comment that could be heard from the video shot Tuesday in Ottawa.
Not a nice thing to say but far worse has been said to nearly every politician. All MPs face this kind of stuff. They work for the public who are entitled to ask them questions or comment on their performances and positions.
This particular comment came after an unidentified person asked Singh the pertinent question if he would vote for non-confidence in the Trudeau government. It’s a question everybody is wondering. In this case, Singh ignored it but did react to the “corrupted bastard” comment.
“Who said that?” he said, pointing toward the camera holder and another person.
Singh, who is trained in the martial arts, was aggressive in his approaching of these men — one of whom was wearing an anti-vaccination T-shirt and a Maple Leafs ball cap.
“Was it you?” said Singh.
No one owned up to it.
“You are a coward, you wouldn’t say it to my face,” said Singh.
On X the leader’s brother Gurratan Singh, who faced controversy himself for once holding a “F*** police” posted “my brother has stood up to bullies his whole life, and we all know bullies fold when someone stands up to them. People forget he’s trained in MMA for years — he’s not afraid of these far-right cowards. It’s time we all stand up to them.”
More spin. No one wanted to fight Singh or suggested anything of the sort. It was the NDP boss who was the aggressor.
He’s certainly entitled to chirp back and determine who said the comment to him but to use it for political gain is just politics.
People suggesting the protesters chickened out or turtled are forgetting with three Parliamentary Protective Service officers standing right there, the people who were asking the questions understood that if they made one move, they would be the ones in a whole heap of trouble. So they did the right thing by backing down. Singh took this action all on his own and the law enforcement there rightly let him handle it alone. No one was hurt.
Now, the reaction of most of the media and political world is in favour of what Singh did. But analyze it closer and it’s clear if he had just ignored the comment, as he often does, and just kept walking, there would have been no incident. This time he took issue and engaged people about it but is now placing blame elsewhere.
“For days now, bullies in Ottawa have been spewing hate and harassing Canadians who don’t agree with them,” Singh posted to X. “An Indigenous woman being called a Nazi. Staff being harassed. Journalists being yelled at.”
None of that has anything to do with his exchange. There was no hate directed toward Singh in this instance. He was merely asked a question, and somebody offered a harsh opinion. That’s free speech. Pleasant or not, every Canadian is entitled to it.
As for members of Parliament who dish it out better than they take it, sometimes they need to develop a thicker skin.
WARMINGTON: Jagmeet Singh blaming Pierre Poilievre for protester comment spin of the week
Instead of owning up to his own overreaction to benign protesters at Parliament Hill, Singh is now trying to dump it on political opponents.
This part is hysterical: Gould accused the Conservative leader of bullying reporters and promising to defund the CBC in a time of "incredible disinformation." She said that when Poilievre is challenged by journalists, he responds "as a bully, as someone who will not stand to scrutiny.House of Commons made it through the first day of the Fall sitting so far now today. Liberal House leader Karina Gould kicked off the fall sitting of Parliament Monday by calling Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre a "fraudster" and a "bully" and accusing him of holding a secret agenda that Canadians won't like.
Is it “Abortion” or “Gun Control” or maybe even “Aborting Gun Control” even? "What I heard yesterday from Mr. Poilievre was so over the top, so irresponsible, so immature and something only a fraudster would do," Gould said Monday in Ottawa.
She said the Conservative leader's attacks on carbon pricing are an effort to "distract Canadians from his real agenda … because he knows that they won't like it if they find out."
Gould was referring to a speech Poilievre delivered to his caucus Sunday morning in which he said the government's plan to increase the carbon price would cause a "nuclear winter" for the economy.
"There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high … Our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter," Poilievre said.
"Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere." Here’s the CBC Link:
She accused the Conservative leader of bullying reporters and promising to defund the CBC in a time of "incredible disinformation." She said that when Poilievre is challenged by journalists, he responds "as a bully, as someone who will not stand to scrutiny."Liberal House leader calls Poilievre a 'fraudster' and a 'bully' as Commons returns — CBC News
Liberal House leader Karina Gould kicked off the fall sitting of Parliament Monday by calling Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre a "fraudster" and a "bully" and accusing him of holding a secret agenda that Canadians won't like.
As the House of Commons resumed, Pierre Poilievre and his Conservatives demanded a carbon tax election, while Justin Trudeau claimed the Opposition leader doesn’t care about Canada or Canadians.
“After nine years of NDP-Liberals, taxes, up, costs, up, crime’s up, time’s up, and now he wants a 300% carbon tax hike all the way up to 61 cents a litre,” Poilievre said, as Question Period began again.
“Why not let Canadians choose a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime now?”
We all knew that question was coming. What wasn’t known was how the Liberals would try to frame the Conservatives going forward. Now we know, as uncaring and lying partisans just out for themselves and their rich friends.
In other words, the standard Liberal attacks on Conservatives. It doesn’t matter that it’s all lies; it’s worked in the past, and Trudeau’s Liberals desperately hope it will work again.
LILLEY: Poilievre, Trudeau set battle lines as Question Period returns — Toronto Sun
Both leaders look to frame the next election in the minds of voters.
A) The CBC is a major source of incredible disinformation in Canada. B) Whenever Trudeau is challenged in the House he responds as a bully, as someone who will not stand up to scrutiny. I mean ffs he and everyone else in his caucus and cabinet absolutely refuse to answer a simple, basic question about anything. Just some "form" answer they keep repeating ad nauseum. As if they keep repeating the lie it will somehow come true.
It's also interesting to see comrade Gould using the same tactic as the CCP and Putin. Accuse your enemy of doing the very shit you yourself do and are doing.
Axe the Tax sounds great, until you dig deeper. Remember when the GST replaced the 14.5% manufacturers sales tax? Hardly anything saw a 7.5% price reduction. Manufacturers just pocketed the hidden tax and added it to their bottom line.
So what guarantees or mechanisms does Pierre plan on putting in place to make sure the carbon tax (a hidden tax just like the old MST) is removed from pricing at ALL levels of production and distribution so retail costs on food and fuel and utilities etc will actually drop by the equivalent amount? Be a real dick move sticking Canadians with the higher pricing that was a result of the carbon tax with no rebate of any kind forthcoming.
So what guarantees or mechanisms does Pierre plan on putting in place to make sure the carbon tax (a hidden tax just like the old MST) is removed from pricing at ALL levels of production and distribution so retail costs on food and fuel and utilities etc will actually drop by the equivalent amount? Be a real dick move sticking Canadians with the higher pricing that was a result of the carbon tax with no rebate of any kind forthcoming.
I can't afford to go back to Ontario, but if I could, I'd go to the capital and call Singh a Corrupted Bastard. I can't wrap my head around why this guy choked. Other than he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.
And I know, armchair quarterback, woulda, coulda, but let's break it down.
I'm a little loose with the dialogue. I couldn't find a transcript. So, pinch of salt.
Singh walks by with his security detail.
I yell, "Corrupted bastard!"
He spins around, storms toward me, and says,"You have something to say. You're a coward if you can't say it to my face."
I reply, "I cannot tell a lie. It was I, and yes, you are a corrupted bastard who has propped up another corrupt bastard. What of it?"
What is Singh's next move? Seriously, what does he do next?
Hit me? Please do, I'll own that fucking Rolex watch, and after I'm done suing Singh, I'll sue the RCMP for allowing it to escalate to that point. Then I'll retire.
I'd say hitting me is out.
What are his other options? He could try to sue me, but I think that would blow up politically and monetarily in his face because I would countersue, and I'd get that hot lawyer who represented Mark Norman and Ghomeshi.
He could tell me about the great pharmacare that isn't really pharmacare but two drugs and isn't that great..
The protester heckler was a wimp.
And I know, armchair quarterback, woulda, coulda, but let's break it down.
I'm a little loose with the dialogue. I couldn't find a transcript. So, pinch of salt.
Singh walks by with his security detail.
I yell, "Corrupted bastard!"
He spins around, storms toward me, and says,"You have something to say. You're a coward if you can't say it to my face."
I reply, "I cannot tell a lie. It was I, and yes, you are a corrupted bastard who has propped up another corrupt bastard. What of it?"
What is Singh's next move? Seriously, what does he do next?
Hit me? Please do, I'll own that fucking Rolex watch, and after I'm done suing Singh, I'll sue the RCMP for allowing it to escalate to that point. Then I'll retire.
I'd say hitting me is out.
What are his other options? He could try to sue me, but I think that would blow up politically and monetarily in his face because I would countersue, and I'd get that hot lawyer who represented Mark Norman and Ghomeshi.
He could tell me about the great pharmacare that isn't really pharmacare but two drugs and isn't that great..
The protester heckler was a wimp.
The old secret agenda returns . If once you succeed try try again .House of Commons made it through the first day of the Fall sitting so far now today. Liberal House leader Karina Gould kicked off the fall sitting of Parliament Monday by calling Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre a "fraudster" and a "bully" and accusing him of holding a secret agenda that Canadians won't like.
Is it “Abortion” or “Gun Control” or maybe even “Aborting Gun Control” even? "What I heard yesterday from Mr. Poilievre was so over the top, so irresponsible, so immature and something only a fraudster would do," Gould said Monday in Ottawa.
She said the Conservative leader's attacks on carbon pricing are an effort to "distract Canadians from his real agenda … because he knows that they won't like it if they find out."
Gould was referring to a speech Poilievre delivered to his caucus Sunday morning in which he said the government's plan to increase the carbon price would cause a "nuclear winter" for the economy.
"There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high … Our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter," Poilievre said.
"Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere." Here’s the CBC Link:
She accused the Conservative leader of bullying reporters and promising to defund the CBC in a time of "incredible disinformation." She said that when Poilievre is challenged by journalists, he responds "as a bully, as someone who will not stand to scrutiny."Liberal House leader calls Poilievre a 'fraudster' and a 'bully' as Commons returns — CBC News
Liberal House leader Karina Gould kicked off the fall sitting of Parliament Monday by calling Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre a "fraudster" and a "bully" and accusing him of holding a secret agenda that Canadians won't like.
As the House of Commons resumed, Pierre Poilievre and his Conservatives demanded a carbon tax election, while Justin Trudeau claimed the Opposition leader doesn’t care about Canada or Canadians.
“After nine years of NDP-Liberals, taxes, up, costs, up, crime’s up, time’s up, and now he wants a 300% carbon tax hike all the way up to 61 cents a litre,” Poilievre said, as Question Period began again.
“Why not let Canadians choose a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime now?”
We all knew that question was coming. What wasn’t known was how the Liberals would try to frame the Conservatives going forward. Now we know, as uncaring and lying partisans just out for themselves and their rich friends.
In other words, the standard Liberal attacks on Conservatives. It doesn’t matter that it’s all lies; it’s worked in the past, and Trudeau’s Liberals desperately hope it will work again.
LILLEY: Poilievre, Trudeau set battle lines as Question Period returns — Toronto Sun
Both leaders look to frame the next election in the minds of voters.
It was staged. Because yeah, just like you said, what's Singh gonna do about it, assault the guy? He would be SO finished and SO sued.I can't afford to go back to Ontario, but if I could, I'd go to the capital and call Singh a Corrupted Bastard. I can't wrap my head around why this guy choked. Other than he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.
And I know, armchair quarterback, woulda, coulda, but let's break it down.
I'm a little loose with the dialogue. I couldn't find a transcript. So, pinch of salt.
Singh walks by with his security detail.
I yell, "Corrupted bastard!"
He spins around, storms toward me, and says,"You have something to say. You're a coward if you can't say it to my face."
I reply, "I cannot tell a lie. It was I, and yes, you are a corrupted bastard who has propped up another corrupt bastard. What of it?"
What is Singh's next move? Seriously, what does he do next?
Hit me? Please do, I'll own that fucking Rolex watch, and after I'm done suing Singh, I'll sue the RCMP for allowing it to escalate to that point. Then I'll retire.
I'd say hitting me is out.
What are his other options? He could try to sue me, but I think that would blow up politically and monetarily in his face because I would countersue, and I'd get that hot lawyer who represented Mark Norman and Ghomeshi.
He could tell me about the great pharmacare that isn't really pharmacare but two drugs and isn't that great..
The protester heckler was a wimp.
As for all this whiny crap about protecting politicians from this kind of stuff, funny how they aren't all that concerned about the junior level govt workers who have to put up with that kind of crap on a pretty regular basis. And for that matter, who's protecting us from politicians like Jusmeet Singhdeau? Certainly not those great Candian institutions they keep saying they're defending and protecting.
Apparently, CTV edited together accidentally several sentences from Pierre Poilievre about the carbon tax to make it state something about him cutting the dental plan thing that the NDP wishes was national? Accidentally? That that was what the non-confidence vote was over? Something that Poilievre never said? And then they apologized on Twitter or something? Let’s see what the CBC has to say about this:
CTV News misled Canadians to believe that the Conservatives were putting forward a non-confidence motion to stop the Trudeau government’s dental care plan.
CTV news said the misrepresentation came from a “misunderstanding” during the editing process.
The legacy media outlet issued a “correction” Monday after the Conservatives discovered its editors had spliced various clips from a scrum with Pierre Poilievre.
On Sunday, CTV News broadcasted a segment about the non-confidencemotion, which featured a doctored clip of Poilievre supposedly saying the Conservatives wanted to trigger an election to stop the government’s dental care plan.
The clip was manipulated by cutting the first words from Poilievre’s statement, saying, “We need a carbon tax so Canadians can vote to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, and stop the crime with a common-sense Conservative government,” at the scrum and editing it together in the middle of him saying, “That’s why it’s time to put forward a motion for a carbon tax election.”
“Close to 650,000 Canadians have already received care. While the continuation of the plan appears safe for now, the events of the last week have raised new questions over the plan’s future,” CTV News anchor Christina Tenaglia said in the Sunday night broadcast prompting the clip.
“That’s why we need to put forward a motion,” the broadcast showed Poilievre saying.
However, Poilievre never said such a thing, but at this point, does it matter?
CTV News spliced three parts of different sentences together to create a new one that Pierre Poilievre never said. That seems a little…..manipulative?
(Bell Media, the parent company of CTV News, has received media bailouts worth hundreds of millions in tax subsidies from the Trudeau government. In February, Bell was granted $40 million in annual subsidies to save jobs and keep the media giant afloat, though the company fired over 4,800 workers)
CTV News misled Canadians to believe that the Conservatives were putting forward a non-confidence motion to stop the Trudeau government’s dental care plan.
CTV news said the misrepresentation came from a “misunderstanding” during the editing process.
The legacy media outlet issued a “correction” Monday after the Conservatives discovered its editors had spliced various clips from a scrum with Pierre Poilievre.
The clip was manipulated by cutting the first words from Poilievre’s statement, saying, “We need a carbon tax so Canadians can vote to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, and stop the crime with a common-sense Conservative government,” at the scrum and editing it together in the middle of him saying, “That’s why it’s time to put forward a motion for a carbon tax election.”
“Close to 650,000 Canadians have already received care. While the continuation of the plan appears safe for now, the events of the last week have raised new questions over the plan’s future,” CTV News anchor Christina Tenaglia said in the Sunday night broadcast prompting the clip.
“That’s why we need to put forward a motion,” the broadcast showed Poilievre saying.
However, Poilievre never said such a thing, but at this point, does it matter?
(Bell Media, the parent company of CTV News, has received media bailouts worth hundreds of millions in tax subsidies from the Trudeau government. In February, Bell was granted $40 million in annual subsidies to save jobs and keep the media giant afloat, though the company fired over 4,800 workers)
"CTV news said the misrepresentation came from a “misunderstanding” during the editing process."
Riiiiight. And my ass pumps buttermilk.
Riiiiight. And my ass pumps buttermilk.
Didn’t the liberals bring it a law against this (?) or is that still in the pipe? With a federal election that could come any day now, and the Liberal government’s public favour continually waning, some, shall we say, unorthodox media practices appear to be afoot, particularly in terms of how Pierre Poilievre is being presented to Canadian viewers.
People accidentally get misquoted, the wrong images accidentally end up being used with stories, the best experts aren’t always chosen. Sometimes mistakes happen.
This week, CTV News’ Omar Sachedina aired a statement apologizing to Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative party: “Last night, in a report on this broadcast, we presented a comment by the official opposition leader Pierre Poilievre that was taken out of context. It left viewers with the impression the conservative non-confidence motion was to defeat the Liberals dental care program. In fact, the Conservatives have made it clear the motion is based on a long list of issues with the Liberal government including the carbon tax. A misunderstanding during the editing process resulted in this misrepresentation. We unreservedly apologize to Mr. Poilievre and the Conservative party of Canada. We regret this report went to air in the manner it did.” The same apology made its way through X in a tweet.
Presented a comment? Taken out of context? A misunderstanding during the editing process? CTV’s communications office no doubt spent hours frantically working on that one.
What exactly happened? Could it have been an honest mistake? I reviewed the CTV segment and the original CPAC video that the apology was issued for, and I encourage readers to do the same.
Let’s start with the CTV news segment that was framed around the question of what NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s tearing up of the Liberal supply and confidence agreement might mean for the Liberal’s dental care program and mentions that the Conservatives will be tabling a non-confidence vote.
Before the infamous edit, Canadian viewers of CTV were presented the following voiceover by CTV’s Cristina Tenaglia:
“A week after Singh nixed his pact with the Liberals, the Canadian government released ads, noting that close to 650,000 Canadians have already received (dental) care.”
At this point in the voiceover, CTV cuts to a clip of Poilievre standing in a hallway answering reporters’ questions. (Apparently Pierre Poilievre does answer media questions).
Tenaglia’s voiceover resumes, and, with Poilievre’s image now in a hallway in the frame, Canadians are told: “While the continuation of the plan appears safe for now, the events of the last week have raised new questions over the plan’s future.”
We know this next part is supposed to be scary because Poilievre is now squarely in the frame and is presented as saying, “That’s why we need to put forward a motion,” suggesting that Poilievre had been referring to the dental program…
…Only the Conservative leader didn’t actually use that phrasing, and he was not referring to the dental program.
Although labelled CTV in the segment, the original clip of Poilievre answering reporters’ questions in that hallway was from CPAC. In that original video, it is clear that Poilievre says, “That’s why it’s time to put forward a motion for a carbon tax election.”
So, in an official news segment about whether the Liberal dental care plan was in danger due to Jagmeet Singh ending the supply and confidence agreement, someone from CTV appears to have chosen a clip from CPAC with a statement from Poilievre that was about a “carbon tax election,” not dental care, placed it in the segment in a way that appeared to present Poilievre as directly attacking the program, and apparently edited his words resulting in the decontextualization and apparent misframing of Poilievre. What the heck is happening to our media ecosystem in Canada?
The Conservative party’s media spokesperson, Sebastian Skamski, stated that CTV’s apology “doesn’t cut it.” The party has demanded an apology that acknowledges that this wasn’t a “simple misunderstanding” or a typical but regrettable newsroom accident. According to Skamski, the party will no longer engage with CTV News or its reporters “until they explicitly acknowledge their malicious editing & omission of context to undermine Pierre Poilievre.”
This, of course, isn’t the first time the Conservatives have accused outlets of being biased towards them. Who among us can forget the “How do you like them apples” interview where reporter Don Urquhart casually accuses Poilievre of being a “populist” and suggested that he was “taking pages from Donald Trump’s playbook.” When Poilievre pressed him to explain what he meant by these phrases, he couldn’t.
This kind of hyperventilating biased coverage of Poilievre is constant from all progressive fronts.
The Toronto Star and CBC painted a Poilievre conversation with anti-tax protestors as an endorsement of unknown and unsubstantiated far-right activities.
The Canadian Press made the claim that Poilievre was moving conspiracy theories from “the fringes of the internet to mainstream thinking” when he criticized the World Economic Forum. No evidence was offered to support this assertion, and the fact that Liberal and NDP MPs have been similarly critical of the WEF was ignored.
When progressive parties start waning in popularity, the discourse noticeably shifts to accusing conservatives of engaging in “far-right” rhetoric. We’ve come to expect this from MPs while engaged in political theatre, but journalists appear to have made it their side gig.
CBC tried to aid Trudeau in an attempt to associate Poilievre with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, simply because Jones said he liked Poilievre’s policies. Ditto, Press Progress.
And, in probably the worst self-own I’ve ever seen, a Canadian Press reporter tried to repeat Urquhart’s disastrous apple approach with Poilievre at a gas station during a media availability, asking him if he was “trying to court the far-right vote.” Somehow surprised by his response to her loaded question, she tweeted, “He would not answer the question, saying my question sounded like a CBC smear job and a distraction from the real issues.” Where are these journalists learning their interview skills?
Look, it’s entirely possible what happened at CTV was an honest mistake. But it is entirely understandable the Conservatives reacted the way they have.
Either way, our media environment cannot go on this way. Reporters must engage with their subjects in good faith and with charity. Otherwise, no one will give them an interview. It’s common sense. That doesn’t mean journalists can’t ask tough questions and reveal hard truths. They can and should. It’s the job.
It just means those questions can’t be loaded or wracked with conspiracy theories, association fallacies, and name-calling, and, as CTV has recently learned, framing and editing practices must be fair to all political candidates, not just the ones whose policies they prefer. Our goal should be to provide accurate information to Canadians so they can make informed decisions. CTV failed horribly in that respect, accidentally or not.
Terry Newman: CTV delivers another shameful example of anti-Poilievre bias — National Post
Half-hearted apologies aren't likely to make this go away
From the other side of the fence…
“Somehow” during the production of a two-minute news item for CTV National News last Sunday, the weekend crew mangled a quote from Pierre Poilievre.
The story was about the Liberal government’s dental care program, which could have been jeopardized if the Conservatives had succeeded in bringing down the government with a non-confidence motion.
I was told by two sources, independently of one another, that there was a problem at Poilievre’s scrum with the Dejero, the piece of equipment that transfers clips from CTV’s camera. The editor working on the story patched together some scraps of audio. Poilievre ended up being quoted thus: “That’s why we need to put forward a motion,” which is not what he said. He said: “That’s why it’s time to put forward a motion for a carbon tax election.” Hmmm…
This gave the impression that the purpose of Poilievre’s motion was to stop poor people from getting free dental care. He does indeed seem to want to stop that (?According to…?), but that’s not why he brought the motion, and so the Conservatives were right to complain, which they did.
Sebastian Skamski, Poilievre’s director of media relations, wrote to CTV demanding an apology and denouncing CTV for a “deliberate attempt to mischaracterize” Poilievre’s position. The next day, the network apologized “unreservedly” for the mistake, blaming it on a “misunderstanding in the editing process.”
The Conservatives could have let the matter end there. Skamski said on Twitter that the apology did not go far enough. “Until they explicitly acknowledge their malicious editing and omission of context to undermine Pierre Poilievre, Conservative MPs won't engage with CTV News and its reporters,” he wrote.
CTV surrendered (?) on Thursday, announcing that the two people responsible for failing to meet the network’s high editorial standards were no longer part of the team. The matter appeared to be closed…from the CTV perspective…
CTV didn’t say the two scape goats were no longer part of the team (as in the CTV team?), but they actually said these two scapegoats are no longer part of the “News team” which is a completely different thing altogether..but maybe this misquote of the CTV statement is also a “misunderstanding in the editing process” ???
In deflection…What happened years ago in newspapers is now happening in TV. Google and Meta took the ad money, and when the money goes, so do the experienced people. Those individuals sometimes say things like: “Wait a minute. That’s not what Poilievre said. We can’t air that.” (See Trudeau Liberal Bill C-18 among its other media controlling efforts that the above statement is backhandedly advocating for while trying to excuse away a bias against non-Liberal interests)
In the place of a “healthy” (?) journalistic ecosystem, we have increasingly powerful direct communications between politicians and voters through social media. We witnessed that this week after CTV messed up, and Conservatives took to the internet to denounce what they insinuated was a nefarious plot cooked up by a cabal of Trudeau-loving CTVers. The allegation is ridiculous.
There is something creepy about the whole thing, though, in part because Poilievre had been denouncing Bell even before the error last week. It’s not entirely clear why he is doing that, because Bell executives are likely as conservative as most people in Bay Street corner offices. But Poilievre has got them sweating, because everyone thinks he will be prime minister before long, and he will be in charge of regulatory issues they care about a lot more than their money-losing news division. (Neither Bell nor CTV’s Ottawa bureau responded to my inquiries on Friday.) Hmmm…
There is going to be something ugly about the coverage of the next election, because more than half the people covering it are going to be doing so with the knowledge that Poilievre may end their employment — by defunding CBC, ending subsidies to newspapers or exacting revenge on Bell in ways that we do not yet understand???
CTV wasn’t out to get Pierre Poilievre. The truth is more alarming — Toronto Star
While the Conservatives were quick to call the error malicious, something more worrying could well be to blame.
That’s because hardly actually got a tax reduction. What we used to do to avoid the MST sell materials separately from fabrication. Say you wanted a trailer hitch for your truck. We would sell you the materials on one bill and fabricate the hitch on another bill, or separate company name. That way you did not pay MST on the materials. When GST came in, that no longer worked.
The only reason CBC is defending CTV is because they are looking at the polls and shitting their pants.
Last edited:
Until only recently, Justin Trudeau enjoyed what appears to have been the longest media honeymoon of perhaps any prime minister. And yet, when the opposition Conservatives point out the obvious bias, or avoid media questions, reporters and columnists gasp as if democracy is crumbling before them.
Pierre Poilievre is accused of all sorts of nefarious and evil actions and intensions. A grand narrative is always asserted, but rarely is it ever backed up.
Examples are not hard to find. A Toronto Star columnist has argued Poilievre would try to claim elections Conservatives lost were illegitimate, or rigged. No evidence was cited.
A Canadian Press story accused Poilievre of spreading conspiracy theories. Again, no evidence was cited.
A CBC story accused the Conservative leader of pandering to an extremist group called Diagolon and the only evidence cited was that he walked past a door with some graffiti scrawled on the bottom.
Much of the same media has been remarkably incurious about any number of Liberal government scandals. Chinese election interference? Actually Poilievre is the one to blame for making such a big deal of it, according to some writers.
Pressuring the attorney general not to prosecute a politically important Quebec company? Why should we care about that?
Inflation? an invention of Poilievre’s imagination. And on and on and on it goes, media parroting Liberal talking points, running interference for Trudeau, and imagining the worst of Poilievre.
For those worried about polarization in our society, all news media need to take better care to ensure they are reporting in good faith. This behaviour doesn’t relent, even in the face of actual media malpractice that goes well beyond bias. So it was when a CTV News report last month featured a clip of Poilievre speaking that was altered to make it sound like he was bringing a non-confidence motion to topple the government as a way to stop dental care, which was a fabrication.
Here is what Poilievre had actually said: “That’s why it’s time to put forward a motion for a carbon tax election.”
And here is what CTV had him say: “That’s why we need to put forward a motion,” which apparently fit better with the story on dental care.
apple.news
It was egregious conduct and those responsible were rightly removed from CTV News, but not until Poilievre’s Conservatives demanded an apology that admitted the nature of the manipulated clip, and said they would boycott any interviews with CTV.
Ask most journalists in Toronto, as well as any Liberal MP, what they think of this mess and, predictably, they respond by clutching their pearls. How dare the Conservatives bully the media? How dare CTV cave?
When comparable behaviour comes from Liberals, such as after the media accurately reported on the SNC-Lavalin scandal (“the allegations in the Globe story this morning are false”) or, again, accurately reported on foreign election interference (it is the media that is guilty of “foreign interference”), or the fact the Liberal gun ban initially included hunting rifles (“misinformation”), you can’t throw a stone without finding a reporter or a pundit willing to back the government.
But, when Poilievre responds negatively to a media report that was clearly doctored, they blame him rather than those responsible.
Case in point comes from Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne, who argued last week that the reaction to the manipulated clip was overblown. The CTV employees weren’t rightfully removed from the newsroom for failing the most basic of journalistic principles, they were, according to Coyne, canned as a “sacrifice” to placate Poilievre??? Seriously?
As for the offence itself, one can almost hear Coyne rolling his eyes, “It’s one quote in one story on one network on one day.” Well, no, it isn’t just one story on one network on one day, it is the clearest example of a general anti-Conservative bias in the media that has long existed. Perhaps the extent of the bias is exaggerated from time to time, but the fact it exists is unmistakable.
Even so, the issue with CTV’s manipulated story isn’t bias, it’s about integrity. It shouldn’t be a partisan issue, and the fact that some journalists wish to make it partisan suggests a bias.
Coyne went on to assign motives to CTV executives and intentions to Poilievre that he had no way of knowing. When it came to CTV’s statement announcing it dismissed the two employees in question — it read “we sincerely and unreservedly apologize” and acknowledged the offence “violated our editorial standards” — Coyne attributed that to “fear.” As for the motivations behind the Conservatives, Coyne argued that the Tories are not merely trying to “work the refs,” but “trying to take the refs out of the game altogether.”
We at National Post are old friends with Andrew Coyne, but he is wrong here. That the Conservatives would want its supporters to listen to them, to trust them, and not the media is hardly surprising. All political parties, and all governments, have complicated relationships with the media. Suggesting Poilievre is trying to take the “refs” out isn’t backed up.
Regardless, we all have a duty to get it right. Integrity is the news media’s best resource, and if clear violations of integrity are dismissed because they involve a politician the media doesn’t like, more serious problems abound than simple bias.
apple.news
Pierre Poilievre is accused of all sorts of nefarious and evil actions and intensions. A grand narrative is always asserted, but rarely is it ever backed up.
Examples are not hard to find. A Toronto Star columnist has argued Poilievre would try to claim elections Conservatives lost were illegitimate, or rigged. No evidence was cited.
A Canadian Press story accused Poilievre of spreading conspiracy theories. Again, no evidence was cited.
A CBC story accused the Conservative leader of pandering to an extremist group called Diagolon and the only evidence cited was that he walked past a door with some graffiti scrawled on the bottom.
Much of the same media has been remarkably incurious about any number of Liberal government scandals. Chinese election interference? Actually Poilievre is the one to blame for making such a big deal of it, according to some writers.
Pressuring the attorney general not to prosecute a politically important Quebec company? Why should we care about that?
Inflation? an invention of Poilievre’s imagination. And on and on and on it goes, media parroting Liberal talking points, running interference for Trudeau, and imagining the worst of Poilievre.
For those worried about polarization in our society, all news media need to take better care to ensure they are reporting in good faith. This behaviour doesn’t relent, even in the face of actual media malpractice that goes well beyond bias. So it was when a CTV News report last month featured a clip of Poilievre speaking that was altered to make it sound like he was bringing a non-confidence motion to topple the government as a way to stop dental care, which was a fabrication.
Here is what Poilievre had actually said: “That’s why it’s time to put forward a motion for a carbon tax election.”
And here is what CTV had him say: “That’s why we need to put forward a motion,” which apparently fit better with the story on dental care.
NP View: CTV got it wrong. Media dismissals of that fact are even worse — National Post
All newsrooms should take care to report in good faith
Ask most journalists in Toronto, as well as any Liberal MP, what they think of this mess and, predictably, they respond by clutching their pearls. How dare the Conservatives bully the media? How dare CTV cave?
When comparable behaviour comes from Liberals, such as after the media accurately reported on the SNC-Lavalin scandal (“the allegations in the Globe story this morning are false”) or, again, accurately reported on foreign election interference (it is the media that is guilty of “foreign interference”), or the fact the Liberal gun ban initially included hunting rifles (“misinformation”), you can’t throw a stone without finding a reporter or a pundit willing to back the government.
But, when Poilievre responds negatively to a media report that was clearly doctored, they blame him rather than those responsible.
Case in point comes from Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne, who argued last week that the reaction to the manipulated clip was overblown. The CTV employees weren’t rightfully removed from the newsroom for failing the most basic of journalistic principles, they were, according to Coyne, canned as a “sacrifice” to placate Poilievre??? Seriously?
As for the offence itself, one can almost hear Coyne rolling his eyes, “It’s one quote in one story on one network on one day.” Well, no, it isn’t just one story on one network on one day, it is the clearest example of a general anti-Conservative bias in the media that has long existed. Perhaps the extent of the bias is exaggerated from time to time, but the fact it exists is unmistakable.
Even so, the issue with CTV’s manipulated story isn’t bias, it’s about integrity. It shouldn’t be a partisan issue, and the fact that some journalists wish to make it partisan suggests a bias.
Coyne went on to assign motives to CTV executives and intentions to Poilievre that he had no way of knowing. When it came to CTV’s statement announcing it dismissed the two employees in question — it read “we sincerely and unreservedly apologize” and acknowledged the offence “violated our editorial standards” — Coyne attributed that to “fear.” As for the motivations behind the Conservatives, Coyne argued that the Tories are not merely trying to “work the refs,” but “trying to take the refs out of the game altogether.”
We at National Post are old friends with Andrew Coyne, but he is wrong here. That the Conservatives would want its supporters to listen to them, to trust them, and not the media is hardly surprising. All political parties, and all governments, have complicated relationships with the media. Suggesting Poilievre is trying to take the “refs” out isn’t backed up.
Regardless, we all have a duty to get it right. Integrity is the news media’s best resource, and if clear violations of integrity are dismissed because they involve a politician the media doesn’t like, more serious problems abound than simple bias.
NP View: CTV got it wrong. Media dismissals of that fact are even worse — National Post
All newsrooms should take care to report in good faith