PROC – The Uninvited Ovation of the notorious Waffen-SS at the HoC

From The Opposition News Network

Unmasking the Hunka Fiasco, A Tale of Evasion, Applause, and the Art of Political Cover-Up

Yesterday, at Meeting No. 111 of the PROC – the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs – things got heated, to say the least. We witnessed yet another chapter in what can only be described as the Bloc/NDP/Liberal cover-up coalition’s ongoing saga. Let’s delve into the heart of this matter, shall we?

Rewind to September 22, 2023. Imagine a scene straight out of a political thriller, but this isn’t fiction; it’s the reality we’re living in Canada today. The House of Commons, a revered chamber of democracy, was transformed into a stage for what can only be described as a bewildering spectacle. The center of attention? Yaroslav Hunka, a veteran of the SS Division Galicia, part of the notorious Waffen-SS. And who were leading the standing ovation for this figure? None other than Speaker Anthony Rota, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and, shockingly, during a visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the entire assembly rose in applause.

This moment, surreal as it may seem, unfolded right before our eyes. It’s a scene that, if pitched for a screenplay, would be rejected for its implausibility. Yet, here we are, folks. Speaker Anthony Rota, in the aftermath, claimed full responsibility for this egregious error in judgment. However, this explanation fell short for many, particularly Conservatives who argued that the responsibility doesn’t just lie with Rota but extends to the Prime Minister’s Office for failing to properly vet the guest list.

This incident isn’t just a domestic blunder; it has international ramifications. Russia, amid their war with Ukraine, has been accusing the West, particularly Ukraine, of Nazification to justify their invasion. This event in Canada’s House of Commons, unfortunately, plays right into their narrative. It’s a talking point that was even highlighted in the Tucker Carlson/Vladimir Putin interview on February 8, 2024.

So, what do we have here? A narrative unfolding that would have any observer scratching their head in disbelief. MP Eric Duncan raised a question that cut to the core of the issue, only to be shut down by a Liberal cohort seemingly intent on narrowing the scope of inquiry to a suffocating point. The question wasn’t just relevant; it was crucial. It highlighted not just a single lapse in judgment but a systemic failure in vetting processes that spanned beyond the walls of the House of Commons to other official events. And yet, here we are, witnessing the procedural gymnastics designed to shield the Trudeau administration from further embarrassment.

Let’s dissect the maneuvering, shall we? The Honourable Bardish Chagger, in her role, made an effort to corral the discussion strictly within the confines of what happened in the House of Commons. But why? Is it because the broader implications of this debacle, spanning across multiple events, might further tarnish the image of Trudeau’s government? It seems clear as day that the aim here is to pad the damage, to keep the fallout as contained and as minimal as possible. But at what cost? The truth?

The stench of political maneuvering is all too familiar, folks. From foreign interference to now what’s being dubbed as ‘Nazi-gate,’ it’s the same old dance. Limit the questions, control the narrative, and hope the public’s attention shifts elsewhere. But here’s the thing – the Canadian public deserves to have all their questions asked and answered. It’s not of mere consequence to the likes of Chagger or anyone else looking to shield their party from the fallout; it’s a matter of public interest, of national embarrassment. And speaking of consequences, let’s talk about Waterloo, where MP Bardish Chagger hails from. The latest polls indicate a shifting landscape: LPC at 32% ± 6%, CPC at 38% ± 7%, NDP at 19% ± 5%, and GPC at 8% ± 4%. It seems the constituents are as fed up with these shenanigans as we are. The prospect of Chagger being dethroned in the next election? Well, let’s just say, it wouldn’t be a moment too soon. To rid the committees of this sort of maneuvering would be a breath of fresh air.

The narrative thickens, as MP Eric Duncan doggedly peels back the layers of this bewildering saga, it’s like watching a detective piecing together clues from a crime scene. Only in this case, the crime is against common sense and competence. Duncan, in his relentless pursuit of clarity, tries to navigate through the smoke and mirrors of governmental protocol and accountability—or, more accurately, the lack thereof.

His line of questioning, aimed at understanding past mistakes to prevent future blunders, is met with the kind of resistance you’d expect from an administration knee-deep in damage control. The conversation veers into the territory of the Prime Minister’s infamous trip to India—a diplomatic disaster that still haunts the halls of Canadian politics. A known terrorist ends up on the guest list, and suddenly, Canada’s international reputation is dancing on the edge of a knife.

The witness’s acknowledgment of this past mistake underlines a crucial point: the importance of vetting, the need for thorough background checks, and the dire consequences of neglecting such processes. It’s a lesson in governance, served cold, courtesy of a glaring blunder on the international stage.

Yet, as Duncan digs deeper, seeking to apply these hard-learned lessons to the current debacle, he’s met with interruptions, procedural objections—tactics to derail, to deflect. It’s the political equivalent of throwing sand in the gears of accountability.

MP Cathay Wagentall point of order captures the essence of the frustration many feel: the need to prevent such embarrassments from recurring, the imperative to shield the Prime Minister from repeated international faux pas. But the irony is palpable. The very mechanisms supposed to protect the integrity of the office are the ones undermining it through their relentless efforts to obscure the truth. This charade, this theater of the absurd we’re witnessing, is more than just a procedural dance. It’s a symptom of a deeper malaise—a government so entangled in its missteps that it seems to have lost sight of its duty to its citizens, its responsibility to uphold the dignity of its office on the world stage.

Luc Berthold stepped into the fray, armed with the kind of questions that make the Trudeau government’s allies squirm in their well-cushioned seats. The issue at hand? The inexplicable invitation of Mr. Hunka to a high-profile event, an invitation that has the fingerprints of incompetence all over it. When Berthold pressed for answers on the how and why of Mr. Hunka’s seating and invitation—moments that should have had clear, straightforward protocols—the responses he received were as clear as mud. The protocol office, seemingly a key player in this drama, claimed ignorance about who gets the golden ticket to the House of Commons gallery. But here’s where it gets interesting: Berthold, with the precision of a prosecutor, pointed out the obvious role the protocol office plays when it comes to diplomatic corps seats. Yet, when it came to Mr. Hunka, suddenly, it’s as if everyone’s memory turned as foggy as a morning in Nova Scotia.

The Liberals tried to shut down the conversation faster than you can say “cover-up.” But Berthold, undeterred, highlighted the gaping holes in their story. The Toronto event, a sideshow in this circus, became a focal point. The witness admitted—oh so reluctantly—that the invitation to Mr. Hunka came from none other than the PMO’s office, upon the suggestion of the Ukrainian embassy. How convenient. But here’s the kicker, folks: despite all attempts to navigate through this mess, the Liberals and their coalition pals, the Bloc and NDP, decided it was time to pull the plug on this embarrassing episode. “Meeting adjourned,” they declared, hoping to sweep the whole affair under the rug. But let me tell you, this isn’t just some parliamentary ping-pong match; this is a glaring testament to the Trudeau government’s disregard for accountability.

And so, as the committee wrapped up, with the cover-up coalition patting themselves on the back for dodging another bullet, one can’t help but marvel at the audacity of it all. Transparency in the Trudeau government? As extinct as the dodo bird.

It’s clear as day, folks. The halls of Ottawa are reeking, and let me tell you, it’s not the scent of maple syrup—it’s the stink of a swamp, a bog of obfuscation that’s determined to muddy the windows through which you, the voter, should be able to see the gears of your government at work. But what we’ve got instead is a theatrical production, a performance so dedicated to the art of cover-up and evasion that it would give Broadway a run for its money.

I, for one, am counting down the days until this Liberal/NDP cover-up coalition is shown the door, kicked to the curb by the very voters they’ve attempted to blindfold. It’s not just a desire; it’s a necessity. It’s a clarion call to the next administration that we, the voters, are fed up. We’re done tolerating the smoke screens, the sleights of hand, and, let’s just say it outright, the outright bullshit that’s been paraded around as governance.

The stench from this swamp has wafted far and wide, but the wind is changing. It’s about time we clear the air, clean house, and restore some semblance of transparency and integrity to the halls of power. So, as we look ahead to the next election, let it be known: the Canadian public is awake, alert, and absolutely unwilling to stomach any more of this. The message is loud and clear—enough is enough.

So, to the powers that be, consider this your official notice. The jig is up. We’re on to you, and we’re not standing for it any longer. It’s time for a clean sweep, a breath of fresh air. Because, at the end of the day, it’s our country, our future, and our very democracy at stake. And that, dear friends, is something worth fighting for.

For the full experience, subscribe

Dan Knight

@danknight

Writer for the Opposition Network/ Former amateur MMA champion / Independent journalist / Political commentator / Podcaster / Unbiased reporting

Podcast https://open.spotify.com/show/6PNOvrB

Up Next

Alberta taking back control of federal agreements

Don't Miss

Trudeau drops nearly $200K on airplane food during six-day trip

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Canada’s Carbon Tax Is A Disaster For Our Economy And Oil Industry

Crime / 12 hours ago

The Left Thinks Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree

Business / 13 hours ago

Dallas mayor invites NYers to first ‘sanctuary city from socialism’

Carbon Tax

Canada’s Carbon Tax Is A Disaster For Our Economy And Oil Industry

Published on July 5, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Lee Harding exposes the truth behind Canada’s sky-high carbon tax—one that’s hurting our oil industry and driving businesses away. With foreign oil paying next to nothing, Harding argues this policy is putting Canada at a major economic disadvantage. It’s time to rethink this costly approach.

Our sky-high carbon tax places Canadian businesses at a huge disadvantage and is pushing investment overseas

No carbon tax will ever satisfy global-warming advocates, but by most measures, Canada’s carbon tax is already too high.

This unfortunate reality was brought to light by Resource Works, a B.C.-based non-profit research and advocacy organization. In March, one of their papers outlined the disproportionate and damaging effects of Canada’s carbon taxes.

The study found that the average carbon tax among the top 20 oil-exporting nations, excluding Canada, was $0.70 per tonne of carbon emissions in fiscal 2023. With Canada included, that average jumps to $6.77 per tonne.

At least Canada demands the same standards for foreign producers as it does for domestic ones, right? Wrong.

Most of Canada’s oil imports come from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria, none of which impose a carbon tax. Only 2.8 per cent of Canada’s oil imports come from the modestly carbon-taxing countries of the U.K. and Colombia.

Canada’s federal consumer carbon tax was $80 per tonne, set to reach $170 by 2030, until Prime Minister Mark Carney reduced it to zero on March 14. However, parallel carbon taxes on industry remain in place and continue to rise.

Resource Works estimates Canada’s effective carbon tax at $58.94 per tonne for fiscal 2023, while foreign oil entering Canada had an effective tax of just $0.30 per tonne.

“This results in a 196-fold disparity, effectively functioning as a domestic tariff against Canadian oil production,” the research memo notes. Forget Donald Trump—Ottawa undermines our country more effectively than anyone else.

Canada is responsible for 1.5 per cent of global CO2 emissions, but the study estimates that Canada paid one-third of all carbon taxes in 2023. Mexico, with nearly the same emissions, paid just $3 billion in carbon taxes for 2023-24, far less than Canada’s $44 billion.

Resource Works also calculated that Canada alone raised the global per-tonne carbon tax average from $1.63 to $2.44. To be Canadian is to be heavily taxed.

Historically, the Canadian dollar and oil and gas investment in Canada tracked the global price of oil, but not anymore. A disconnect began in 2016 when the Trudeau government cancelled the Northern Gateway pipeline and banned tanker traffic on B.C.’s north coast.

The carbon tax was introduced in 2019 at $15 per tonne, a rate that increased annually until this year. The study argues this “economic burden,” not shared by the rest of the world, has placed Canada at “a competitive disadvantage by accelerating capital flight and reinforcing economic headwinds.”

This “erosion of energy-sector investment” has broader economic consequences, including trade balance pressures and increased exchange rate volatility.

According to NASA, Canadian forest fires released 640 million metric tonnes of carbon in 2023, four times the amount from fossil fuel emissions. We should focus on fighting fires, not penalizing our fossil fuel industry.

Carney praised Canada’s carbon tax approach in his 2021 book Value(s), raising questions about how long his reprieve will last. He has suggested raising carbon taxes on industry, which would worsen Canada’s competitive disadvantage.

In contrast, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre argued that extracting and exporting Canadian oil and gas could displace higher-carbon-emitting energy sources elsewhere, helping to reduce global emissions.

This approach makes more sense than imposing disproportionately high tax burdens on Canadians. Taxes won’t save the world.

Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Crime

The Left Thinks Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree

Published on July 5, 2025

Todayville

[This article was originally published in City Journal, a public policy magazine and website published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research]

By Adam Zivo

A Canadian poll finds that racial minorities don’t believe drug enforcement is bigoted.

Is drug prohibition racist? Many left-wing institutions seem to think so. But their argument is historically illiterate—and it contradicts recent polling data, too, which show that minorities overwhelmingly reject that view.

Policies and laws are tools to establish order. Like any tool, they can be abused. The first drug laws in North America, dating back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, arguably fixated on opium as a legal pretext to harass Asian immigrants, for example. But no reasonable person would argue that laws against home invasion, murder, or theft are “racist” because they have been misapplied in past cases. Absent supporting evidence, leaping from “this tool is sometimes used in racist ways” to “this tool is essentially racist” is kindergarten-level reasoning.

Yet this is precisely what institutions and activist groups throughout the Western world have done. The Drug Policy Alliance, a U.S.-based organization, suggests that drug prohibition is rooted in “racism and fear.” Harm Reduction International, a British NGO, argues for legalization on the grounds that drug prohibition entrenches “racialized hierarchies, which were established under colonial control and continue to dominate today.” In Canada, where I live, the top public health official in British Columbia, our most drug-permissive province, released a pro-legalization report last summer claiming that prohibition is “based on a history of racism, white supremacy, paternalism, colonialism, classism and human rights violations.”

These claims ignore how drug prohibition has been and remains popular in many non-European societies. Sharia law has banned the use of mind-altering substances since the seventh century. When Indigenous leaders negotiated treaties with Canadian colonists in the late 1800s, they asked for “the exclusion of fire water (whiskey)” from their communities. That same century, China’s Qing Empire banned opium amid a national addiction crisis. “Opium is a poison, undermining our good customs and morality,” the Daoguang emperor wrote in an 1810 edict.

Today, Asian and Muslim jurisdictions impose much stiffer penalties on drug offenders than do Western nations. In countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Singapore, and Thailand, addicts and traffickers are given lengthy prison sentences or executed. Meantime, in Canada and the United States, de facto decriminalization has left urban cores littered with syringes and shrouded in clouds of meth.

The anti-drug backlash building in North America appears to be spearheaded by racial minorities. When Chesa Boudin, San Francisco’s former district attorney, was recalled in 2022, support for his ouster was highest among Asian voters. Last fall, 73 percent of Latinos backed California’s Proposition 36, which heightened penalties for drug crimes, while only 58 percent of white respondents did.

In Canada, the first signs of a parallel trend emerged during Vancouver’s 2022 municipal election, where an apparent surge in Chinese Canadian support helped install a slate of pro-police candidates. Then, in British Columbia’s provincial election last autumn, nonwhite voters strongly preferred the BC Conservatives, who campaigned on stricter drug laws. And in last month’s federal election, within both Vancouver and Toronto’s metropolitan areas, tough-on-crime conservatives received considerable support from South Asian communities.

These are all strong indicators that racial minorities do not, in fact, universally favor drug legalization. But their small population share means there is relatively little polling data to measure their preferences. Since only 7.6 percent of Americans are Asian, for example, a poll of 1,000 randomly selected people will yield an average of only 76 Asian respondents—too small a sample from which to draw meaningful conclusions. You can overcome this barrier by commissioning very large polls, but that’s expensive.

Nonetheless, last autumn, the Centre for Responsible Drug Policy (a nonprofit I founded and operate) did just that. In partnership with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, we contracted Mainstreet Research to ask over 12,000 British Columbians: “Do you agree or disagree that criminalizing drugs is racist?”

The results undermine progressives’ assumptions. Only 26 percent of nonwhite respondents agreed (either strongly or weakly) that drug criminalization is racist, while over twice as many (56 percent) disagreed. The share of nonwhite respondents who strongly disagreed was three times larger than the share that strongly agreed (43.2 percent versus 14.3 percent). These results are fairly conclusive for this jurisdiction, given the poll’s sample size of 2,233 nonwhite respondents and a margin of error of 2 percent.

Notably, Indigenous respondents seemed to be the most anti-drug ethnic group: only 20 percent agreed (weakly or strongly) with the “criminalization is racist” narrative, while 61 percent disagreed. Once again, those who disagreed were much more vehement than those who agreed. With a sample size of 399 respondents, the margin of error here (5 percent) is too small to confound these dramatic results.

We saw similar outcomes for other minority groups, such as South Asians, Southeast Asians, Latinos, and blacks. While Middle Eastern respondents also seemed to follow this trend, the poll included too few of them to draw definitive conclusions. Only East Asians were divided on the issue, though a clear majority still disagreed that criminalization is racist.

As this poll was limited to British Columbian respondents, our findings cannot necessarily be assumed to hold throughout Canada and the United States. But since the province is arguably the most drug-permissive jurisdiction within the two countries, these results could represent the ceiling of pro-drug, anti-criminalization attitudes among minority communities.

Legalization proponents and their progressive allies take pride in being “anti-racist.” Our polling, however, suggests that they are not listening to the communities they profess to care about.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Bureau