Juno News - Independent media is running circles around the legacy media

00:00:00.000 The independent media is running circles around the stale and out-of-touch legacy media.

00:00:05.100 The debate this week proved that to be the case.

00:00:07.480 It's Fake News Friday.

00:00:08.280 I'm Candice Malcolm, and this is The Candice Malcolm Show.

00:00:23.200 Hi, everyone.

00:00:23.840 Thank you so much for tuning into the show.

00:00:25.600 It is Fake News Friday here on The Candice Malcolm Show.

00:00:28.120 And as for usual, I am joined by my producer and true-north journalist, Harrison Faulkner.

00:00:33.360 Harrison, welcome to the program.

00:00:34.700 Nice to see you.

00:00:35.380 Nice to see you, too, Candice.

00:00:36.980 So it was a really fun evening on Wednesday.

00:00:40.640 It was a crazy debate, and I went through it in some detail with my sort of deep criticisms at every level of the way that the official conservative debate was organized.

00:00:52.740 It was in Edmonton.

00:00:53.500 It was hosted by Tom Clark, who was a lobbyist who was once a journalist.

00:00:56.500 And just everything about this debate was totally cringy and awful.

00:01:00.440 The format, the questions, the way it was all staged, the lack of audience participation.

00:01:06.380 My thesis, my theory on it, Harrison, is that it was all planned by the Conservative Party of Canada.

00:01:11.040 I'm usually one to defend the Conservative Party against media criticism.

00:01:15.260 But I think in this case, what happened was that the Conservatives just caved so much to some of the negative voices that came out from the first debate, which was organized by the independent conservative group Canada Strong and Free.

00:01:26.840 I moderated it alongside Jamil Javani, and we allowed for a very free-flowing discussion.

00:01:32.900 We really hit on issues that I think matter to Conservatives and to Canadians.

00:01:37.600 And apparently the brass at the Conservative Party didn't like it at all.

00:01:40.880 They thought that there was too many opportunities for potential liberal hit pieces because the Conservative candidates were able to speak their minds too much.

00:01:47.960 And they just didn't like it.

00:01:49.700 They wanted a boring, tame debate with short answers, cutting people off, no audience participation.

00:01:55.920 And that's what they got.

00:01:56.800 That seems to be the format that was placed onto Tom Clark.

00:02:02.160 And he ran from there and also did a terrible job of just the questions, the topics, the way that he was shushing the media, all the gimmicks.

00:02:10.960 It was just layers upon layers of bad, and I did go through it in some detail on my show, so I don't want to rehash too much of it.

00:02:18.040 But there was another element that I think was also very, very important, and it became very obvious during the scrum.

00:02:24.680 So first of all, if you just compare the debate that was organized by an independent group and independent media, myself moderating it, you know, it was fun.

00:02:31.620 It was entertaining, and we heard a lot of disagreement, lots of discussion on substantive issues.

00:02:35.980 The one that was organized by the sort of establishment people, the party, bringing in this old hand, moderator, not good at all.

00:02:43.680 That was basically the consensus, and not just from us, from everybody, including the legacy media journalists.

00:02:49.160 But then the next layer was the scrums that happened after the debates, Harrison, because there was a huge presence of independent media.

00:02:57.040 It wasn't just True North, our own Andrew Lawton was there, but it was also, you know, you had the rebel asking some great questions, Western Standards, Rachel Emanuel.

00:03:04.440 We heard from just lots and lots of people, an individual from the National Telegraph, which is an independent organization, and the questions were interesting.

00:03:16.080 They were substantive.

00:03:16.940 They were asking about a variety of important issues that do matter to conservatives and not framed in a sort of gotchu kind of way, asked in a way that really resonates with how Canadians, I believe, feel.

00:03:28.260 And then you kind of just suppose that with the legacy media.

00:03:31.840 I don't think they had nearly as many journalists who were asking questions in the scrums, and the questions that they asked were just stale and falling flat.

00:03:39.460 So, Harrison, I'll bring you in on this.

00:03:41.760 What was your overall opinion of the debate?

00:03:43.920 And specifically, did you see what I saw with the scrums in terms of the legacy media just being sort of caught flat-footed, and the independent media being the ones who were sort of the young, ambitious, insightful, excited journalists that were there asking the punchiest questions?

00:04:03.760 And again, it just made the legacy media look so bad.

00:04:06.660 Yeah, absolutely.

00:04:07.400 So, I mean, just to start off with the debate, I touched on this in our live broadcast on Wednesday, but the format was so bad, and it was not at all conducive to anything that you could consider to be a legitimate debate.

00:04:22.500 They were asking candidates to summarize the greatest threat to Canada and Canadians in 15 seconds, and I think it was really bad when the moderator couldn't even keep up with the rules that he was supposed to follow.

00:04:34.160 So, I think largely because it was totally, it made no sense at all.

00:04:39.620 But yeah, Candace, you're right about the way, really the difference between the independent media, independent journalists, and legacy media based on, one, how prepared journalists are for these events, and also what kind of questions they come with, and really they know what their audience wants.

00:04:57.340 So, I mean, in the scrums, what we saw were, you know, legacy media journalists asking the same question, because I guess they're not creative enough to come up with anything substantive to ask people who want to become prime minister.

00:05:10.200 We saw the French-language Alberta CBC reporter ask both Roman Babber and Scott Aitchison how conservatives can win on climate when the members don't actually recognize climate, which actually isn't accurate.

00:05:27.580 It shouldn't take a genius to know that that's a classic liberal media talking point, but nonetheless, they couldn't come up with anything unique, so they asked the same question twice.

00:05:38.160 The same thing also happened.

00:05:39.920 A CTV reporter, Bill Fortier, he asked both Jean Charest and Patrick Brown about their thoughts on the format, which everyone agrees was a horrible format.

00:05:48.380 But they couldn't come up with anything legitimate to ask these candidates, Candace.

00:05:52.800 I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who attends conservative events that independent journalists are full of energy, full of creativity.

00:06:00.960 They bring a new level to the work that they do, and the legacy media journalists are being caught flat-footed.

00:06:09.960 They bring absolutely nothing to the table.

00:06:13.020 Well, it's so lazy.

00:06:13.940 I did hear those CBC questions about climate.

00:06:16.920 It reminded me of how Catherine McKenna, the former environment minister, the liberal politician from Ottawa, she was critical of the debate that I moderated online because she was like, apparently they didn't talk about climate change.

00:06:30.000 And, you know, there you have the loyal, dutiful CBC journalist jumping in to say, like, let's all fearmonger about climate change.

00:06:37.900 And I did appreciate how Scott Aitchison kind of smacked that question down because he's like, you know, you're misrepresenting what actually happened.

00:06:45.280 I think we have that clip.

00:06:46.380 So let's play that so you can see this question, the way that it's framed by the journalist.

00:06:51.260 And then you can see Scott Aitchison, who is by no means like, you know, a grassroots conservative or someone who's like really into cultural battles and anti-media.

00:07:01.480 But even he was pretty firm in just saying what you're peddling isn't true.

00:07:05.900 And I think your point, Harrison, about how it's just liberal talking points, he sort of embarrassed the CBC journalist.

00:07:12.220 So here's that clip.

00:07:13.780 How can conservatives win if they don't have an environmental plan, if their members don't vote for a motion recognizing climate change?

00:07:24.980 Well, I think you're referring actually to an event that occurred during our last convention.

00:07:30.100 And the situation is a little more different than what you've just described.

00:07:34.280 In fact, what that motion did was amend a motion that was kind of poorly worded, but does in fact acknowledge climate change exists.

00:07:42.220 And the amendment itself was poorly worded.

00:07:43.900 So in our materials, in our policy documents, we do in fact acknowledge that climate change does exist.

00:07:52.440 It is a reality.

00:07:53.800 And I think you heard tonight some great ideas about how we can move forward with a credible climate change plan that doesn't actually punish the most vulnerable in our society.

00:08:01.440 And just one final point, Harrison, on the climate change issue.

00:08:05.440 I would say I talked to a lot of conservatives.

00:08:07.160 I talked to a lot of sort of both party insiders and what I would classify as just sort of the general conservative base.

00:08:13.680 And I think most people do agree with climate change.

00:08:16.720 They believe it's happening.

00:08:17.720 And most people believe that there's human causes.

00:08:20.440 Well, I think when they vote for something like this and the message or the motion from the convention, which was from a couple of years ago,

00:08:29.320 what they don't like is the drumming up of fear, the alarmism, the media narrative that if you don't have the exact kind of policies like Trudeau and the liberals when it comes to the Paris Accord and shutting down oil and gas and bringing in new punitive taxes on the middle class and on people, on consumers, then you're an out-of-touch picket.

00:08:48.340 Like the thing that conservatives resent is like the entire narrative being pushed by the CBC.

00:08:52.880 And here is the CBC once again, like not giving up on it and pushing it once again.

00:08:57.860 Yeah, it's this idea, Candice, that the only way that Canada can play a role in trying to advance, I guess you could call them climate goals,

00:09:06.680 is if we basically shoot ourselves in the foot and destroy all of our natural resource production while continuing to import oil and gas from the rest of the world.

00:09:16.740 There was very few people who, well, obviously in the legacy media, no one wants to talk about that, but even still a few people talk about the fact that, you know,

00:09:26.000 that's the liberal way to approach climate change and conservatives have an understandable frustration with that approach.

00:09:33.660 It really is an anti-Canada perspective and no wonder conservatives don't want to engage in that kind of dialogue, really.

00:09:41.800 Anytime a liberal journalist or a legacy media journalist is peddling those liberal talking points, you know exactly what they're trying to do,

00:09:49.140 which is just to try to embarrass conservatives or put them on the back foot and make them dance to the liberal tune.

00:09:54.600 Yeah, it's eye-roll inducing and we see it every election that they say, like, if you don't have a specific plan to reduce emissions,

00:10:02.660 therefore you don't care about the environment.

00:10:04.620 And I think that it's time for conservatives to really grab this narrative and say, no, no, the dichotomy you're proposing is wrong.

00:10:11.000 You can care deeply about protecting the natural environment.

00:10:13.240 And we can do that by, you know, preserving our lakes and rivers and our forests and making sure we plant more trees

00:10:18.520 and making sure we don't dump sewage into riverways and things along those lines,

00:10:23.460 while also promoting very low emission Canadian oil and gas, which is, you know, innovative and clean and all these things.

00:10:30.200 And I did think that the debate itself got into that a little bit.

00:10:34.180 And there was some kind of good conversations around Canada's role in producing oil and gas.

00:10:38.860 But this lazy question from the CBC, essentially just repeating the same question to the candidates,

00:10:44.380 just shows, to me, it's laziness.

00:10:47.480 And then same with this other question about the format. 0.96

00:10:50.500 Of course, everyone agreed the format sucked.

00:10:52.580 But it's like, you have one question to ask to the next potential leader of the Conservative Party

00:10:58.500 who has a good shot of becoming prime minister, and you're going to waste it by complaining?

00:11:02.820 Like, why not ask something new?

00:11:04.520 And I really appreciated that of all of the independent media, none of them dwelled on the format.

00:11:09.620 That's over.

00:11:10.200 That's done with now.

00:11:11.140 Let's talk about the issues that matter.

00:11:13.280 And it was great to see our own Andrew Lawton.

00:11:15.700 He got some great questions in.

00:11:17.740 And again, just, you know, these sort of young, energetic, independent media, really, really outshining the legacy media.

00:11:27.000 And I know very few people watch these scrums at the end of debates.

00:11:30.080 But for those of us that did, it was quite illuminating.

00:11:33.400 Well, Harrison, I wanted to keep on this topic of energy and oil and gas, because there was a big decision that came out this week,

00:11:39.440 which was that a superior court in Alberta, an Alberta appeal court, sorry, voted that the punitive harmful Bill C-69,

00:11:48.760 which was the law that required all kinds of really intensive assessments, including like gendered assessments,

00:11:55.300 that would, you know, impact whether or not projects would be allowed to go through in Alberta.

00:12:01.280 Basically, this idea like, you know, I think it was dubbed the No More Pipeline Bill by critics in Alberta,

00:12:06.540 because it was just this really punitive environmental bureaucracy that was placed,

00:12:11.160 this onus placed on oil and gas companies, pumping companies before getting anything approved.

00:12:16.480 So the Alberta government pushed back and said, this is this is against the Constitution, they challenged it.

00:12:23.320 And a court in Alberta found that that was right, that that that that they agreed with a true to what they agreed with the Kenny government in Alberta,

00:12:30.980 that this environmental impact law was unconstitutional.

00:12:35.140 And I want to I just want to talk because you know, the the the theme of the show, and we call it fake news Friday,

00:12:40.840 because the idea that the media, they pretend to be straight news journalists, they pretend to be neutral.

00:12:47.380 But really, what they're doing is activism. And it's just a charade, like they pretend to be neutral, but they're not.

00:12:53.140 And this is one of the stories that you might not see it the first time you read it, or most people might not catch all the nuances.

00:12:58.740 But when you read through a piece like this, which it was written by the Canadian press, of course,

00:13:03.260 it means that it appears in newspapers and websites all across the country, this this one here we have, it was it was placed in global news,

00:13:11.180 but but typically CP runs and everything, including, you know, sites that people think of as conservative, like the National Post or the Toronto Sun,

00:13:17.780 they run CP stories, as well, CP stands for the Canadian press.

00:13:21.680 I'm just going to go through this basically line by line, because it is incredibly biased.

00:13:26.360 And this is this is in a nutshell, is what we mean when we're talking about fake news, and the biased landscape.

00:13:32.820 In Canada. Okay, so here's a piece, the headline says, Alberta appeal court says federal environmental impact law, not okay.

00:13:41.200 So so here we see right off the bat, it kind of gives us a little explanation of what just happened says Alberta's top court said Tuesday,

00:13:48.600 that the federal government's environmental impact law is unconstitutional, and Ottawa almost immediately announced its plan to appeal.

00:13:56.120 So so in the first paragraph, we don't even get the news, and we get the reaction from Ottawa.

00:14:01.240 So it's not about how this law is unconstitutional, it goes right to Dustin Trudeau plans to fight back, then we paragraph to it says the Alberta Court of Appeals strongly worded opinion.

00:14:11.180 So the Impact Assessment Act is an existential threat, notice the scare quotes there around existential threat,

00:14:18.780 to the division of powers guaranteed by the Constitution, and has taken a, square quote again, wrecking ball to the constitutional rights of the citizens of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

00:14:28.140 The majority of judges sided with Alberta, arguing that the legislation allowed Ottawa to put provinces in an economic chokehold,

00:14:35.240 and give it the means to choose winners and losers.

00:14:38.140 Okay, so so we have three paragraphs there, Harrison, that sort of establish the story, and in it, it's already torqued, right?

00:14:43.940 Rather than providing a quote from the judge that wrote the decision that the one that won, right, that there was a vote, and that decision won,

00:14:53.660 they just pulled scare quotes to kind of like, make a mockery of it, basically.

00:14:58.500 But again, stressing the fact that we're not done with this, and that Ottawa is going to appeal.

00:15:04.400 Okay, so so that's the first three paragraphs, fourth paragraphs, it goes straight to Justin Trudeau, right?

00:15:09.180 It doesn't go to the judge who wrote the decision, it doesn't go to anyone in Alberta, the Kenney government in Alberta,

00:15:14.260 who are the ones pushing this review, it goes straight to Justin Trudeau basically defending himself,

00:15:20.080 saying the justification behind putting the bill in place in the first place.

00:15:24.660 Then we have four paragraphs in a row of Justin Trudeau quotes, okay?

00:15:28.260 So we're not getting a fair idea of what is going on, why this case was determined.

00:15:34.160 We are just hearing Justin Trudeau's justification.

00:15:37.460 I just want to pause right here, Harrison, because if you go back to any of the laws that Stephen Harper wrote

00:15:42.660 in the former conservative government that were struck down by a court, the emphasis was exactly flipped, right?

00:15:48.620 It would be like, this judge, this heroic judge wrote this decision,

00:15:52.340 scrapping this horrible law that Harper tried to introduce,

00:15:55.360 and it would be all about quotes like bashing the government, whereas here it's flipped.

00:15:59.140 They don't quote the decision, they quote the prime minister explaining himself

00:16:03.480 and saying why he is right, right off the top, okay?

00:16:05.700 This is incredibly biased, this is the origin of a fake news story,

00:16:11.260 and then it kind of goes on and on and on to provide a bit of background.

00:16:14.820 There's a couple paragraphs here about, again, why the Alberta government challenged it,

00:16:19.020 and then the first quote that we hear from a judge, Harrison,

00:16:22.200 is not from the judge who, again, wrote the decision and determined that this was unconstitutional,

00:16:27.980 but from a dissenting opinion.

00:16:29.460 So one of the justices that voted against this decision,

00:16:33.300 saying that the federal environmental law is a valid exercise in constitutional authority,

00:16:39.540 and then here we see that judge, the dissenting judge,

00:16:42.600 and she gets these quotes.

00:16:43.900 The justice is named Sheila Grekel, and we have, let's see, one, several quotes from her,

00:16:51.160 even though she's not the one that wrote the decision.

00:16:53.440 It goes on to, quote, a University of Calgary environmental law scholar,

00:16:58.700 who also pointed out that, well, this will probably get overturned by the Supreme Court,

00:17:02.680 so this isn't even really all that important.

00:17:05.680 A couple quotes from her, again, downplaying the fact that this decision,

00:17:11.400 this law was just struck down.

00:17:13.320 Then we have another professor from another university kind of echoing that idea,

00:17:18.880 and we have a third professor, again, just kind of chiming in with their opinion

00:17:27.280 about what's going to happen next.

00:17:29.240 So all this just to say, this piece is incredibly deceitful,

00:17:34.040 and this is what comes across as straight news.

00:17:36.480 This is what is expected in our country.

00:17:38.280 This is, frankly, again, one of the reasons why I started True North,

00:17:41.380 one of the reasons why I think independent reporting,

00:17:43.320 not just podcasts and opinions and op-eds, you know, opinion columns,

00:17:48.160 but also just the reporting and the news sites,

00:17:49.940 why we stress doing that here at True North.

00:17:52.200 I mean, we're a small shop compared to a huge outlet like Canadian Press.

00:17:56.260 It gets syndicated across almost every newspaper and political website in the country.

00:18:01.300 But, you know, this is the mindset.

00:18:04.400 This is the way they write news stories.

00:18:05.740 It's just so dishonest and deceitful and, frankly, biased.

00:18:10.880 What do you think about it, Harrison?

00:18:12.620 Well, your assessment is exactly right.

00:18:15.460 Start with the headline.

00:18:16.800 Not okay is how they described the Alberta court decision,

00:18:19.940 which the Alberta court ruled that it was unconstitutional,

00:18:23.400 but not just that it wasn't okay.

00:18:25.400 They really boil it down there and make it seem as though

00:18:27.820 they kind of just only a little bit disagree with this.

00:18:31.060 They don't, in fact, they declared it unconstitutional.

00:18:33.980 And they don't quote, they actually don't get a full quote

00:18:37.580 from the written opinion of the majority on the court.

00:18:41.800 They don't quote that anywhere.

00:18:43.260 All they take is the hyperbolic words to describe the decision from the judges.

00:18:51.000 So there's no actual, there's no real news in this story

00:18:55.220 until, I think, 29 paragraphs into the story, Candace,

00:18:58.800 when they decide to finally quote Jason Kenney.

00:19:01.460 And this is not just a small deal.

00:19:02.960 This court challenge was, I think, also brought along

00:19:07.280 or endorsed by Saskatchewan and Ontario.

00:19:10.080 So these are provinces that take a serious issue

00:19:13.280 with a piece of legislation that has now been ruled to be unconstitutional.

00:19:17.080 And yet we don't get any opinion from the judges

00:19:19.300 that made the ruling,

00:19:20.900 and we don't hear from the premier that spearheaded this fight

00:19:23.960 until 29 paragraphs into the story.

00:19:26.380 And this is an issue I have with a lot of what we see from Legacy Media, Candace,

00:19:30.620 which is a diehard commitment from these journalists

00:19:35.220 to bury the information that actually matters to readers

00:19:38.560 way down into their story,

00:19:41.140 water down headlines and bury the lead

00:19:43.200 so that people who aren't going to read this,

00:19:46.080 I think, too long of an article,

00:19:48.220 they're not going to get to the part where Kenny talks.

00:19:50.900 They're not going to get to the part

00:19:51.760 where the judges actually give their opinion.

00:19:53.740 They're going to give up halfway through

00:19:55.140 because that's kind of the standard now.

00:19:57.640 That's the attention span that most readers have.

00:20:01.440 So journalists know this.

00:20:03.140 They use these tactics to their advantage.

00:20:06.280 And again, this is why we do this show,

00:20:08.060 to try and show Canadians

00:20:09.560 that this kind of news

00:20:11.780 that you're getting from the Canadian press,

00:20:13.500 which gets, as you said, syndicated across the country,

00:20:16.040 can't be taken at face value.

00:20:19.160 It requires scrutiny

00:20:20.080 and it requires serious attention.

00:20:22.500 It's hilarious that Justin Trudeau gets,

00:20:24.840 you know, the first four paragraphs,

00:20:26.660 sorry, he gets four of the first seven paragraphs

00:20:28.500 with his quotes,

00:20:29.380 and then Kenny, the one who led the charge,

00:20:31.560 who won.

00:20:32.100 I mean, the quote from Kenny is great.

00:20:33.540 It's like, I'm jubilant.

00:20:34.420 This is a huge win for Alberta.

00:20:36.940 You know, they bury that in the 29th paragraph.

00:20:40.180 And even to go even further in the absurdity,

00:20:42.600 the story ends, it says there were 17 interveners

00:20:45.980 in this case.

00:20:47.200 And then it says seven of the interveners,

00:20:49.080 including a wide array of environmental and legal groups,

00:20:52.460 as well as First Nations,

00:20:53.820 were in support of Ottawa.

00:20:55.200 So even though Alberta had 10 interveners

00:20:59.560 and the feds only had seven,

00:21:00.900 they went through and emphasized the importance

00:21:03.320 of those seven interveners

00:21:04.680 who were in support of Ottawa.

00:21:06.320 Like, it's just like every paragraph of this piece

00:21:09.560 is a total farce.

00:21:11.280 And this is a kind of quiet disservice

00:21:13.180 that is done to Canadians.

00:21:14.440 And Ken, it's right at the bottom of this article here

00:21:16.120 as well, as you point out.

00:21:17.660 The second last paragraph shows that

00:21:19.760 not only did they get supported,

00:21:21.460 not only was Alberta supported by Ontario and Saskatchewan,

00:21:24.200 they were also supported by three First Nations

00:21:26.540 and Indian Resource Council.

00:21:28.360 So that's kind of important information.

00:21:30.260 Don't you think that that debunks the narrative

00:21:32.380 of the Liberal government,

00:21:33.440 that this is for environmentalism

00:21:35.120 and for First Nations communities?

00:21:37.680 But of course, that's the lead.

00:21:39.840 It's at the very bottom of the article.

00:21:41.180 Second last paragraph.

00:21:43.140 It's really wild.

00:21:44.560 I mean, it's funny because it's so bad,

00:21:46.680 but this is what they pass for news.

00:21:48.380 They're proud of it.

00:21:48.900 They put it out.

00:21:49.400 They don't think anything of it.

00:21:51.020 And it, you know, it just takes,

00:21:53.420 you literally go through every paragraph of this piece

00:21:55.220 and complain about the way that it is written.

00:21:57.080 Well, again, that is why True North is here.

00:21:59.800 This is why you should read your news from True North

00:22:02.300 and not these hacks in the media.

00:22:04.860 Yeah. Let's move on to the next story, Harrison.

00:22:07.080 This is one that's sort of the gift

00:22:08.880 that keeps on giving for us

00:22:10.460 because it seems like everything about the Freedom Convoy

00:22:13.500 has been debunked at this point.

00:22:15.440 Like everything the Liberals said,

00:22:16.560 everything Justin Trudeau said during the convoy.

00:22:18.340 I actually think that Roman Babber made that point

00:22:20.340 at Wednesday night's debate

00:22:21.700 that everything the legacy media was saying

00:22:23.800 and everything the Trudeau government is saying

00:22:25.240 turned out to be false.

00:22:26.500 Well, we can just add one more thing to the list.

00:22:29.140 As you recall, Justin Trudeau made it clear.

00:22:32.140 He said in April that when illegal blockades hurt workers

00:22:35.540 and endanger public safety,

00:22:37.200 police were clear that they needed the tools

00:22:39.520 not held by any federal, provincial or territorial law,

00:22:43.280 hence why they invoked the Emergency Act.

00:22:45.540 So Trudeau was saying that it was because of the police,

00:22:48.180 because of the RCMP.

00:22:50.020 Well, as we heard in the special committee

00:22:52.060 that's looking into this national inquiry

00:22:53.760 into the Emergencies Act and the use of it,

00:22:56.140 which I might just add is entirely framed by Trudeau,

00:22:59.380 a liberal appointed person to head this thing.

00:23:02.620 The entire thing is framed not to provide scrutiny

00:23:05.560 at Trudeau as to why he used this powers and act

00:23:09.980 that is really supposed to be reserved for wartime,

00:23:12.680 but instead to look into the reasons

00:23:15.440 that the truckers were bad

00:23:17.220 and the truckers were evil and all this stuff.

00:23:19.120 Like the way that it was framed

00:23:19.820 is completely reverse of what the purpose

00:23:22.200 of the inquiry is.

00:23:24.260 So push all that aside,

00:23:26.640 you know, the inquiry itself interviewed,

00:23:30.280 the commission itself, sorry,

00:23:32.040 interviewed the RCMP commissioner,

00:23:34.160 Brenda Luckey, during her testimony.

00:23:36.560 She basically just said,

00:23:37.940 no, this wasn't the case.

00:23:38.860 So why don't you tell us a little bit

00:23:40.280 about that, Harrison?

00:23:41.200 Yeah.

00:23:41.760 So obviously the narrative that we were receiving

00:23:45.040 from the liberal government

00:23:46.020 and from Justin Trudeau

00:23:47.140 was that they had no choice

00:23:49.040 but to enact the emergency,

00:23:51.080 to invoke the Emergencies Act

00:23:52.100 because that's what law enforcement

00:23:53.380 were requesting the government.

00:23:55.360 It took until, I believe, Tuesday

00:23:58.240 for someone involved in the joint committee

00:24:01.100 to ask Brenda Luckey, the RCMP commissioner,

00:24:04.080 if this was the case directly,

00:24:05.760 if she had requested that the Emergencies Act

00:24:08.960 be invoked by the government.

00:24:10.280 She said no and she went further to say

00:24:13.600 that in her communication

00:24:15.340 with other law enforcement agencies

00:24:16.840 that she didn't hear that as well from them.

00:24:19.360 We have the clip for this

00:24:20.240 and we're going to play that clip now.

00:24:21.340 Senator, sorry, Commissioner Luckey,

00:24:24.560 we've heard multiple times from ministers

00:24:26.460 and others that the Emergencies Act

00:24:28.060 and the tools provided

00:24:29.160 were specifically requested

00:24:30.520 by police leadership.

00:24:33.280 As a law enforcement agency

00:24:34.960 with primacy for national security,

00:24:36.880 did you ask the government

00:24:37.980 or representatives

00:24:39.240 for the invocation of the Emergencies Act?

00:24:43.240 No, there was never a question

00:24:44.700 of requesting the Emergencies Act.

00:24:47.240 There was a question...

00:24:48.340 I don't mean to interrupt,

00:24:49.180 I'm sorry, so you never asked for it.

00:24:52.000 Do you know of any other police leadership

00:24:53.500 that asked specifically the government

00:24:55.540 for the invocation?

00:24:58.420 No, we actually reached out

00:24:59.700 to various police agencies

00:25:00.940 when there was talk about

00:25:02.140 some of the authorities within

00:25:03.640 that they were proposing

00:25:04.860 and, of course, we were consulted

00:25:06.720 because we were the ones

00:25:08.360 who would be using those authorities.

00:25:10.220 So we were consulted to see

00:25:11.520 if they would be of any use

00:25:13.380 to police in the context

00:25:15.460 of the Freedom Convoy.

00:25:17.060 So, Candace,

00:25:18.720 this is what really makes me frustrated

00:25:21.240 about this entire process.

00:25:22.960 Not only are we just getting

00:25:24.700 the information now

00:25:25.780 that Trudeau's narrative

00:25:27.800 is crumbling even more

00:25:29.440 than it already has,

00:25:30.940 these committee meetings

00:25:32.300 that are of high public interest,

00:25:34.980 you would think a lot of Canadians

00:25:35.980 would want to know what's going on

00:25:37.500 and hear and be involved in this process.

00:25:40.140 These committee meetings

00:25:40.920 are happening at 9 p.m.

00:25:42.760 The only way you can watch them

00:25:44.120 is if you go to CPAC or Parle View,

00:25:47.480 which is sort of the live feed

00:25:49.920 of these committee meetings,

00:25:51.040 which, frankly, most Canadians

00:25:52.100 either don't have time to do

00:25:53.260 or even know where these websites are.

00:25:55.820 And, as you said, Candace,

00:25:57.180 the inquiry is being headed

00:25:58.320 by a former liberal staff or judge.

00:26:01.240 So there's no transparency.

00:26:03.420 There's really no accountability

00:26:04.560 that's happening here.

00:26:05.420 And even still, Trudeau's narrative

00:26:07.960 keeps crumbling in front of our eyes.

00:26:10.460 And just out of curiosity,

00:26:12.360 and I think I know the answer

00:26:13.200 to this question, Harrison,

00:26:14.800 is the legacy media covering this?

00:26:16.400 Is this a headline

00:26:17.100 that you're going to see

00:26:17.900 in the CBC or National Post

00:26:21.120 or any of these?

00:26:22.360 Like, you know,

00:26:23.040 I know they're holding these things

00:26:24.140 at 9 o'clock at night.

00:26:24.900 No one's watching it,

00:26:25.640 but presumably the journalists

00:26:26.620 are watching it.

00:26:27.340 Are they writing about this?

00:26:28.540 No, they're not, actually.

00:26:29.900 This is the kind of thing

00:26:30.880 that I think if it were happening

00:26:32.280 in the United States, for example,

00:26:33.580 it would be held on primetime television

00:26:36.600 that Canadians would expect that

00:26:38.800 from their media,

00:26:40.720 especially the media

00:26:41.520 that gets paid by the government.

00:26:43.240 But of course,

00:26:43.820 that will lead to the coverage

00:26:45.740 we get from them,

00:26:46.380 which is obviously silence

00:26:47.620 and it's coverage about things

00:26:50.760 that don't matter to Canadians.

00:26:51.740 So no Candace,

00:26:52.480 there's no coverage on these meetings.

00:26:54.240 There's no coverage

00:26:55.020 on what comes from these meetings.

00:26:57.180 And I think that's clearly intentional

00:26:58.500 because every time one tunes

00:27:00.280 into these committee hearings,

00:27:02.100 into these testimonies,

00:27:04.700 the story keeps unraveling

00:27:06.920 and it becomes clearer

00:27:08.100 and clearer every day

00:27:08.900 that this was a huge mistake

00:27:10.740 by the government,

00:27:11.560 a huge misstep

00:27:13.160 and a disastrous moment

00:27:16.720 that the government

00:27:17.580 should be facing heat for.

00:27:20.540 But of course, they're not.

00:27:22.420 You're right in that

00:27:23.240 if this was happening

00:27:23.840 in the United States,

00:27:24.640 it would be primetime

00:27:25.680 and it would be

00:27:26.660 around the clock reporting.

00:27:27.760 And it's funny

00:27:28.240 because, you know,

00:27:29.260 sometimes it's like this week

00:27:32.060 we were kind of looking

00:27:32.980 through the news

00:27:33.460 and looking at what was going on

00:27:34.480 when we were planning out my show

00:27:35.360 and we're like,

00:27:36.380 oh, it's kind of a slow news week.

00:27:37.780 But it shouldn't be a slow news week

00:27:38.740 because there is lots of stuff going on.

00:27:40.280 It's just that that stuff's

00:27:41.340 not coming forward.

00:27:41.980 Like if you go on to

00:27:42.780 National News Watch,

00:27:43.760 which is a news aggregator,

00:27:44.860 it's a terrible liberal site,

00:27:46.660 but you kind of get an idea

00:27:47.940 for what these sort of

00:27:49.000 establishment people

00:27:49.880 in Ottawa are reading.

00:27:52.260 And it's all about,

00:27:53.500 you know,

00:27:54.620 Ontario candidates

00:27:56.300 who are under heat

00:27:57.820 for things that they've said

00:27:58.740 during that election,

00:27:59.800 most notably Stephen Lecce,

00:28:01.620 a lot of stuff

00:28:02.520 complaining about

00:28:03.240 the conservative debates,

00:28:05.660 stuff spilling over

00:28:06.720 about Roe v. Wade.

00:28:09.080 And obviously there was

00:28:10.260 that sort of terrible incident

00:28:11.420 of Jagmeet Singh

00:28:12.140 getting verbally harassed 1.00

00:28:13.840 by a bunch of idiots. 1.00

00:28:15.700 And obviously that's terrible, 1.00

00:28:17.240 but, you know,

00:28:17.700 the media fixate

00:28:18.400 on these really little

00:28:19.380 kind of irrelevant issues

00:28:21.900 that don't have anything

00:28:22.360 to do with government or policy.

00:28:23.520 They're more just kind of

00:28:24.400 like social media things.

00:28:25.880 And then that's the news

00:28:26.780 that's being delivered

00:28:27.320 to Canadians

00:28:27.900 rather than the substantive,

00:28:30.020 important things

00:28:30.680 about our government

00:28:31.820 abusing power,

00:28:32.680 our government wasting money,

00:28:33.880 our prime minister

00:28:34.460 involved in ethics scandals,

00:28:36.280 the way that he's treated.

00:28:37.360 Like the important issues

00:28:38.840 in our country

00:28:39.400 are not covered by the news.

00:28:40.820 Instead, everything in the news

00:28:42.040 is just sort of 0.91

00:28:43.200 a dumb distraction 0.95

00:28:44.940 that, you know, 0.99

00:28:46.060 is meant for social media,

00:28:47.740 but not,

00:28:48.220 you expect something more

00:28:49.500 from the people

00:28:51.220 who get paid lots and lots

00:28:52.060 of money to deliver

00:28:53.480 the news to Canadians

00:28:54.520 and lots and lots of money

00:28:55.340 from the government as well.

00:28:57.440 Well, Harrison,

00:28:58.060 I want to,

00:28:59.240 no Fake News Friday episode

00:29:01.480 would be complete

00:29:02.160 without a little bit of focus

00:29:03.920 on our friends

00:29:04.560 over at the CBC.

00:29:06.120 And perhaps my biggest pet peeve

00:29:08.060 in all of Canadian media

00:29:09.140 is the fact that they run

00:29:10.100 this op-ed section

00:29:11.600 where they tell people,

00:29:12.940 allow people to write

00:29:13.840 personal stories

00:29:15.220 of their experiences

00:29:15.980 and it's called

00:29:17.500 first person

00:29:18.120 and the stories

00:29:18.680 are always just

00:29:19.700 the most sort of

00:29:21.480 uncomfortable,

00:29:22.560 awful left-wing stories

00:29:23.980 about, you know,

00:29:25.300 either hectoring us

00:29:26.640 about how we're not woke enough

00:29:27.760 or telling the sad story

00:29:29.620 of their lives.

00:29:30.360 And this one,

00:29:31.900 I mean, I hate how this story

00:29:33.920 is kind of coinciding

00:29:35.080 with Mother's Day

00:29:35.880 last weekend

00:29:36.340 and I saw a couple

00:29:37.520 of really despicable people

00:29:39.080 on the left

00:29:39.660 trying to equate

00:29:40.980 people's abortions

00:29:43.200 and why they want

00:29:43.720 to be able

00:29:44.060 to not be a mother,

00:29:45.560 conflating that

00:29:46.080 with Mother's Day

00:29:46.660 which I find,

00:29:47.280 as a mother,

00:29:47.740 I find it just

00:29:49.260 so off-putting.

00:29:50.660 Like, the whole purpose

00:29:51.300 of Mother's Day

00:29:51.800 is to celebrate mothers,

00:29:52.720 not to celebrate abortion.

00:29:54.480 But we saw that being pushed.

00:29:57.100 There's two pieces

00:29:57.720 on the CBC

00:29:58.500 that made me feel that way.

00:30:00.380 One, they posted this piece

00:30:02.360 just right after Mother's Day,

00:30:04.160 a lady who writes, 0.99

00:30:05.880 I love my son

00:30:06.720 but I wish having him

00:30:08.200 had been my choice.

00:30:09.480 And so she talked about

00:30:10.280 how, you know,

00:30:11.860 she got pregnant

00:30:12.620 at a young age

00:30:13.280 and she was in

00:30:13.820 a religious community

00:30:14.520 and she didn't have the choice.

00:30:15.780 The only thing worse, Harrison,

00:30:17.500 than the left-wing movement

00:30:18.660 of Shout Your Abortion 1.00

00:30:19.660 which, where they're trying

00:30:20.720 to get women 0.99

00:30:21.200 to somehow be proud

00:30:22.220 of this decision

00:30:23.940 that they've made

00:30:24.560 in ending a life

00:30:26.060 of a baby,

00:30:26.780 the only thing worse

00:30:27.440 than that

00:30:27.860 is this movement

00:30:29.800 of people

00:30:30.500 and I've seen it

00:30:31.000 on left-wing sites

00:30:31.540 in the U.S.

00:30:32.520 writing about how

00:30:33.180 they regret having kids

00:30:34.180 or they wish

00:30:34.680 they didn't have kids

00:30:35.320 while the kid is living.

00:30:36.840 You know,

00:30:37.000 the kid is going to be able

00:30:38.100 to read this piece

00:30:39.120 at some point

00:30:39.760 and they,

00:30:40.800 I can't imagine

00:30:41.800 why you would put

00:30:42.800 that kind of trauma

00:30:43.360 on your child.

00:30:44.140 Like, even if deep down

00:30:45.360 you felt that way,

00:30:46.320 why would you ever,

00:30:47.340 you know,

00:30:48.820 voice that opinion

00:30:50.380 and put it in print

00:30:51.900 and publish it

00:30:52.940 on a news site

00:30:53.940 and put it in the CBC?

00:30:55.000 Like, it's so disgraceful.

00:30:56.420 It's so pitiful.

00:30:58.020 It makes me sad

00:30:58.760 for this individual

00:30:59.500 and sad the CBC

00:31:00.380 is promoting this worldview.

00:31:02.940 And then there's another one

00:31:03.920 that sort of doubles down

00:31:05.200 on this whole idea

00:31:05.780 that says on Mother's Day

00:31:07.480 let's celebrate all mothers

00:31:08.500 not just mothers

00:31:09.280 with male partners.

00:31:10.740 And so, again,

00:31:11.580 they're trying to use Mother's Day

00:31:13.600 to, you know,

00:31:14.800 rather than celebrate families

00:31:16.260 and motherhood

00:31:17.580 and this beautiful idea

00:31:19.180 of bringing children

00:31:19.740 to the world

00:31:20.320 and giving them opportunities

00:31:22.400 and all this kind of stuff.

00:31:23.140 Rather than celebrating

00:31:23.760 the family and mothers,

00:31:25.820 they use it to promote

00:31:26.760 their left-wing ideology

00:31:28.400 that its very purpose

00:31:30.440 is to undermine the family,

00:31:31.860 undermine motherhood,

00:31:32.780 push this idea

00:31:33.720 that anyone could be a mother

00:31:35.100 and men can be mothers

00:31:36.840 and let's talk about

00:31:38.240 LGBTQ2+, IA, whatever.

00:31:41.900 Like, it's just like

00:31:43.540 they can't help but push

00:31:45.020 their left-wing ideology

00:31:45.940 at every minute.

00:31:46.920 It's just, it's absurd.

00:31:48.460 And the only,

00:31:49.020 I think really the,

00:31:50.160 based on the quality of writing

00:31:51.540 and storytelling

00:31:52.440 you get from these CBC op-eds,

00:31:54.340 Candice,

00:31:54.500 I think it's safe to say

00:31:55.260 that there's only one requirement

00:31:56.720 that the CBC holds

00:31:58.240 in order to publish an op-ed

00:31:59.700 and that requires you

00:32:00.480 to be a radical leftist,

00:32:02.720 some sort of activist

00:32:03.580 who wants to promote

00:32:05.140 a specific lifestyle.

00:32:06.460 Obviously, in this Natasha Steer

00:32:08.900 written op-ed about Mother's Day

00:32:10.460 wanting to celebrate

00:32:11.320 mothers without male partners. 0.65

00:32:14.100 Really, it's not really,

00:32:14.800 it's not really about that.

00:32:15.720 It's actually celebrating

00:32:16.580 single mothers

00:32:17.560 and being proud of that fact,

00:32:20.240 which I find to be

00:32:21.820 just an odd thing

00:32:22.580 for the state broadcaster

00:32:23.900 to be promoting.

00:32:24.480 And the first story

00:32:26.420 you touched on

00:32:27.100 is this horrible story

00:32:28.540 of this woman

00:32:29.060 who essentially says

00:32:30.580 that she wished

00:32:31.120 she never had

00:32:31.860 the son that she gave up

00:32:34.380 for adoption

00:32:34.960 19 years ago.

00:32:37.040 Obviously, that kid

00:32:38.240 is going to read this story

00:32:39.340 because the mother's name

00:32:41.460 is on it

00:32:41.920 and it's in the CBC.

00:32:43.160 So I wonder how

00:32:43.860 that's going to go down.

00:32:44.680 It's really, really,

00:32:45.840 really sad story.

00:32:48.420 But of course, Candice,

00:32:49.620 you're never going to get

00:32:50.420 in the CBC

00:32:51.080 a counter op-ed.

00:32:54.840 Someone that says

00:32:55.560 actually

00:32:56.020 not choosing to have

00:32:58.020 an abortion

00:32:58.380 was a great decision for me

00:32:59.680 and I'm proud

00:33:00.520 that I gave someone

00:33:02.120 the life that they have.

00:33:03.680 Of course,

00:33:04.400 that's not the message

00:33:05.220 that the CBC wants to push.

00:33:06.440 The message they want to push

00:33:07.400 is that

00:33:08.340 abortion should be, 1.00

00:33:10.500 women should have abortion, 1.00

00:33:11.840 women should celebrate that 0.97

00:33:12.900 and push for it

00:33:14.340 to be more of a reality

00:33:16.100 than it already is.

00:33:17.020 And I think it's just

00:33:17.840 extremely disgusting

00:33:19.260 that the CBC pedals

00:33:20.460 in this space

00:33:22.460 and I don't know

00:33:24.800 what's going to happen

00:33:27.380 to get them to stop

00:33:28.660 publishing these articles

00:33:29.860 but at least it gives us

00:33:32.340 something to talk about

00:33:32.980 every week, right?

00:33:34.440 Well, it's like

00:33:35.200 the ideology

00:33:38.460 and the worldview

00:33:39.000 that the CBC is promoting

00:33:40.640 is obviously counter to

00:33:42.600 the way that most Canadians think

00:33:44.460 and so you kind of think

00:33:45.620 why is our money

00:33:46.860 going towards something

00:33:48.000 that's just designed

00:33:49.120 to push really

00:33:50.820 sort of fringe ideas

00:33:52.420 and not just fringe

00:33:53.600 in a way that most people

00:33:54.920 would feel really uncomfortable

00:33:55.800 with the idea

00:33:56.520 of someone saying 1.00

00:33:57.520 I wish I'd killed my child 0.99

00:33:58.780 as opposed to giving them life. 1.00

00:34:00.380 I didn't want to make

00:34:01.160 that sacrifice.

00:34:02.840 But also the kinds of things

00:34:04.380 that they're promoting

00:34:04.980 are things that

00:34:05.840 are not,

00:34:08.040 they're not,

00:34:08.840 it's not good advice

00:34:09.620 to people

00:34:10.240 who want to live

00:34:11.020 a happy and fulfilled life.

00:34:12.460 Like if you follow

00:34:13.300 the advice of these two

00:34:14.500 people in these stories,

00:34:16.080 my guess is you'll be 0.98

00:34:17.080 a pretty miserable person 1.00

00:34:18.340 if you sit there 0.97

00:34:19.440 and dwell

00:34:20.700 and wish that you 1.00

00:34:21.420 had killed your child 1.00

00:34:22.240 as opposed to giving them life 0.99

00:34:23.400 and you want to celebrate

00:34:24.800 someone who is

00:34:25.680 doing something

00:34:26.860 incredibly difficult.

00:34:27.820 I have a lot of respect

00:34:28.920 for single mothers

00:34:29.700 and I believe

00:34:30.740 that most single mothers 0.99

00:34:31.700 don't choose to be single.

00:34:32.780 They would prefer

00:34:33.280 to have a loving,

00:34:34.920 stable partnership

00:34:35.620 and that's sort of

00:34:36.780 why we have marriage

00:34:38.300 and we've had it

00:34:39.020 for that institution

00:34:40.440 to survive thousands of years

00:34:41.440 because it's good

00:34:43.140 and it's necessary

00:34:43.860 and it helps

00:34:44.560 raise children

00:34:45.660 in a balanced way.

00:34:47.800 I don't think

00:34:48.520 that people would choose

00:34:49.460 to be single

00:34:50.720 but promoting it

00:34:52.940 as if like

00:34:53.620 that's a choice

00:34:55.360 and that's a noble way

00:34:57.520 to live your life.

00:34:58.240 It's like

00:34:58.540 if you follow that path

00:35:00.240 you're not going to be

00:35:00.920 a happy, fulfilled person.

00:35:02.440 So CBC is just sort of

00:35:03.660 promoting 0.96

00:35:04.080 their own loathsome 0.99

00:35:05.640 leftist views 0.99

00:35:06.720 that really

00:35:07.280 if you follow their advice 0.95

00:35:08.840 you'd be pretty miserable.

00:35:09.880 So not really a service

00:35:12.120 from our state broadcaster

00:35:13.600 over there.

00:35:14.720 Yeah, you know Candace

00:35:15.400 I wish we could have

00:35:16.020 ended the show

00:35:16.600 on a better note

00:35:18.160 but like we always say

00:35:20.060 at least

00:35:20.380 we'll get one good

00:35:21.880 CBC op-ed

00:35:22.840 to criticize every week

00:35:24.400 and this is

00:35:26.020 just another

00:35:27.100 shocking piece

00:35:28.620 and it totally lacks

00:35:30.460 any virtue

00:35:33.100 and positive

00:35:35.660 lifestyle choices

00:35:38.100 so I think you're right.

00:35:39.880 Well it's Mother's Day

00:35:40.740 they could

00:35:41.040 they could have

00:35:41.540 surely found

00:35:42.880 you know

00:35:43.160 a happy positive story

00:35:44.540 of a mother

00:35:44.980 who's overcome adversity

00:35:45.960 and tell the story

00:35:46.700 about how great moms are

00:35:47.720 and let's all like

00:35:48.460 feel good and warm

00:35:49.160 and fuzzy about

00:35:49.920 you know

00:35:50.480 everyone loves

00:35:51.000 loves mothers

00:35:51.760 everyone loves her mom 0.94

00:35:52.620 you know

00:35:53.200 the CBC could have

00:35:54.120 could have

00:35:54.480 could have done

00:35:55.040 something positive here

00:35:55.880 Harrison

00:35:56.260 but instead

00:35:56.720 they pull out

00:35:57.440 these weird fringe

00:35:58.140 areas

00:35:58.920 and yes

00:35:59.720 that is why

00:36:00.260 we do this show

00:36:01.120 why we do

00:36:02.200 Fake News Friday

00:36:02.760 on the Candace Malcolm

00:36:03.320 show every week

00:36:03.880 so Harrison Faulkner

00:36:05.280 thank you so much

00:36:05.900 for joining us.

00:36:06.800 Yeah thank you

00:36:07.340 for having me on.

00:36:08.780 Great it's Fake News Friday

00:36:09.780 I'm Candace Malcolm

00:36:10.400 and this is

00:36:11.100 The Candace Malcolm Show.

00:36:11.840 The Candace Malcolm

Juno News - May 13, 2022

Independent media is running circles around the legacy media

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript