CBC Turns on Carney | Liberal MP Warns Conservatives During Press Conference

Getting a majority and using it to do this is probably one of the dumbest moves that one has seen in a long, long time.

Something has certainly shifted.I'll be honest, I did not expect to hear this coming out of CBC News and various other sources, but was pleasantly surprised that I did.The Liberal government is being accused of moving billions of dollars off the books and away from parliamentary oversight, shutdown debate, shut off the cameras.I can't wait to fill you in on that one.I'm Jasmine Lane.If you haven't done so already, subscribe, like, share, hype this video.

That helps a lot in the algorithm.And of course, comment your thoughts down below.They keep saying that everything is under control.Yet the details that they aren't showing you seem to suggest quite a different picture.Couple that with the fact that they are no longer debating whether or not to regulate online speech anymore.They're talking about how far they should take it while pointing to countries like the UK as the model.

That should probably get your attention.

things and matters that are distributed over the internet, it's clear that that is a role played by the federal government.When it comes to regulation of social media, again, a jurisdiction that is assumed by the federal government, whether we're talking about moratoriums or the proper regulation of egregious online harms, and that's stuff that we're frankly a couple years behind in regulating as we see other jurisdictions like Australia, like Britain, like France taking action, so we need to take action as well.

that Mark Miller would directly point to countries like the UK, France, and Australia, because he is pointing and referencing systems that typically include expanded obligations on platforms to remove or limit content, government -defined categories of harmful speech, which are always loosely defined, and it's a broad policy umbrella, where the broader the definition, the more discretionary it is.in applying it, as well as enforcement mechanisms, including jail time in some of these countries tied to compliance.And those frameworks do vary.However, they're all tied to the same feature, which is increased government involvement in moderating online expression.And I would also point you to Canada's media regulator, the Canadian Radio, Television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, is already moving forward with legislation that was passed a few years ago to try to modernize the framework to regulate digital platforms such as YouTube, Meta.And the goal is officially to increase the visibility or discoverability of Canadian and Indigenous content online.

And the system, the way that it is, Essentially, it mandates platforms to prioritize certain content, and that means that that content must appear on homepages, playlists, recommendation feeds.And as I have been experiencing in 2026 with this rolling out the way that it is, for news and political content, the system favors established broadcasters and verified Canadian outlets over smaller voices and independent creators.So it's not traditional censorship, but it certainly is algorithmic influence.So when you hear politicians talk about regulating online harms, this is what that actually looks like in practice, because visibility is power.And now that is being structured for certain individuals, not based on merit, but based on how their content is defined by the CRTC.And let's not forget that the very people who are talking about this are also doing this.

Mr. Chair, we have just come out of a motion in the House that has amended the standing ordinance.and I'd like to take some time to consider this with the committee.I'd like to move a motion to move the committee in camera.

Okay the motion to move in camera carries.I'm going to suspend while we change over to in camera.Meeting is suspended.

The saying in camera is actually a Latin derivative which literally translates to in chambers aka in private.That means that everything that will be discussed will be confidential.There will be no public record of it and as Kate McKenna from CBC reports the federal liberals have moved to turn the cameras off on a fourth parliamentary committee this week.The government house leader, though, denies that the liberals are weaponizing their new majority status.

legislative agenda.

on just asking an auditor to come in and take a look at prescribed I .

T.Again, committees are masters of their own agenda.We discuss issues every day.There's going to be lots of debate, I can assure you, in the weeks and months ahead.

There is this old saying that democracy dies in darkness, but in Ottawa, democracy died in the fluorescent lighting of the hallway when all the cameras were told to leave the room and turn off.

Of all of the things you can think that we're smart to do this week, getting a majority and using it to do this is probably one of the dumbest moves that one has seen in a long, long time.

And if you thought that that was in and of itself a very bad look for this new liberal majority government, you should take a listen to whatStephen McKinnon blames when he was pressed on it again by a CBC reporter.

But the opposition also has a role to play in all of this.If everything they do as they march into committee meetings every day is dilatory and seeks to impede or obstruct, Well then, that is going to provoke a counter -reaction because committees have jobs to do, they have work to do, and when opposition MPs seek only to impede and obstruct the work of committees, then obviously there has to be some order and balance brought to that situation.But I accept that the burden of the government is to ensure that this work remains virtually entirely done in public.

Did I hear that correctly?Is Mr. McKinnon suggesting that the reason why in -camera keeps getting called is a result of opposition?blocking and obstructing and delays?Is that what he is saying?You know, the thing about making the call to go in camera is the fact that everything spoken before it is public.So let's go through the transcripts and verify the reasons why The Liberal government chose to go dark.

The Health Committee cameras were cut during an emergency debate over the $300 million prescribed IT program.The goal of that was to block a conservative call for the Auditor General to investigate where exactly that money went.It happened again in the Ethics Committee.Public access was pulled the moment the opposition moved to demand updates on Mark Carney's ethics screen.Again in the Science Committee, where doors were locked to prevent a probe into a $200 million federal deal involving that new spaceport pad in Nova Scotia.It also happened in the Veteran Affairs Committee, where debate was shut down entirely on a motion to study how budget cuts are impacting those who served.

Then again, with theCommittee, where public scrutiny was halted on a motion to produce documents regarding the Port of Montreal expansion.So.

And so just as a follow up, if the opposition continues in your view to obstruct or use dilatory tactics, if I'm using your word correctly, will you continue to use place these committees in Canberra and reject proposed studies on certain topics or government spending?

I don't know that I accept the premise that if we don't accept the idea of a single opposition member of parliament to explore something, that we are acting in some non -transparent way.I think you have to take these issues one by one.I think we're also going through a period of adjustment, one that is pretty unprecedented in as much as we haven't gone from a minority to a majority.Adjustments will need to be made on both sides.Let's assume goodwill.on all sides.

I think the conservatives in particular might have some thinking to do with respect to how they approach committees in this situation and I think in fairness the government needs to consider how it may always or virtually always work transparently and in public.

Wow that is a significant layer added to the story of political gamesmanship suggesting that the government is indeed closing the doors, not for privacy, but because they're actively using their new majority to change the rules of engagement on Parliament Hill.The fact that he so maliciously calls on the Conservatives to really think about the position that they're in now, poof, I don't think that's gonna age very well.I don't know about you.You can let me know in the comment section, but I don't think that's a good look for them at all.Has never been short on opinions about smoking.For decades,

we've heard the same message.Just quit.And for many people, that message works.But for millions of adult Canadians, quitting doesn't just happen.happen, and the conversation stops there.Here's the reality that we need to acknowledge in 2026.

Change is still possible, even when quitting doesn't happen.If you don't smoke, don't start, and if you smoke, quit.But for adults who continue to smoke, smoke -free alternatives exist, and they deserve to be part of the national conversation.Cigarettes belong in the past, and Canada has options that didn't exist decades ago.Adults deserve access to information and the right to make informed decisions about the choices available to them.So let's move forward, put the lighter down, Canada, and visit unsmoke .

ca to learn more about what change can look like today.confirmed on May 20th of last year that Brookfield profits off of inflation.Many of our things are regulated, rate -based or contractual in nature, and inflation is actually a positive to the numbers.So as inflation comes in, it actually helps the revenue streams of those businesses," said the CEO of Brookfield.And then, of course, this is a Prime Minister who said a little over a year ago that he had successfully lobbied for a more expensive form of so -called sustainable aviation fuel.right before Brookfield, his company, invested a billion dollars in that same fuel, forcing Canadian passengers to pay higher airline fees for this more pricey fuel, which then his company profited from.

This is not business, this is political manipulation.

And if you are doubting whether or not that may very well be the intent, I encourage you to take a look at Mark Carney's facial expressions when pressed on this very issue in his press conference recently.

Between the sovereign fund and the defense bank, your government is moving tens of billions of dollars into arms -length corporations that operate outside the direct scrutiny of the parliament.Are you creating a shadow budget to fund your political priorities, as critics argue.Are you shielding the specific debts and investment risks from the accountability of the House of Commons, which could financially hurt the Canadian people in the future?

Absolutely not.The first thing is that, and it's essential with any financial institution associated, I'll just speak for the federal government, associated with the federal government, and I speak under the control of the chair of the House Finance Committee, who is one of the committees.And Ms. Gould, you know, discharges those responsibilities directly.One of the committees that holds to account government financial institutions, whether it's the Bank of Canada, EDC, CIB and others, they do much more than that, but it's one of the core elements.It's essential that any of those financial institutions...

Yeah, well, we just saw how those committees are going and how much they really do hold themselves to accountability.

campaign language to be used in government documents.I can pull up the Liberal website that says Canada Strong right on it, right there.And then if you look at the budget document, Canada Strong.If you look at the speech from the throne, it said Canada Strong.There are several TV ads that have been ran all across this country using the tagline Canada Strong.But you got to tell me and you got to tell this committee and you got to tell Canadians

and reassure Canadians that there is somebody in your department that is making sure that partisan language is not being used in government.communications that violates the trust of Canadians, let alone the standards that are set by the Treasury Board.There's got to be somebody.Is there not?Is there not like a, for lack of a better term, a quality control person in PCO to make sure that the rules are being upheld?

So to fill you in a little bit there, it is against the law for government bodies to utilize campaign slogans and partisan language in anything at all that they do, right?Like you shouldn't be promoting your slogans, your team, in official government documents.And as Rick Perkins writes, former conservative MP, it's even worse.This was the Liberal Party campaign slogan.Using it in all taxpayer -funded communications, including advertising, is against government rules.Listen to this official in the prime minister's department responsible for the spending of the department say, it's essentially not my responsibility.

We are a non -partisan organization.We do provide non -partisan advice.Our communication team would absolutely provide advice on that.I think to what I've heard from the committee, there may be different interpretations of that particular issue.

For everybody at home, it's section 3 .1 .1 on the policy on communications and federal identity.Quote, Government of Canada communications are non -partisan, effectively managed, well -coordinated, clear and responsive to the diverse information needs of the public and Government of Canada employees.

On that note, the new Parliamentary Budget Officer Annette Ryan is raising some pretty serious concerns about the government's last economic update.She says that there's $54 .5 billion in new spending since the last budget, but there's no clear targets, measurable outcomes or even detailed plans.

With this fiscal update, actually did is it kind of seemed like aprolongation of the Trudeau era.You've got room to maneuver and you do not use it for rigor or austerity, whatever you want to call it.You use it to spend on something else.And I think on that score, the update failed on expectations of more rigor.

And as much as I am no fan of the NDP ever since the late great Jack Layton, God bless his soul.I really do think that Avi Lewis might have some some interesting ideas.But I really do think that he is a threat to Mark Carney's liberal government and moving towards technocracy, elite establishment control top down.

If I were back among you in my role as a journalist, I would want this brought up in every single press conference because it speaks to our priorities as a nation and who we are as Canadians.And so I think it's on all of us to make issues like this the burning issues of the day.And I think that, you know, like every other issue, I think about the chiefs from the Mikisew Cree Nation who were here at this podium a couple of weeks ago talking about the unbelievable rates of rare cancers affecting 20 % of their communities from living next to the tailings ponds from the oil sands.Again, medicine and health crisis that's been understood for decades where evidence -based responses have been suppressed.What is the priority in our country?What do we think is worth spending money on?

Do we only think that it's worth spending money on projects that have incredible lobbying power, that have friends, powerful friends in cabinet, that have huge industries that benefit from them?Those are the projects and the spending priorities that we see going forward in this country, and the ones that benefit all of us, that make sense, that are based on decades of good evidence and science, getleft aside and left out of the conversation.Mental health is foremost among them.

And I just came across this on my social media feed.Mario Zelaya, Mario for the North is how you may know him, my friend, has done his first interview with Pierre Poliev, nine rapid fire questions in less than 90 seconds.

This is my first time asking these questions, so let's give it a go.Best advice you'd give your kids?Listen to your mom.Favorite cartoon as a kid?

I would say like my son is Spider -Man.

Last time you went on a date with Anna?

The last time we went on a date?Every night is a date.We're in the kitchen at home together.That's our date.It's very romantic.

Nice.Last time you guys went on vacation?

Last summer we did a couple of days at a cottage.Top tier favorite memories?Top tier?You mean in my whole life?I would say some of my childhood vacations with my folks.

Nice.Hardest thing about your job?

Too much time on airplanes.

What's your go -to guilty pleasure meal?

Bacon, but I really don't think it's a guilty pleasure.I think bacon is a virtue, but that's the answer I'm giving.

What's something you're terrible at?

The bits and pieces of life, keeping track of where I left my keys and all the other small items that go missing.

Multitasking.What makes you laugh the hardest?

I would say my kids make me laugh the loudest.

Thanks, Pierre.

All right.Thanks a lot, my friend.

And if I could leave you with something powerful to help you feel like there is a light at the end of the tunnel because it is tough right now.And I'm not trying to pretend like that's not a reality by being too hopeful.I am still here in real life myself.But it would be James 1 verse 4, which islet perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.And that is something I've been thinking of a lot.

Last Friday it was my late boyfriend's 35th birthday and I had the hardest day ever.I went out with his father and we went and grabbed a coffee and looked at some photo albums and stuff like that together and it was really hard.His dad does also watch this show.So hello, dad number two, hope you're having a beautiful day.Good to see you.And I remember I was on the phone with my mom afterwards.

And I said to her, you know, like, like, this is the most painful thing I've ever experienced in my life.And it's been impossible.And it's completely changed me completely inside and out.Having said that persevering through that pain, that suffering that morning, that grief, the what ifs, beating myself up about various things, has also been one of the greatest gifts that has ever been given to me.Because by the end of this work, you develop this internal tool with peace and strength and trust, humility, understanding, compassion, and you are no longer blown and tossed.by every single change in circumstances because your roots in the hardest moments of your life that you persevere through, they grow so deep into the soil that nothing can touch you anymore.

Of course, things still hurt, right?But there is something through prolonged suffering, prolonged frustration, all of that, that when you make it through to the other side and you look back on it, you're like, man, suffering is not wasted time.It has reframed every struggle as something really purposeful that you can take away from and harden yourself in in more often than not an incredibly powerful and positive way.When you stay the course through difficulty rather than looking for the nearest exit.The promise of being mature and complete and not lacking anything is the ultimate description of resilience.And to shift your perspective from the pain of the trials that you face to the product of it.

And those hardest moments in your life, whether that be financially, emotionally, they are always the ones that do the most heavy lifting to make you the most unshakable and immovable version of yourself.And there is nothing but benefits in that.But you can't get that product without the pain of the trial.And I just know.that we will all get through this and we're gonna have one hell of a story to tell people one day.I'm Jasmine Lane.

Thank you so much for watching.Be sure to like, share, subscribe, comment your thoughts down below, and give this video a hype if you have any left, because that actually does help an awful lot in the algorithm.And as we discussed the first story of today, Canadian content creators, especially those that cover news and politics and are conservative, We need all the love that we can get right now.