reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @MikeBarrettON
@MikeBarrettON - Michael Barrett
Secret. Warrantless. Dangerous. Bill C8 gives Liberal Ministers power to seize your personal data & cut your internet—without a warrant, but with a gag order so you can’t talk about it. If PM Carney won’t protect your rights, we will. Share this. Spread the warning. https://t.co/e08cTCAADw
Video Transcript AI Summary
Bill c eight can hand the government secret warrantless powers over Canadians' communications. This is a serious setback for privacy. The commissioner notes that privacy impact assessment is required by the treasury board directive but "it's not a legal obligation in the privacy act." He argues there should be "the opportunity for my office to give input before the fact" on major changes, including legislation, and that we are "not consulted on the specific pieces of legislation before they're tabled." He calls for "necessity and proportionality, strict criteria for the exercise of powers, and appropriate transparency and reporting mechanisms." The bill's provisions would allow "secret orders to disable an individual's telecommunications access" and "a minister compel data without judicial oversight," with concerns about secrecy and reporting, "reports to appropriate authorities" and "confidential reporting" to raise questions. He warns of "a parallel system" where data can be seized in secret with no redress.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Bill c eight can hand the government secret warrantless powers over Canadians' communications. This is a serious setback for privacy. It's also a serious setback for democracy. With no requirement for privacy impact assessments before these laws or regulations are passed and with the serious implications that they have on Canadians' privacy, isn't parliament simply being asked to grant sweeping powers of surveillance to the government without a formal review.
Speaker 1: In fact, privacy impact assessment is something that treasury board directive requires government departments to do, but it's not a legal obligation in the privacy act. And this is one of the recommendations that I have made, to parliament that I continue to make. It should be an obligation. There should be the opportunity for my office to to give input before the fact when there's a where the major change, including legislation. So it's something to manage.
There's cabinet confidences to be considered, but, I would agree that that opportunity would be important.
Speaker 0: And so you haven't had that opportunity with bill c eight and bill c two?
Speaker 1: We're not consulted on the specific pieces of legislation before they're tabled. We have exchanges often after, with officials, and they're good exchanges. But I think earlier consultation would be would make our our feedback more meaningful, and our feedback would happen before it's table.
Speaker 0: To continue to preempt your appearance on bill c eight at another committee, do you have a particular amendment or guardrail that you'd like to see included in that bill before it comes out of committee?
Speaker 1: Not specifically at this stage, but I'll just repeat necessity and proportionality, strict criteria for the exercise of powers, and appropriate transparency and reporting mechanisms. These are the things that we're looking for.
Speaker 0: Okay. There have been a pretty broad chorus of voices that that are concerned about the sweeping and secret powers that cabinet ministers would have over the Internet access and telephone access for individual Canadians the power to secret powers to seize private data without warrant and conceal those actions from the public. So would secret orders to disable an individual's telecommunications access be inconsistent with the principles of the privacy act and if so why sir?
Speaker 1: Thank you for the question. So in in in the last parliament I appeared on on bill c 26 and and and talked about some of these issues when when when legislation aims at giving more power to the state to protect infrastructure and and to disable and to take certain steps. And and as commissioner, I I've always stated that privacy is not an obstacle to public interest. It's not an op we needed to put in the legislation a criterion on necessity and proportionality, making sure that the exercise of those powers is going to be tested from a privacy perspective to say, is this necessary? Does it achieve the result for which it's been put in place?
And is it proportional? So that's the substantive element. And you mentioned secrecy. In certain instances, secrecy is necessary, but it should be challenged, and there should be ways for some reports to be made to appropriate authorities. It doesn't have to be necessarily that may may make it public, but reports to my office, reports to a national committee of parliamentarians or other means.
Speaker 0: And so in your review of this proposed legislation, does it check all of those boxes?
Speaker 1: Well, I have I will be waiting to testify on c eight when called and we're reviewing that very carefully but there is more to be done in terms of the the reporting mechanism and the necessity and proportionality.
Speaker 0: I would say for sure that there's there's more to be done. This bill proposes to let the government secretly cut a Canadian's phone or internet service. The cabinet minister would have the power to issue the order would prohibit that the existence of the order to cut that service which would of course eliminate the ability for anyone including you in your role as commissioner have any oversight whatsoever isn't this a direct circumvention of the act over which your mandate, is concerned?
Speaker 1: Well, that's why, again, to make sure that we're not we're not making it more difficult to raise rights and to protect privacy, reporting to appropriate authority, even if done in a confidential manner, is something that I I recommend. Making sure that there is ability for my office to be aware of it, to be able to raise questions. In some instances, a report to parliament is appropriate. A report to committee is appropriate. And so this should be part of the discussion and the assessment to say what type of reporting is there, is it enough?
But certainly in my view, there should be confidential reporting to some authority who would be able to raise questions about it.
Speaker 0: Currently, that doesn't exist in the legislation. What you're describing that what you describe as essential is not included in the legislation. Bill C8 lets a minister compelled data without judicial oversight. So this also creates a risk of a parallel system where Canadians personal information, their personal data, can be seized in secret again with no redress by individual Canadians or by your office. Isn't this antithetical to the type of system that that your office has been designed to protect?
Speaker 1: Well, if if my office is not aware of something happening, of of course, we can't raise questions about it. We can't assist Canadians. And so I think, again, there will be instances where making something known to the public may not be appropriate, but we should challenge a claim to absolute secrecy. We should make sure that there's appropriate reporting to the appropriate authorities and that there is an appropriate means, to raise questions.
Speaker 0: Right. Of course, if your office doesn't, doesn't know that the, law is being broken, then I guess the government's contention is that they haven't broken the law. Do you think that a vague standard like quote any threat, which is the term used in the legislation, undermines safeguards in the Privacy Act such as the requirement that collection or use must be necessary proportionate and authorized by law?
Speaker 1: We we've advocated in the past and as I said, I I expect to be called specifically on this bill to address it. But as a general proposition, I recommend a necessity and proportionality to be in the legislation made explicit so that They are not. The the strong test.
@MikeBarrettON - Michael Barrett
JAW-DROPPING Tom Clark pays $1800/month for his $9M condo Trudeau bought him with your money. This is below average rent in Canada. If Trudeau bought a $9M condo, their mortgage would be $42K/month. Trudeau’s hack gets a $40k monthly housing subsidy. https://t.co/mmiT8RtABy
Video Transcript AI Summary
A Canadian looking to buy a condo with a 20% down payment and a favorable mortgage rate would face monthly costs of about $42,000. In contrast, the monthly rent for their official residence is $3,600. This indicates a significant subsidy, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars, received each month for their housing.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So let's say a Canadian who didn't know Prime Minister Justin Trudeau went to buy a condo on their own and let's break down those numbers. Say they have 20% down payment. Let's say they get a great mortgage rate, which is tough after 9 years of, Justin Trudeau, and the economic vandalism that he's, he's perpetrated on Canadians, that'll work out to about $42,000 a month for your residents. How much do you pay in rent each month for your official residence? Just the number, please.
$3,600 on $42,000 a month. So it's fair to say that you're getting a massive subsidy worth tens of 1,000 of dollars in for your rent every single month.
@MikeBarrettON - Michael Barrett
JAW-DROPPING NDP-Liberal cover-up coalition votes to shutdown hearing into Trudeau’s Winnipeg Lab scandal. Trudeau let Beijing infiltrate Canada’s most secure lab, send deadly viruses to the PRC and access secure files and documents. What are they trying to hide? https://t.co/2sO99eptK6
Video Transcript AI Summary
Today at the committee, officials were set to discuss the Winnipeg Lab document scandal involving Justin Trudeau. The Liberals and NDP members did not show up, leading to the shutdown of the meeting. The scandal involves a national security breach at Canada's highest security lab, with the government accused of covering it up. The opposition is demanding answers from the top officials involved. This display of shutting down important work is seen as a betrayal of democracy and transparency promised by Trudeau. The fight for truth and accountability continues.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So we're at the standing committee on access to information privacy and ethics. And in the room today, we have, of course, Canada's, Information Commissioner. We have the, parliamentary, legal counsel, the law clerk. We have representatives from the Public Health Agency of Canada here to take questions on Justin Trudeau's, Winnipeg Lab document scandal. So I'm joined, by my colleagues, Michael Cooper and, and Larry Brock.
And, and we came to do our jobs and to ask questions about this, 1 1st first in the history of our country occasion where the prime minister has taken Canada's House of Commons to court to block the release of documents. Now we got these documents, and, and now they're blocking the hearings, silencing the officials who are here to talk about it. So I wanna show you the, liberal members' commitment to, to transparency and democracy. So let me take you through their seats in the room. Seat number 4, seat number 5, seat number 6, seat number 7.
You can see that the Liberals, not showing up for work today, but shutting down a meeting with, with the NDP, their partner in the cover up coalition. So, Michael Cooper, do you wanna give us a sense of why this scandal is so important and why it's so important, that we'd be able to proceed with these hearings, you know, and, it's how unbelievable it is that, the NDP Liberal Coalition shut it down.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, this is a government that, presided over or under whose watch a massive national security breach occurred at Canada's highest security lab. And for years, the Liberals tried to cover this up, taking unprecedented steps to defy parliament, defying 4 orders of parliament and even going so far as to take the speaker of the House of Commons to court to block the Winnipeg lab documents. We finally have the documents, and we need to get to the bottom of the decisions that were made that resulted in this massive cover up. I believe that those decisions go right to the top, right to the minister of health and to the prime minister.
Canadians deserve answers. That's what we were here to do, is to get those answers. We had today at committee, the information commissioner, the law clerk, and the president of PHAC. And what did we get? Instead of hearing from those officials to get those answers, the cover up coalition was once again at work with the Liberals and NDP voting to shut committee down.
It demonstrates the lengths to which they they will go, and the total contempt that they have for parliament, and frankly, the contempt that they have for Canadians who want answers.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So I'm gonna turn it over. Thanks so much, Michael Cooper. I'm gonna turn it over to Larry Brock.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Canadians need to know who these liberal NDP members were who just shamelessly shut down this committee. MP Khalid MP Fisher MP Hefner MP Baines MP Lambropoulos all from the Liberal Party of Canada and of course their complicit- partners in crime the NDP Matthew Green. This is a shameful display of democracy not at work. Justin Trudeau promised and lied consistently for 9 years that we would see the most open, transparent and accountable government.
You see what happens right now. This is a consistent pattern of them shutting down the important work that we do for you Canadians. It's shameful. It's a disgrace. We will continue to fight for you Canadians.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Very well said, gentlemen. We're gonna keep fighting, fighting for you, fighting to get the truth, fighting against the cover up coalition, because, Canadians, deserve better than, what they're seeing with, Justin Trudeau and his partner Jagmeet Singh. Singh, these liberals and NDP just aren't worth the cost. Michael Cooper, Larry Brock, thank you so much.
@MikeBarrettON - Michael Barrett
BREAKING 76% of sub contractors on Trudeau’s $54 Million ArriveCan did NO work. None. Check out this video. 👀 https://t.co/zT40ll3LRf
Video Transcript AI Summary
The procurement watchdog revealed that 76% of contractors involved in Trudeau's $54 million ArriveCAN app did no work at all. This includes the IT firm GC Strategies, which received $11 million. Trudeau's government has spent $1 billion on outside consultants, costing each Canadian family around $1,400. GC Strategies alone has received over $60 million in government contracts since 2017. This is just the beginning of the corruption and waste within Trudeau's government. Canadians are struggling while insiders in Ottawa profit. The procurement ombudsman's report exposes the lack of work done by contractors, and we await the auditor general's findings. We will continue to investigate and expose the corruption in Trudeau's government. Share this video to help us uncover the truth.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Damming news from the procurement watchdog about Trudeau's $54,000,000 ArriveCAN app. 76% of contractors who are supposed to have worked on this boondoggle did no work at all. None. More than 3 quarters of the contractors. This is the same ArriveCAN app, the $54,000,000 ArriveCAN app that had the 2 person, IT middlemen firm of GC Strategies receive $11,000,000.
This is absolutely unbelievable. So think about the cost of all of Justin Trudeau's outside consultants to Canadian family is costing, every Canadian family about $1400 with the 1,000,000,000 that he spent on outside consultants. That 2 person IT staffing firm, GC Strategies, they've received more than $60,000,000 in government contracts from Justin Trudeau just since 2017. This is the tip of the iceberg with the rot inside Justin Trudeau's government. And we're going to Keep working to expose the waste and the corruption with ghost contractors and no show contractors and falsified documents to bid up the the price that these middlemen and these contractors are are receiving.
It's absolutely egregious. Well, Canadians are struggling to feed themselves, feed their families, heat their homes, and we have insiders lining their pockets in Ottawa. So this is from the procurement ombudsman today with 3 quarters of the contractors on the Arrive scam having done no work at all. And we're still waiting to hear from the auditor general on this boondoggle. So we'll hear from, from her over the next couple weeks as well, but we're gonna keep digging into this in You can count on that.
So thank you for watching this video. Share it, and we're going to keep getting answers, keep exposing the corruption, waste, and rot in Justin Trudeau's Ottawa.
@MikeBarrettON - Michael Barrett
Is it time to call in the Mounties? Only Liberals think stuffing taxpayer money in the pockets of well-connected insiders is something to brag about. Their billion dollar green slush fund is in crisis and multiple investigations are underway. Canadians want the missing millions back.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The NDP Liberal government's $1 billion green fund is facing corruption allegations. The CEO and the board chair resigned in disgrace, while the auditor general and ethics commissioner are investigating. Whistleblowers claim that $150 million was embezzled by Liberal insiders. The opposition demands answers on where the missing money went and who benefited. The Minister of Innovation defends the government's investment in clean technology and fighting climate change. However, the opposition argues that the Liberals are involved in a despicable act of funneling taxpayers' money to their friends while Canadians struggle. They question if the RCMP will be involved in the investigations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The NDP Liberal government's $1,000,000,000 green or greed slash fund is in a crisis of corruption. The CEO resigned in disgrace. The liberal appointed board chair resigned in disgrace. The auditor general is investigating. The conflict of interest ethics commissioner is investigating to Liberal appointees.
And this week, we heard from whistleblowers that $150,000,000 was embezzled by Liberal insiders. Canadians wanna know, where did the missing millions go and who got rich? The honorable minister of innovation.
Speaker 1: Mister speaker, for Canadians watching at home, they're saying the conservative ideology in full display, mister speaker. These folks are so against climate change, mister speaker, that they'll go after Anyone and any organization that wants to fight climate change, even an organization that was voted 20 years ago by parliament, mister speaker, not But they won't attack the integrity of one of the most respected audit firm in this country, mister speaker. On this side of the house, we'll get to the bottom of this, but we'll keep investing in clean technology. We'll keep investing to fight climate change. We'll keep investing in Canadians.
Speaker 0: The honorable The honorable member of Leads Grenfell tells us that it's real leaks. Only Liberals would think shoveling 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars into the pockets of their Friends is doing anything to flight to fight climate change. They're under multiple investigation, and it's their appointees that are being investigated. It's absolutely despicable. Canadians are lined up at food banks in record numbers, and liberal liberal grifters and embezzlers are jamming their pockets full of Canadians' tax dollars.
Canadians wanna know who got rich and where did the missing millions go. But, mister Speaker, with an auditor general investigation and 2 ethics commissioner's investigation, is the RCMP next?
reSee.it AI Summary
Two Liberal-appointed board members of Trudeau's green fund allegedly funneled $600,000 in tax dollars for personal gain. A whistleblower was silenced, and the Minister whitewashed the corruption. How extensive is the cover-up? Investigation underway.
@MikeBarrettON - Michael Barrett
Two Liberal appointed board members at Trudeau’s green slush fund funnelled $600,000 in tax dollars to make themselves richer - now they’re under investigation. And Trudeau’s Minister did nothing but whitewash the corruption and silenced a whistleblower from testifying. How widespread is the corruption they’re trying to cover up?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Canada's ethics commissioner is investigating two liberal appointees who allegedly funneled over $600,000 to their own companies from a $1 billion green fund. The whistleblower, who was initially silenced by the government, will testify at a committee hearing. The opposition demands the prime minister reveal how many other Liberal insiders benefited financially. The minister for innovation defends the government's actions, stating they launched an investigation and took remedial measures, with the board chair and CEO resigning. The opposition criticizes the government for their handling of the situation, as the auditor general and ethics commissioner are now investigating. They claim up to $150 million has been embezzled, and question who profited from the fund.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Canada's ethics commissioner has launched an investigation into a 2nd liberal appointed member at their $1,000,000,000 green slush fund. 2 liberal appointees together have funneled more than $600,000 to their own companies. It's clear this prime minister isn't worth the cost to struggling Canadians. And though the NDP liberal government tried to silence the whistleblower, the whistleblower will be testifying at committee tonight. So can the prime minister cut the drama and so we don't have to wait till this evening and tell Canadians how many other Liberal insiders got rich?
The honorable minister for innovation.
Speaker 1: Mister speaker, in fact, let's cut the drama, mister speaker. These conservative are So against climate change, mister speaker, that they wanna go. One of the institution that has found in clean technology in this country, mister speaker. The moment When we learned about the allegation, we launched an investigation. We took remedial action.
The chair of the board has resigned. The CEO has resigned, mister speaker. We're gonna get to the bottom of this, Store confidence, have confidence, and good to you to find clean tech in this country.
Speaker 0: The honorable member from Leeds, Granville, Thousand Islands, and Meadowlakes. These liberals, and that minister was satisfied with their cover up report and wanted the board chair and their CEO to implement the recommendations at this corrupt organization. But now with the auditor general investigating and the ethics commissioner investigating, 2 liberal appointees, the board chair and the CEO have resigned in disgrace. There's $1,000,000,000 on the line, and we know that up to $150,000,000 has been embezzled. Canadians can't afford this prime minister after 8 years of him and his NDP liberal government.
We wanna know, it's very easy, who got rich.
@MikeBarrettON - Michael Barrett
BREAKING NEWS Government official reveals there is no action plan to recoup taxpayer money from Trudeau's $1 Billion Green Slush Fund, following revelations that board members funneled millions to companies they own After 8 years of Trudeau, this is how your dollar is treated.
@MikeBarrettON - Michael Barrett
SECRET RECORDING After last night’s jaw-dropping testimony from the whistleblower at Trudeau’s $1 Billion Green Slush Fund, listen to what this government official said about the fund. https://t.co/rF6xWk4Ljn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Preliminary findings indicate that most of the allegations are credible, leading us to believe the accusers. The government will take action as a result. There are issues of sloppiness and laziness, but some level of competence exists. The situation is currently unsustainable, and the minister will likely react strongly, possibly shutting everything down. It is unlikely that certain board members and executives will be able to continue serving due to a loss of confidence. The focus now is on finding ways to remove them, starting with gaining control of the board and securing a majority vote. The report highlights the board's failure to follow processes, COI regulations, and act as responsible fiduciaries.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Based on the the very preliminary, findings of the the fact finding exercise is that there is smoke around the vast majority of the allegations. We we said we would believe you. Now we now there's enough evidence to say that we really do believe you. And that means that there is that that the government is going to have to take action item. There's a lot of sloppiness and laziness.
There is some operating competence. And the situation is just kind of untenable at At this point, I think the minister is going to flip that out when he hears the stuff and, you know, he's going to want he's going to want an extreme reaction like shut it all down. It's unlikely that Certain members of the board or the entire board, and and executive are gonna be able to continue to serve. Like, they've kinda lost the confidence. So it'll be so, really, the discussion will be the the mechanisms for, for for getting getting them out.
First of all, they we need to have Control of the board and in order to actually, like, have a plurality of votes if we want to go after the executives. So that's like That's the stuff we're kind of the machinations are figuring out right now. But the report, implicates the board in terrible ways, you know, Like, by not following process, by, not following the COI regime, by not, being, prudent fiduciaries, like, consistent to board failure altogether.
@MikeBarrettON - Michael Barrett
Sudden Goodbye After revealing her company received $10 million in 1 year from this Liberal government, Trudeau's former Chair of his $1 Billion Green Slush Fund tried a new obstruction tactic…just walking away from committee. https://t.co/iO2kYapM0V
Video Transcript AI Summary
I am the chair of the governance committee for a major Canadian company, and I take my responsibility in governance very seriously.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I, take responsibility in governance very seriously. I am chair of the governance committee of a major company in Canada. I I
@MikeBarrettON - Michael Barrett
EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY Whistleblower from Trudeau's $1 Billion Green Slush Fund testifies: $150 million in taxpayer money misappropriated. Habitual conflicts of interest violations by Liberal appointed board members. Coordinated effort by government to coverup. WATCH https://t.co/ppXsGNqLzK
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes the SDTC board executives and senior management for mismanaging taxpayer money and allowing a toxic workplace culture. They also blame the federal government for lacking oversight and covering up the truth. A comprehensive presentation was submitted to the Privy Council Office, revealing mismanagement, noncompliance, conflict of interest breaches, and a toxic culture. Independent investigations found that various funds and COVID payments were improperly distributed, with conflicts of interest involved. The report also highlighted the absence of HR processes and policies. Despite these findings, no consequences were faced by those responsible, and the implicated individuals' names were redacted. The speaker believes their testimony can provide evidence of the lies perpetuated by SDTC and the government.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The SDTC board executives and senior management must be held accountable for their gross mismanagement of taxpayer money and the gross misconduct that's been perpetrated by the toxic senior management team that has victimized countless employees. And the federal government must also be held accountable for its embarrassing lack of oversight that's allowed these problems to persist, and its egregious coverup of the truth that occurred this fall. At the beginning of this year, a comprehensive 3 45 page presentation was created and submitted to the Privy Council Office at the request of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, who we originally went to. This package contained documents that outline gross mismanagement across every aspect of SDTC's operations and governance. It highlighted noncompliance with the SCTC Act and contribution agreement across all of the organization's funding streams and serious breaches of the conflict of interest policies by the executives and board.
The package also included evidence of the toxic workplace culture that was created by CEO Leah Lawrence and her friend and still current VP, Zoi Kallbach, who've been allowed to continue abusing and harassing employees by a passive senior management team and board that protects and hides the abuse. All of this information underwent review by PCO and was then forwarded to ISED, who subsequently engaged RCGT to conduct an independent fact finding exercise to validate this information. Here are the findings for everyone. The seed fund, ecosystem fund and scale fund were all found to be ineligible due to multiple violations of the contribution agreement, significant deviations from the due diligence process, and conflict of interest breaches by board members and executives. This finding encompasses nearly 200 companies that all received over $80,000,000, all of which was improperly funded using taxpayer money.
The 2 COVID payments in 2020 and 2021 were also given to the full portfolio of companies and totaled almost 40,000,000, and were also deemed to be ineligible, as the use of these funds was not effectively tracked. And several board members in that instance also violated conflict of interest by approving almost $4,000,000 to themselves to over a dozen companies where they all hold significant ownership or executive positions. The report also revealed that SDTC lacked HR processes or policies, and issues were never even reported to the board. And conveniently, the RCGT investigators couldn't even find a single record of any complaint ever being made in the history of the organization. This is a staggering legible of incompetence, willful ignorance, and corruption that has resulted in SDTC improperly distributing almost $150,000,000 in taxpayer dollars just in the past few years, and abusing dozens of people that have only tried to talk about the truth.
The organization deserved to be suspended. The organization also deserved a new board, executive, and senior management team, but that never happened. Not a single one of the individuals responsible for these issues has faced a single consequence. No executive or board member was terminated or even given the slightest handcuffs. And every single person that was directly implicated even had their names redacted and protected by ISED in the RCGT report.
Even more shocking is the fact that Despite these findings, ISED continues to allow these individuals to manage taxpayer dollars and allows them to continue perpetuating the abuse against employees who've been desperately seeking protection from their own government for over a year. That cannot stand. SDTC's board and executive continues to insist that the issues are just minor inconsistencies, while I said and the minister continue to claim that no findings warrant serious action. These are false narratives, and I'm here to provide documented proof of all of the lies that continue to be perpetuated by both SDTC and ISED. I believe that my testimony can provide an in-depth overview of the key issues at SDTC because I worked on the financial due diligence and compliance of projects at SDTC for the key 2 year period that coincides with the most serious findings in the RCG two report.
I'm also intimately aware of exactly how ISED understood the issues, and the clear that the total bureaucracy had laid out. The minister and PCO have been aware of this file for more than they are telling to the public. And there are even documented evidence that They even engaged with everyone at ISED to make sure there were edits to the briefings before they were officially sent to them. All of this is backed up by documents, transcripts and recordings, some of which we've already submitted to this committee. Thank you, and I welcome all your questions.
@MikeBarrettON - Michael Barrett
Hateful attacks on the Christian community with two churches burned. This is unacceptable. Police and the judiciary should be assured of the resources needed to bring the perpetrators to justice. https://t.co/eHDasvlikN
@MikeBarrettON - Michael Barrett
🚨NDP-Liberal coalition silence whistleblower from testifying on the corruption at Trudeau’s billion dollar green slush fund🚨 https://t.co/qpROKfwoRz
Video Transcript AI Summary
During a committee meeting, the speaker accuses the NDP Liberal Coalition of obstructing an invitation to the whistleblower involved in a $1 billion green slush fund scandal. The whistleblower revealed mismanagement and misappropriation of funds, leading to the resignation of the board chair and CEO. The auditor general and ethics commissioner are investigating the matter, including conflicts of interest and gross mismanagement at SDTC. The NDP Liberal Coalition used procedural tricks to prevent a vote on the motion, denying the opportunity to hear from the whistleblower. The speaker, representing the conservatives, expresses their determination to uncover those who benefited from the scandal.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Just now at the standing committee on access to information privacy and ethics, the NDP Liberal Coalition have sunk to a new low. I put forward a motion to invite the whistleblower in the $1,000,000,000 green slush fund scandal to have them come to the committee and testify. So far, the only things we know in this scandal are from the whistleblower. This is the whistleblower who told us that tens of 1,000,000 of dollars are being mismanaged and misappropriated. This is why we were able to have the chair of the board come before the committee, the CEO, come before the committee.
And following the appearance of both of those individuals, both have resigned in disgrace. The auditor general now investigating the green slush fund. The conflict of interest and ethics commissioner investigating the board chair after having given herself 100 of 1,000 of dollars to her own company and admitting to a committee that, she didn't break conflict of interest rules because she only gave herself $100,000 and had and had her own legal counsel say that that was okay. Well, of course, that is a violation of conflict of interest rules, that's why she's being investigated. And the gross mismanagement and conflicts of interest at SDTC, this $1,000,000,000 green slush fund, our, you know, these are to be investigated, by the Auditor General.
Now when this motion came before the committee, the NDP Liberal Coalition use procedural tricks to block the motion from coming to a vote effectively, killing our opportunity to hear from the whistleblower. Of course, conservatives wanna know who got rich in this $1,000,000,000 slush fund scandal, and we're gonna find out.
@MikeBarrettON - Michael Barrett
NEW disturbing testimony from shady contractors for Trudeau’s $54 million ArriveCan app and the contempt for Canadian taxpayers is shocking GCStrategies the two person company who did no work on the ArriveCan app refused to say how many millions were paid to them by the Liberal government.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks how many staff work at GC Strategies. Speaker 1 responds that they have 2 employees but outsource finance and legal. Speaker 0 asks about app programming or design, to which Speaker 1 says they do not do that. Speaker 0 clarifies Speaker 1's role in IT contracts with the government and bringing in individuals that the government doesn't have access to. Speaker 0 mentions the $54 million ArriveCAN app and asks if it's under RCMP investigation. Speaker 1 says they are not aware of any investigation. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's work with Bockler and the amount of money made from government contracts, but Speaker 1 doesn't have the exact numbers. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 for not having basic details about their work. Speaker 1 apologizes and offers to provide the information later. Speaker 0 asks how much Speaker 1 was paid for ArriveCAN, but Speaker 1 doesn't have the exact amount. Speaker 0 suggests $9 million, but Speaker 1 disputes it. Speaker 1 mentions that the number is publicized in the media and estimates it to be between 15% and 30% of that amount. Speaker 0 finds it interesting that Speaker 1 is not willing to share the exact number considering the amount of work not done on the app and the money collected.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How many staff work at GC Strategies?
Speaker 1: We have 2 employees, but we outsource our finance and legal.
Speaker 0: App programming or design?
Speaker 1: No, we do not.
Speaker 0: So your role in terms of IT contracts the government and the people who do the work. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Well, we also we are responsible for bringing in individuals Building teams that the federal government would not have access to as they do not have them on staff, and they also do not have recruitment capabilities.
Speaker 0: Right. I mean, the recruitment capabilities of direct messaging people on LinkedIn, I mean, I'm sure a value could be ascribed to that. And actually, we're going to see what that value is. You worked on the $54,000,000 ArriveCAN app, is that correct?
Speaker 1: Yes, it is.
Speaker 0: And that app, the work on that app is now under RCMP investigation, is that correct?
Speaker 1: Not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 0: You're not aware of the RCMP investigating any of the work related to GC strategies or anyone that you've done, any of your you were contracted
Speaker 1: That's correct. My understanding was in the testimonies that I've heard and was clarified by some people some monomer members that Right now, RS and P is only investigating the Bockler accusations and not a Rytifam.
Speaker 0: Okay. So did you work with Bockler?
Speaker 1: I've worked with Botter for 2 years as a representation, and we were in partnership.
Speaker 0: Okay. And, and how much money did you have you made so far with, contracts with the government of Canada.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I do not have that note. Those numbers in front of me. I wasn't prepared for that question. My apologies.
Speaker 0: You weren't prepared to tell the committee, when we're here to ask you about your contracts with the government, how much you've been paid by the government for your contracts?
Speaker 1: Well, this is the ArriveCAN application study. This isn't contracting with GC Strategies and the federal government study. I I mean, I've already given off all the information I have for the application for a arrive cam, which is the base of the study. I've had 2 hours of testimony. I've given hundreds Pages of documentation.
Right. And we're awaiting the order numbers.
Speaker 0: To be summoned to appear here today, sir, and you don't even have the basic details about the work that you've done for the government.
Speaker 1: Well, first, I think I clarified in my opening statement. The reason I was not the reason why I was summoned was because 1 hour was not
Speaker 0: spoken to today. My question is with respect to your billing for ArriveCAN? Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Can you repeat the question, please?
Speaker 0: How much did you get paid for your work on ArriveCAN.
Speaker 1: I I sorry. I've already given up all this information. That is do you have all of my invoices?
Speaker 0: You were refusing to answer the question. It's a very Straightforward question. As you said, this is a study about ArriveCAN. It seems to me that it would be quite pertinent for you to be able to tell the committee how many 1,000,000 of dollars You were paid with your 2 person company to do work on an app that you didn't do any programming for. How much money?
Speaker 1: I will more than happy that once I get that number to give you the answer in writing. I do not have that number with me right now, the exact dollars and cents. My apologies.
Speaker 0: So if I said the number was $9,000,000, you wouldn't be able to dispute that?
Speaker 1: No, I can dispute that.
Speaker 0: Okay. So with what number was?
Speaker 1: I can tell you it wasn't 9. Again, it's publicized in the media or somewhere between 15% and 30%. That's the number that I put in place.
Speaker 0: Okay. So it's, quite interesting that you're not interested in sharing the number because of the amount of work that was not done by you on the app and the amount of money that you collected for work that was done on the app.
@MikeBarrettON - Michael Barrett
WATCH TO THE END This is a contractor who got paid millions on Trudeau’s $54 million ArriveScam. The RCMP are investigating ArriveCan contractors. Does this seem like someone who is telling the truth? What else is he hiding? https://t.co/mBvXngPKAp
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks if Cameron McDonald has a cottage, but Speaker 1 is unsure. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 has ever met with government officials outside of office hours, to which Speaker 1 initially says no, but later admits to meeting with them in private residences. Speaker 0 wants to know the nature of these meetings, but Speaker 1 claims not to know which specific meeting is being referred to. Speaker 1 suggests receiving the question in writing for a more accurate response. Speaker 0 points out that Speaker 1 is providing oral answers to oral questions and criticizes the inconsistency in Speaker 1's responses.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you know if Cameron McDonald has a cottage?
Speaker 1: I don't know if Cameron McDonald has a cottage. Do you know if he had 1? I do not know if he had a cottage. Knew whether or not mister Cameron McDonald from the CBSA had a cottage, and you said no. Do you wanna reflect on that answer?
Yeah. Mister, McDonald has never referred to it as a cottage. It's a chalet. It's not a cottage. For that clarification, mister Firth.
Woah. Are you kidding me? Have you
Speaker 0: ever met with government officials outside of government offices, outside of government business hours?
Speaker 1: No. I have not.
Speaker 0: You have not. So I'm gonna ask you some of these questions again. Have you ever met with government officials or anyone employed by government in a private residence, yes or no?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. What is the nature of that meeting?
Speaker 1: I'm I'm assuming I don't know the exact meaning you're referencing. I have no like, I've had hundreds of these things. The truth is I don't know which one you're talking about. I I've
Speaker 0: I wanna know about all I wanna know about all of them. Same here.
Speaker 1: I I don't know which one you're sorry. I cannot If you could direct your exact question to me in writing, I'm more than happy to respond.
Speaker 0: Sir, you're here providing oral answers to oral questions for a parliament a
Speaker 1: stand committee of have the answer. Well, your answer changes.