There's Transparency and Then There's "Transparency"

How interesting the party that lied about transparency is being kept in power by its silent voters and China:

The federal Liberals sparked an uproar over a bid Friday morning to shut down committee study on its controversial Bill C-10, as experts continue to express concern about the impact the legislation could have on free speech online.

The Liberals moved a time allocation motion for the bill on Friday morning, a procedural move that crunches the time allotted to discussing a bill and is normally used to limit hours of debate in the House of Commons — not at committees.

The bill has been stalled before committee and as the government faces down the ticking clock towards the end of the parliamentary session on June 23.

More:

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault yesterday served notice he will gag a filibuster of Bill C-10, the first legislation in Canada to regulate legal internet content. Guilbeault complained the bill has “been stuck in committee for weeks” and must pass before Parliament takes summer adjournment for Québec’s Saint Jean Baptiste Day, June 24: ““I will confess to you it has been challenging.”

That criminal is keen to pass this censorship motion, isn't he? 

**

Cabinet is in “close touch” with Canada Post directors on a confidential plan to reduce the corporation’s deficit, Public Works Minister Anita Anand said yesterday. The report cannot be made public, the Commons government operations committee was told: “We are all working very hard.”

**

Public health authorities never asked for $150 million field hospitals ordered from SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., the Commons government operations committee was told yesterday. No province asked for the mobile units, either. None have been used to date: “Who requested them?”

**

The federal government claimed cabinet confidentiality over its discussions on COVID-19 mandatory quarantine hotel rules, shielding what was behind the decision even from the scrutiny of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court at a trial challenging the constitutionality of the controversial rules.

“Cabinet confidentiality has been claimed, so, none of us today can say what was actually before cabinet when they made their decision,” lawyer Robert Hawkes complained to the court.