º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍø

“You’re saying it’s a falsehood and … Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that,� she said.

These days, Trump’s falsehoods, exaggerations and fears are met with a cumulative shrug when they’re presented as facts. We are no longer shocked. Diehard MAGA Republicans believe the president’s lies; the rest of us watch in bewilderment, laugh and move on.

Here at home, we thankfully don’t have quite the same problems with “alternative facts.â€� Yet we do have politicians seeking to sow seeds of division by presenting selective versions of the facts. The offences are not as egregious, but their purpose is similar: to get voters riled up, and to spread Trump-style grievance politics.ÌýAnd perhaps we should not be meeting these moments with a shrug. Perhaps we should be calling them out.

This week’s most startling example is a glossy social media video from Conservative House Leader Andrew Scheer, an MP for 21 years and a former party leader. In the video , Scheer lambasts the Liberals for passing legislation (C-5, although he doesn’t name the bill) that allows Prime Minister Mark Carney to selectively apply laws — giving “himself the same power that dictators the world overâ€� have, he says.Ìý

Scheer compares the Liberal government to regimes in Russia, Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea, and raises concerns that selective application of laws will allow “powerful politicians (to) pick and choose which projects get approved, who gets the permit, and by extension, who makes the money.Ìý

“It’s not about who is actually following the rules and regulations, who’s got the best product or who’s found the best way to serve the marketplace,â€� says Scheer. “It’s who’s the best connected, who paid off the right politician, who got in front of the right decision-makers and convinced them to give them the green light.â€�

These concerns are legitimate. The risk outlined are accurate. In June, the Liberals proposed giving cabinet the power to suspend the application of certain laws and designated a minister with the power to pick and choose what conditions to apply to fast-tracked multibillion-dollar infrastructure projects. It’s troubling. Scheer is right to call it out.Ìý

What Scheer omits to say in his video, however, is that he and his party supported this law. He . This law that, he says, is so bad that it “expose(s) Canada’s political system to the possibility of corruption on a massive scale,â€� and “completely changes the nature of how our economy works,â€� is only law because Conservatives wanted this legislation to pass.Ìý

The NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party all oppose the law.ÌýAnd since the Liberals have a minority of the seats in the House of Commons, they needed a few opposition MPs to side with them. The Conservatives could have demanded changes, amendments, more study. They had the power to dictate to the Liberals what they wanted to see in this bill. Instead, they fast-tracked its approval.Ìý

This context is not part of Scheer’s video. Why not? Why is he trying to mislead the public about his own party’s sense of alarm over this law? 

Also on X this week, Conservative MP Larry Brock circulated a video of himself criticizing the government’s hate crime legislation, Bill C-9, for failing to mention ”.â€�

“Let’s not forget, there’s absolutely zero reference to Christianity. Christianity is under attack in this country,â€� Brock says in the clip from . “Churches have been burned, Christian churches have burned at an alarming rate.â€�

What Brock omits to mention is that  doesn’t specify ²¹²Ô²âÌýreligion — not Christianity but also not Judaism, not Islam, nor any other. (The bill is vague — too vague according to the B.C. Civil Liberties Association — and would criminalize the behaviour of anyone who wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable groups by displaying terrorism and hate symbols.)

Christians — like the members of any identifiable religious group — are protected by the proposed law, which seeks to further protect access to buildings used for religious worship, as well as religious events, schools, daycares, senior residences and cemeteries.Ìý

So why is Brock trying to suggest that the Liberals are ignoring Christians, or that Christians should be upset that they weren’t specifically addressed? 

Who gains by fuelling this division and fake outrage?

Perhaps these could be topics for Scheer and Brock’s next videos.