Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s attempts at selling the internet regulation bill C-10 have been going so poorly he’s been pivoting to accusing the Conservatives of “fake news” and “extremism,” and in one case calling a pro-life MP a hypocrite for supporting free speech.
Also, the RCMP might not have deleted its data from the long-gun registry despite being ordered to do so by parliament.
Plus, Pastor Jacob Reaume of the Trinity Bible Chapel joins the show after the Ontario government changed the locks on his church building to keep him and his congregation out.
Canada’s current lockdown measures are some of the most stringent in the world rivalling authoritarian communist states like China and Cuba, Oxford University’s COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT) suggests.
Included in the tracker is a COVID-19 stringency index which measures the strictness of government protocols meant to handle the pandemic.
The score is based on nine variables including school closures, travel bans and other public health measures. Each country is given a value from 0 to 100 by the index, with the score of 100 indicating the strictest policies.
“The project tracks governments’ policies and interventions across a standardized series of indicators and creates a suite of composites indices to measure the extent of these responses. Data is collected and updated in real time by a team of over one hundred Oxford students, alumni and staff, and project partners,” reads a research report on the project.
As of May 3, 2021 Canada had a stringency score of 75.46 which is driven by school and workplace closures, gathering restrictions, stay at home orders and other measures.
In comparison, the severity of China’s lockdown measures only surpasses Canada’s by a few points, with the communist state having a stringency score of 78.24.
Included in the evaluation of China’s score is a stay at home order which requires “total confinement” and other required restrictions on internal movement within the country.
Similarly, Cuba has a stringency score of 79.63 driven by policies such as requiring schools be closed at all levels.
In Canada, civil liberties organizations have challenged a variety of public health measures including the Ontario government’s recent attempt to introduce additional police powers to ensure public health orders are being followed. Recently, the Constitutional Rights Centre launched a constitutional challenge on behalf of 19 current and retired police officers challenging a wide range of COVID-19 measures.
Human rights groups have warned that authoritarian states have used the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to increase totalitarian oppression and control within their own borders.
According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), China’s success in curbing the spread of COVID-19 within its own borders has come at the cost of a loss of human rights.
“The same censorship has persisted in the COVID-19 crisis. Authorities scrubbed social media posts that criticized the government from the internet, sentenced citizen journalist Zhang Zhan to four years in prison, kicked out over a dozen foreign journalists and stonewalled the World Health Organization’s investigation into the origin of the virus,” writes HRW China researcher Yaqiu Wang.
Despite China’s authoritarian methods, the Trudeau government has heaped praise on the communist state for its handling of the virus in the past.
Last year, Liberal Health Minister Patty Hajdu was praised by a bureau chief at a Chinese state media outlet for being a “role model” after defending China’s COVID-19 record.
Conservative MP Rachael Harder has fired back at Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault after Guilbeault accused her of “hypocrisy” for being pro-life and supporting free speech.
In a statement to True North, Harder said Guilbeault’s comments were “inappropriate,” but added they are an example of him availing himself of his right to free speech.
“When he wasn’t able to defend his infringement on people’s Charter rights, he decided to go after my personal values and beliefs. Indeed, freedom is messy and although Mr. Guilbeault’s response was inappropriate, I would never wish for his freedom of speech to be taken from him. He is free to use or misuse his voice. The consequences are his to bear,” Harder said.
The statement comes after Guilbeault attacked her personal beliefs in response to a question about his planned internet regulation bill, C-10, in the House of Commons.
“They are incapable of disagreeing without being disagreeable. When important questions or concerns are raised and the Liberals don’t have answers, their standard response is to deflect, attack, or both. Minister Guilbeault took things to a new low,” Harder added.
During question period on Monday, Harder pressed Guilbealt on whether he will ensure the proposed measures respect the free speech of Canadians.
“Experts say that we need a new evaluation from the justice minister to determine if C-10 respects the Charter,” she asked. “Does the minister agree?”
In response, Guilbeault attacked Harder for her personal stance on abortion, claiming her pro-life beliefs somehow discredit her stance on freedom of speech.
“I find it incredibly hypocritical that the member for Lethbridge (Harder) who, given the opportunity, would not hesitate one minute to remove women’s right to choose – a right protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – but would like us and Canadians to believe that all of the sudden, she cares deeply about said Charter. I have rarely seen such hypocrisy.”
While freedom of thought and expression are explicitly protected by the Charter, the right to abortion is not mentioned and is only legal because the Supreme Court struck down a previous restriction.
If passed, Bill C-10 would radically change the regulations surrounding content posted online in Canada.
The bill sparked national controversy after an amendment was passed which would broaden the scope of the bill to include regulating the content ordinary Canadians post on social media.
Guilbeault has ruthlessly defended C-10, calling anyone who opposes the bill “extremists” and claiming the Conservatives are spreading “fake news” around its provisions.
Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen was awarded the Halifax International Security Forum’s 2020 John McCain Prize for Leadership in Public Service on Monday.
President Tsai was selected as a recipient of the award despite prior reported attempts by the Liberal government to prevent the Taiwanese leader from receiving the honour.
“President Tsai is an inspiration and example to freedom-loving people everywhere,” said the organization’s president Peter Van Praagh told the Globe and Mail.
“Her courage and her fortitude in defending her people against the Chinese Communist Party’s aggression are precisely the qualities the John McCain Prize was designed to recognize.”
In April, it was reported that the Liberal government threatened the forum with a funding cut should it give the award to Tsai.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau later denied the claim and the federal government unanimously voted to support the decision to have the Taiwanese president as this year’s recipient.
In response to Canada’s support for Taiwan, the Chinese government lashed out at parliamentarians accusing them of interfering in China’s affairs and compromising its relationship with the country.
“Canada should recognize that the Taiwan question is highly sensitive [and] prudently and properly handle Taiwan-related issues and avoid further undermining bilateral relations,” said China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Zhao Lijian.
China has increased its hostilities in the region bordering the island nation of Taiwan in recent weeks.
Chinese aggression prompted an international response from Taiwan, the US and Japan in April after a series of military exercises by China took part with the intention of testing Taiwan’s anti-aircraft system capabilities.
In response to the incident, Taiwan pledged to defend itself “to the end” should China attempt to begin a conflict.
“All these seem to be preparing for their final military assault against Taiwan. This is our country, this is our people and this is our way of life. We will defend ourselves to the very end,” Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Joseph Wu
“Taiwan happens to be on the frontline of China’s expansion of its authoritarian order. And if Taiwan is taken by China, I think the consequences will be global.”
A motion by Toronto City Councillor Paul Ainslie (Ward 24) seeks to address the overrepresentation of “white and male” politicians on Canada’s currency.
The motion, which is entitled “Diversification of Depictions on Canadian Coins and Bills to better reflect a more Heterogeneous and Inclusive Society,” asks the City of Toronto to urge the Bank of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mint to print currency that better reflects “multicultural, gender diverse and multiracial” values.
“In the pursuit to better reflect a more heterogeneous and inclusive society this Motion speaks to our currency being overrepresented by politicians, most of whom are white and male, underrepresenting persons who have contributed to other fields of great importance to our society,” writes Coun. Ainslie.
“Our currency does not reflect our current multiracial, gender diverse and multicultural reality as a nation.”
A motion by Toronto councillor Paul Ainslie asks the city to urge the Bank of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mint to change Canadian currency because it depicts too many white male politicians.
The motion was seconded by fellow Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam and will be brought before City Council on May 5, 2021.
Ainslie goes on to cite US President Joe Biden’s recent decision to replace former president Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with that of Harriet Tubman.
“The Biden administration is also considering special coin and bill issues which will give prominence to those who championed women’s rights as well as civil and voting rights. Those being considered include Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Martin Luther King Jr. and Marian Anderson,” argues Ainslee.
In 2016, Canadian Black rights activist Viola Desmond was selected to be featured on the $10 bill.
According to the Bank of Canada website, the decision to make the change was done with the goal of illustrating “the diverse and important contributions women have made in shaping Canada’s history.”
Canada’s $20 bill pays tribute to the reigning monarch and features Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
Liberal Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault referenced a federally-funded organization in his defence of Bill C-10 on Monday and claimed the Conservative Party is spreading “fake news” about the incoming internet regulation bill.
“I would like to quote the head of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (CDCE) who addressed my colleague saying that the CRTC has never regulated content on Canadian TV and radio and that it has never limited freedom of expression on the airwaves and that this legislation will not enable the CRTC to do so and yet the Conservative Party of Canada that continues to spread this fake news,” said Guilbeault in French in response to a question by Conervative MP Alain Reyes.
This isn’t the first time a Liberal MP has accused critics of spreading “fake news.” True North has compiled a list of ten times the Liberals dismissed facts as “fake news” or “disinformation.”
Liberal Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault says the Conservatives are spreading "fake news" about the incoming internet regulation bill, Bill C-10. #cdnpolipic.twitter.com/v1DZ44B3b1
Last week, Guilbeault cited the CDCE while responding to a question by Conservative MP Rachel Harder.
“Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled as to who is trying to deceive whom really? I have in front of me a press release from the Canadian Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which says, regarding Bill C-10, that these ‘characterizations [that this bill would somehow attempt to infringe on free speech] are both factually incorrect and dangerously misleading. They represent neither the text nor the purpose of Bill C-10,”, said Guilbeault.
The CDCE is registered to lobby the government and is the recipient of $375,000 in funding from Canadian Heritage – the ministry in charge of drafting Bill C-10.
According to the CDCE, concerns around how the bill targets free speech rights have put the law “in jeopardy.”
“Let us be clear: these characterizations are both factually incorrect and dangerously misleading. They represent neither the text nor the purpose of Bill C-10,” wrote the CDCE.
“In sum, the CDCE calls on opponents to Bill C-10, including the Conservative Party of Canada, to cease their fearmongering and work with our sector to modernize Canada’s broadcasting policy.”
Guilbeault also cited the group when lashing out at concerns about the bill’s impact on freedom of speech by characterizing those worried about the law as being part of an “extremist element” of the Conservative Party.
“What we are seeing now is that these are big, powerful and, in fact some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet; clearly, the member opposite and her party are just afraid to stand up to them,” said Guilbeault in response to question by Conservative MP Rachael Harder.
“Again it seems that the members of the Conservative Party are listening to the most extremist element of their party, as they have on very important issues such as climate change or women’s right to choose.”
Bill C-10 has recently sparked national controversy after an amendment was passed which would broaden the scope of the bill to include regulating the content ordinary Canadians post on social media.
Last month, MPs on the Heritage Committee voted to remove an exemption for user-generated content, such as YouTube videos. The removal sparked outcries in the mainstream media and among civil liberty groups who characterized the bill as amounting to censorship and government control of the internet.
The Ontario government has locked a southwestern Ontario church’s doors after being granted an injunction in court.
On Friday, the court authorized a request from Ontario’s attorney general to shutter Trinity Bible Chapel over to prevent the congregation from meeting in-person on Sunday.
Officials used a locksmith to ensure no one from the church could access the building, forcing Trinity Bible Chapel to hold its May 2 service online.
Worship services in Ontario are capped at 10 people under the province’s stay-at-home order.
Police allege the church hosted illegal gatherings in violation of the lockdown restrictions on Jan. 22 and Apr. 16.
“A court granted the Province of Ontario the authority to take our facility, at least until next Saturday, with the option of trying to get it for longer by going to court once again this coming week,” Pastor Jacob Reaume said in a statement.
Reaume said the injunction and previous fines will not stop the church’s activities, adding that they will accept any kind of punishment the government gives.
“The purpose of this seizure is to prevent us from meeting as a church. They believe that we will continue meeting in our facility, no matter the fines or the public shame heaped on us,” he wrote.
“We are willing to pay any price necessary to worship our Saviour because He is worth it. He died for us, and we want Him to receive a reward for His suffering.”
A spokesperson from the attorney general’s office confirmed the court order.
“The Court granted interim relief in the form of an Order directing the Sheriff to lock the doors of the Church on a time limited basis. The doors were ordered to be locked, before midnight May 1, 2021, for one week,” the spokesperson told True North.
The government had previously sought an order to close the church in April but this injunction was denied.
The Trinity Bible Chapel and the government will return to court later in the week as the court determines whether the building will remain locked next Sunday.
“Anti-choice groups claim to be acting in the name of ‘gender equality,’ though their ultimate goal of banning abortion – and depriving all women of a fundamental right – shows this claim to be disingenuous,” Yakabuski writes.
This claim has numerous innate errors. To begin, there is no right to abortion in Canada. The 1988 Morgentaler decision ruled that Parliament needed to create a new law to regulate abortion – it has since failed to do so, and thus Canada is in a situation in which abortion is neither legal nor illegal. Canada is one of two countries in the world where this is the case – the other being North Korea.
Interestingly, one of the justices to rule as such in the case was Madame Justice Bertha Wilson, the first female justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Wilson stated, “The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state’s interest becomes ‘compelling’ I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all the relevant disciplines.”
I wonder if the first female justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is feminist enough for Yakabuski – or Justin Trudeau, for that matter.
Secondly, Yakabuski plays the race card stating, “[Social conservatives] place women’s motivations for having an abortion under suspicion, thereby opening the door to discrimination toward and racial profiling of women of colour and immigrant women.”
In English common law, laws are to be applied evenly; that is to say, everyone is equal before and under the law. It is also interesting that the Conservative Party of Canada leadership candidate who proposed asex-selective abortion policy last year was Leslyn Lewis, a black, female lawyer who I doubt has ever been called a racist.
Thirdly, Yakabuski moves onto Lewis herself and the province of Quebec claiming “(Lewis’) socially conservative views, like (Cathay) Wagantall’s private member’s bill, will hurt the Tories in Quebec.”
This is where it is important to look at data and not conjecture.
Finally, Yakabuski states, “Eventually, a future Conservative leader must understand that playing to the so-cons is a losing strategy, period.” He continues, “It might help you win a leadership race, but it will leave you with a stinking albatross around your neck of which no amount of flowery perfume can disguise the stench.”
If pro-lifers are a stinking albatross, then why do they make up the majority of the Conservative caucus?
Why were over two-thirds of the newly elected Conservative MPs in the last federal election pro-life?
Why did pro-life Conservative candidates (both those who won and lost) perform better than their pro-abortion Conservative counterparts in the last election?
Finally, if pro-lifers are a stinking albatross, then why is Peter MacKay not leader of the Conservative Party today?
Reasonable and thoughtful pro-life policies on abortion are winning issues. Over 80% of Canadians support restricting sex-selective abortion while 70% support legal restrictions on late-term abortion.
There are plenty of Canadians who identify as pro-choice but support pro-life policies such as legal restrictions on sex-selective abortion.
The sooner the Conservative Party of Canada recognizes, accepts and embraces these reasonable and popular pro-life policies, the sooner the party can get back to contesting for government and not be mired in all-time low polling.
When I asked my editor this week if it was too late to submit a column on the topic of the federal budget, which was finally released last week after nearly two years without a firm reporting on our country’s finances, he said he would welcome the column.
“The fact that our nation’s finances are crumbling shouldn’t just be a 24 hour news story,” he quipped.
I’m sure the Trudeau government would much prefer if it were a simple 24 hour news story. Take a few blows and wait for the news cycle to move on to something juicier — like an inevitable media pile-on against Conservative premiers Jason Kenney or Doug Ford.
When it comes to news on this budget (can we even call it a budget? That word tends to imply a certain level of frugality and restraint), this spending mess is a story that bears repeating.
The house is on fire. Everything is not fine.
The Trudeau government is now borrowing an astronomical $3 billion per week to stay afloat — much of it being printed by the central bank, putting off the eventual need for drastically higher revenue to find a balance.
Instead, each dollar printed by the feds — in what they call the “modern monetary theory,” which is the profoundly irresponsible “theory” that we can print money and not worry about the consequences or the realities of inflation — means that the money in your wallet and bank account will be worth less.
Trudeau plans to add a jaw-dropping $154 billion to the debt this year, skyrocketing our net debt projections up to $1.5 trillion in the next five years.
Perhaps worst of all is the type of spending that Trudeau is embarking on.
Trudeau is fundamentally increasing the size and scope of the federal government, with big ticket items including his version of the Green New Deal and a National Daycare Program. The latter was thoroughly rejected at the polls by Canadians back in 2006, when they chose instead the Conservative alternative which was a direct monthly stipend for parents of young children.
The Liberals beefed up the Conservative program, renaming it the Canada Child Benefit and offering even more cash to parents. But now we learn that they will also be offering subsidized daycare to those same parents — even though the very purpose of the cash payments was to put the parents in the driver’s seat and give them more choice.
This complete lack of restraint is the essence of Trudeau’s borrowing plan. Say yes to everyone and everything, leveraging future generations for the chance to get re-elected today.
Canadians have seen this move before.
A little over a decade ago, I opposed most of the Harper government’s recession spending following the 2008 financial crisis and global meltdown. Much of that government’s so-called Economic Action Plan was little more than corporate welfare and pork and barrel spending to bribe voters with their own money.
But I applauded Harper for his tactics surrounding recession spending, which was to create temporary spending programs rather than permanently growing the bureaucracy. When the economy improved, Harper was gradually able to roll back most of these programs and achieve a balanced budget by 2014.
Looking at today’s spending figures, it’s incredibly difficult to imagine any government — even one run by a fiscal hawk like Harper or steadfast libertarian like Maxime Bernier — getting back to balance in a mere half decade.
At the height of Harper’s deficit spending, in the 2009-2010 fiscal year, Canada borrowed a staggering $56.4 billion. Well, it was staggering at the time. It pales, however, in comparison to the great Trudeau spending bonanza of the early 2020s.
Harper’s recovery strategy was based on a commitment to free market principles and an understanding of the laws of economics.
Today’s recovery is being led by a group of economically illiterate ideologues. God help us all.
