reSee.it - Related Post Feed
reSee.it AI Summary
I confronted @PierrePoilievre about his stance on the sustainable development agenda, specifically the SDGs. He lied to me and the 500k viewers of the video. I can back this up with his voting record on the relevant law.
@MarkFriesen08 - 🇨🇦MarkFriesen🇨🇦 Buffalo Party of Saskatchewan
So when I asked @PierrePoilievre his position on the sustainable development agenda, the SDG’s. He outright lied to me and 500k people that have seen the video. How do I know he lied, here’s his voting record on said law. https://t.co/UH15iKjpFx
reSee.it AI Summary
Pierre Poilievre has been accused of lying about his knowledge of the SDGs. Despite voting in favor of bills related to the SDGs and being a member of the SDG committee, he claimed to know nothing about them. A referenced article provides proof of his contradictory statements.
@print3_d - PRINT3D
🧵1/2 Pierre Poilievre lied about reading the SDG's. PP voted yea on Bill C-474, Bill C-57, and the Paris accord all SDG's. He's also a member of ENVI which is 🇨🇦's SDG committee. PPC will remove us from the SDG's Why would PP claim to know nothing about the SDG's? ⬇️
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses Agenda 21, a plan agreed upon by 179 nations in 1992. They claim it is a totalitarian state being developed worldwide, aiming to control all aspects of life, including land, water, minerals, plants, animals, food, energy, and information. The plan involves moving populations into city centers and achieving centralized control. The three pillars of Agenda 21 are economy, ecology, and equity, with social equity being used to impoverish populations and bring down developed nations. The speaker emphasizes the need for individuals to educate themselves, spread awareness, and work together to preserve personal freedom.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is a plan that was agreed to by a 179 Nations. It's called the Agenda for the 21st Century. It's a totalitarian state to being developed right now, all over the world. It is the inventory and control plan. Inventory and control of all land, All water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all Food, all energy, all information, and all human beings in the world.
And this is a plan that was agreed 2 by a 179 Nations back in 1992. It's a United Nations plan. It's called the agenda for the 21st century, and so many of us around the world think that, while sustainable And it just sounds so great. Isn't it about recycling and creative reuse and, and creating energy and food resources for everyone, and the answer is no. It really is not.
It's about moving populations into city centers, Concentrated city centers and clearing them out of the rural areas. All systems have to be Brought into harmony in order to control them all. Because when systems don't meet, when they're when they're out of balance or not in sync with one another, They can't be controlled centrally. And the goal of Agenda 21 is 1 World Government and total control from a central unit. Every nation that signed on to Agenda 21 has its, its local Agenda 21 plan.
People in the United States are completely unaware of this. If I go out and talk about this, the United States press will attacks me, and calls me, which is, it's totally ridiculous. It is a, But it's not a theory, it's fact. The 3 pillars of United Nations Agenda 21 are Economy, Ecology, and Equity, the 3 E's. And everyone sort of thinks that they know what that means, the idea Social equity.
It must mean that, well, everyone's going to have access to clean water and clean air, and, no one's, property is going to be used as a Ground because they are at a poverty level. But really what social equity is about, it's about impoverishing Huge portions of the population and bringing down, developed the developed nations. Everything that we're looking at now is Destined to collapse our economies. It's a totalitarian state to being developed right now all over the world, and what major corporations want in this development is to be able to, to have movement full movement of Of workers without borders or boundaries to be able to move their goods through without regulations, and to reduce wages. And so this is the goal, so this is what you find with social equity.
And of course, economy and, ecology is about are the 3 circles: economy, ecology, and social equity, and where they meet in the center is balance, but really that balance It's a communitarian balance. So it's not balance of well-being of the people. What it is is it's a balance or corporation so that they can exploit and control and have populations in an area in tightly packed dense areas so that they can be surveilled and managed. And this is what that Balance looks like as far as the development of totalitarian state is. The mainstream media is owned by 5 major corporations, and you're not Going to get this information from the mainstream press.
So you need to be your own press. You need to educate yourself. You need to get out there and Educate your neighbors, your community, your real community. You need to help your children understand that they're being indoctrinated from pre kindergarten to postgraduate school. All of us have a responsibility to ourselves and to others.
This is true community To work for personal freedom. And always remember that even though we work as a group, if we do work as a group, we're all individuals In those groups, and we answer only to ourselves. And this is essential. It's essential as as as free human beings. This is what we are.
We are free and we need to continue to be free. And I do believe that we will win, but we have To become aware that there is a fight, and then make our friends and our neighbors and our community aware as well, and work together.
@print3_d - PRINT3D
🧵2/2 Proof PP lies 1 - https://rumble.com/v2uv2rg-pierre-poilievre-meets-mark-friesen-lies-about-reading-the-un-sdg.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=5 PP lies 2 - ENVI- https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/ENVI/Members?includeAssociates=True#AssociateMembers Article proving pierre lied https://boereport.com/2020/11/20/economic-triage-for-canada-in-the-face-of-green-agendas-and-net-zero/
Pierre Poilievre meets Mark Friesen Lies about reading the UN SDG
Clip of Pierre Poilievre flat out lieing when he meets Mark Freisen as he claims to know nothing about the SDG (sustainable development goals) even though pierre was the Minister of Employment and Soc
rumble.com
ENVI - Members - House of Commons of Canada
A list of current and past members of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Link to each Member's individual profile or find information about associate members of the committee.
ourcommons.ca
Economic triage for Canada in the face of green agendas and net-zero | BOE Report
As the Canadian federal government proposed net-zero legislation this week in the House of Commons, issues around net-zero and the green agenda could mean big problems for consumers and significant disconnects for the Canadian economy. This week, in a virtual panel discussion, MP Pierre Poilievre, Jack Mintz, Dan McTeague, and Catherine Swift discussed the UN
boereport.com
@print3_d - PRINT3D
@reSeeIt save thread
@stillgray - Ian Miles Cheong
Pierre Poilievre gives a masterclass on how to handle a left-wing journalist. And he eats an apple while he's doing it. https://t.co/SX81lvQOAN
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker is asked about their populist strategy and their use of strong ideological language. They deny talking about left or right but mention that many people believe in it. The interviewer suggests that the speaker is taking a page out of Donald Trump's book, but the speaker questions who would say that. The interviewer asks why Canadians should trust the speaker with their vote, and the speaker responds by emphasizing the need for common sense in the government. They criticize the current government's handling of the economy and promise to cap spending, cut waste, and balance the budget to bring down inflation and interest rates. They claim to have a common sense plan to improve the buying power of Canadians' paychecks.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On the on the topic, I mean, in terms of your sort of strategy currently, you're obviously taking the populist pathway.
Speaker 1: What does that mean? Well,
Speaker 0: appealing appealing to people's more emotional levels, I would guess. I I mean, certainly certainly you tap, very strong ideological language quite frequently.
Speaker 1: Like what?
Speaker 0: Left wing, you know, this and that, right wing, you know, I mean, it's that that type of
Speaker 1: never really talk about left or right.
Speaker 0: Anyways, a
Speaker 1: lot of people believe in that.
Speaker 0: Okay. A lot of people would would say that you're simply taking a page out of the Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Probably like which people would say that?
Speaker 0: Well, I'm sure a great many Canadians, but
Speaker 1: Like who?
Speaker 0: I don't know who, but
Speaker 1: Well, you're the one who asks the questions, so probably you must know somebody.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm I'm sure there's some out there, but anyways, the point of this the point of this question is, I mean, why should why should Canadians trust you with their vote given, you know, not not just the sort of ideological inclination in terms of taking the page of Donald Trump's book, but What
Speaker 1: are you talking about? What page? What page? Can you give me the page? Give me the page.
You keep saying that.
Speaker 0: In terms of turning things quite dramatically in terms of of Trudeau and and the left wing and all of this. I mean, you you you make quite a, you know, it's it's quite a play that you make on it. So I'm I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: I don't under I don't know what your question is.
Speaker 0: Then forget that. Why should Canadians Yep. Trust you with their vote?
Speaker 1: Common sense. Common sense for for a change. We're gonna make common sense common in this country. We don't have any common sense in the current government. You know, the guy prints $600,000,000,000 grows our money supply by 32% in 3 years.
That's growing the money 8 times faster than the economy. No wonder we have the worst of flight inflation in 4 decades. I'm gonna cap spending, cut waste so that we can balance the budget and bring down inflation and interest rates. You'll wanna be able to pay your mortgage again, you wanna be able to afford rent, then you have to vote for Pierre Poliyev because I'm the only one with a common sense plan that will bring back the buying power of your paycheck.
@gatewaypundit - The Gateway Pundit
Canadian Conservative Party leader @PierrePoilievre delivered a masterclass on how to turn the tables on the dishonest media all while eating an apple. https://t.co/gHl8da7mvk
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the strategy of appealing to people's emotions and using strong ideological language. They deny talking about left or right but are compared to Donald Trump. The question is raised about why Canadians should trust the speaker with their vote, considering their inclination towards Trump's approach and their criticism of Trudeau and the left wing. The speaker responds by emphasizing the need for common sense and criticizes the current government's handling of the economy. They promise to cap spending, cut waste, balance the budget, and bring down inflation and interest rates. The speaker urges Canadians to vote for them to improve their financial situation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On the on the topic, I mean, in terms of your sort of strategy currently, you're obviously taking the populist pathway. What does that mean? Well, appealing appealing to people's more emotional levels, I would guess. I mean, certainly certainly you certainly you tap certainly you tap, very strong ideological language quite frequently. Like what?
Left wing, you know, this and that, right wing, you know. I mean, it's that that type of logic you're talking about.
Speaker 1: I never really talk about left or right.
Speaker 0: Anyways, a lot of
Speaker 1: people believe in that.
Speaker 0: Okay. A lot of people would would say that you're simply taking a page out of the Donald Trump, but
Speaker 1: Like which people would say that?
Speaker 0: Well, I'm sure a great many Canadians, but Like who? I don't know who, but Well, you're the one who asks the questions, so how you must know somebody. Okay. I'm I'm sure there's some out there, but anyways, the the point of this The point of this question is, I mean, why should why should Canadians trust you with their vote given, you know, not not just the sort of ideological inclination in terms of taking the page of Donald Trump's book, but also
Speaker 1: talking about? What page? What page? Can you give me the page?
Speaker 0: Give me the page. You keep saying that. In terms in terms of turning things quite dramatically in terms of of Trudeau and and the left wing and all of this. I mean, you you you make quite a you know, it's it's quite a play that you make on it. So I'm I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: I don't under I don't know what your question is.
Speaker 0: Then forget that. Why should Canadians Yep. Trust you with their vote? Yep.
Speaker 1: Common sense. Common sense for for a change. We're gonna make common sense common in this country. We don't have any common sense in the current government. You know, the guy print $600,000,000,000, grows our money supply by 32% in 3 years.
That's growing the money 8 times faster than the economy. No wonder we have the worst of, like, inflation in 4 decades. I'm gonna cap spending cut waste so that we can balance the budget and bring down inflation and interest rates. You'll wanna be able to pay your mortgage again, you wanna be able to afford rent, then you have to vote for Pierre Polioff because I'm the only one with a common sense plan that will bring back the buying power of your paycheck.
@SeamusORegan - Seamus O'Regan Jr
When he was Prime Minister, Stephen Harper said governments shouldn’t touch the Canada Pension Plan. We agree. But do Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives? https://t.co/gU21jvjZvS
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker highlights the decrease in senior poverty rates since their government took office in 2015. They attribute this improvement to increased Old Age Security (OES) and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) benefits, as well as reversing the conservative policy of raising the retirement age to 67. The speaker mentions that the announcement regarding the retirement age change was made by the prime minister at the World Economic Forum in Davos. They also mention that the former prime minister stated that the Canada Pension Plan does not require any modifications. The speaker questions whether the opposing side agrees with this stance.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister speaker, the poverty rate among seniors has gone down significantly since we formed government in 2015, and that's because we've increased the OES. It's because we increased the GIS. It's also because we reversed the conservative policy of increasing the retirement age to 67. This is a policy that was not announced here in this chamber nor was it announced in this country. It was announced by the prime minister the day in Davos Wow.
At the World Economic Forum. We're mister speaker. He also added in that speech, the former prime minister, that the Canada pension plan does not need to be changed. On this side of the house, we agree. The question is, do they?
@liberal_party - Liberal Party
Pierre Poilievre and his Conservatives have no plan to fight climate change, and they want to take money out of Canadians’ pockets. Their climate denial would cut our price on pollution rebates, hurt our economy, and take Canada backward. https://t.co/iYUhuwJhBa
@DarleneWhyte4 - Darlene Whyte
@PierrePoilievre As a Canadian, I challenge you...@PierrePoilievre , official LOO, to go for ONE WEEK without spreading misinformation/disinformation. Can you do it? I don't think you can.
@stephen_taylor - Stephen Taylor
Pierre Poilievre dusts off another apple and schools another reporter. https://t.co/X5Im3nE0no
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker defends their statement about the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge checkpoint being terrorism, citing media reports that the Canadian government presumed it to be so. They criticize CP for making false claims in an article and question CTV's responsibility for reporting on the incident. The speaker also mentions the awkward situation of CP attacking CTV's reporting, considering that CP works for CTV.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you think it was responsible for you to call yesterday's explosion by the customs by the checkpoint at the Rainbow Bridge terrorism when no US or Canadian officials said that was the or authority said that was the case. And when the New York governor also said there was no evidence to suggest terrorism activity.
Speaker 1: Actually you're wrong. Are you a CP? Okay. So CP, by the way, CP, just for everyone's knowledge, did have to make 3 corrections for falsehoods That they put into a single article. I think that might be unprecedented.
I'm actually thinking about checking with the Guinness Book of World Records To see if there's ever been a news agency that has had to issue 3 corrections for patent falsehoods that they admit They had been made in 1 single article and now you've made yet another falsehood in your question. Where you are wrong Is that CTV reported that the government of Canada was presuming that the incident was terrorist. So, yeah, that was and that's what I said in my remarks. You're right. It was a media report.
Speaker 0: But it's a media report, but not Which
Speaker 1: is what I said in the house. I said there are media reports. What kind of statement? I didn't. I said there were media reports.
No. There's no distinction. What I said, and I was right, was that there were media reports Of a terror related event. By your admission, there were media reports of a terror related event. And that media report, according to CTV, unless you're questioning their integrity now, came from security officials in the Trudeau government.
So do you think the CTV was irresponsible in putting out that tweet? Do you sorry I'm asking and I I have already answered that. Do you do you think CTV was irresponsible to put that tweet out? Well, you just did comment. Okay.
So I, you know, I just hope you're not going to print something that you have to apologize for again. I should also add, I think CP does work for CTV. This is very awkward now where we have CP attacking someone that they do work for. CV is a, CTV is a client of CP. And now we have CP attacking CTVs reporting.
This is a very awkward issue. I don't I don't know if there's a a way that that the 2 agent news agencies can sort that out.
@ContrarianTribe - Contrarian
Pierre hulk smashing a Canadian Press reporter that was hoping to trap him with an idiotic and dishonest question.🙋🏼♂️ Man did she look stupid after?🤔😂 https://t.co/vE5PyPR8vc
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about calling the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge terrorism, as no officials confirmed it. Speaker 1 defends their statement, mentioning that the government of Canada presumed it was a terrorist incident based on media reports. Speaker 0 argues that media reports are not the same as calling something terrorism. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that media reports of a terror-related event came from security officials in the Trudeau government. Speaker 0 asks if CTV was irresponsible for their tweet, to which Speaker 1 responds with a comment. Speaker 1 hopes Speaker 0 won't publish something they need to apologize for again.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you think it was responsible for you to call yesterday's explosion by the customs by the checkpoint at the Rainbow Bridge terrorism when no US or Canadian officials said that was or authority said that was the case and when the New York governor also said there was no evidence to suggest terrorism activity.
Speaker 1: Actually, you're wrong. Are you a CP? Okay. So CP, by the way, CP, just for everyone's knowledge, Did have to make 3 corrections for falsehoods that they put into a single article. I think that might be unprecedented.
I'm actually thinking about checking with the Guinness Book of World Records to see if there's ever been a news agency that has had to issue 3 corrections For patent falsehoods that they admit they had been made in 1 single article, and now you've made yet another falsehood in your question. Where you are wrong is that CTV reported that the government of Canada was presuming that the incident was terrorist. So, yeah, that was and that's what I said in my remarks. You're right. It was a media report.
Speaker 0: But say media report, they're not Which
Speaker 1: is what I said in the house. I said there are media reports. What kind of statement?
Speaker 0: Calling something terrorism.
Speaker 1: I didn't. I said there were media reports.
Speaker 0: That's the distinction we made?
Speaker 1: No. There's no distinction. What I said, And I was right, was that there were media reports of a terror related event. By your admission, There were media reports of a terror related event. And that media report, according to CTV, unless you're questioning their integrity now, Came from security officials in the Trudeau government.
So do you think the CTB was irresponsible in putting out that tweet? Do you
Speaker 0: think it was responsible to come
Speaker 1: Do do do sorry. I'm asking and I I have already answered that. Do you do you think CTV was irresponsible to put that tweet out? No. I just did comment.
But you just did comment. Okay. So I, you know, I just hope you're not gonna print something that you have to apologize for again. Okay.
@stillgray - Ian Miles Cheong
Pierre Poilievre schools a dumb journalist. https://t.co/rr9rQRgOze
Video Transcript AI Summary
Paola Lorigio from The Canadian Press questions the speaker's decision to label the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge as terrorism, despite no official confirmation. The speaker defends their statement, citing media reports and claiming that the government of Canada presumed it to be a terror-related event. They also criticize The Canadian Press for issuing three corrections in one article. When asked if they think CTV was irresponsible for reporting the incident as terrorism, the speaker redirects the question. The conversation ends with the speaker pointing out the contradiction in the reporter's comment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hi, Paola Lorigio with The Canadian Press. Do you think it was responsible for you to call yesterday's explosion by the customs by the checkpoint at the Rainbow Bridge terrorism when no U. S. Or Canadian officials said that was like, authority said that was the case and when the New York governor also said there was no evidence to suggest terrorism activity?
Speaker 1: Actually, you're wrong. Are you a CP? Okay. So CP by the way, CP, just for everyone's knowledge, did have to make 3 corrections for falsehoods That they put into a single article. I think that might be unprecedented.
I'm actually thinking about checking with the Guinness Book of World Records to see If there's ever been a news agency that has had to issue 3 corrections for patent falsehoods that they admit They had been made in 1 single article. And now you've made yet another falsehood in your question. Where you are wrong Is that CTV reported that the government of Canada was presuming that the incident was terrorist. So yeah. That was and that's what I said in my remarks.
You're right. It was a media report.
Speaker 0: But it's citing media reports and not.
Speaker 1: Which is what I said. In the house, I said there are media reports.
Speaker 0: And you think that's a responsible thing to go on to make that that kind of a a statement at the time without speaking
Speaker 1: What kind of statement? I didn't. I said there were media reports.
Speaker 0: That's the distinction we're making? Okay.
Speaker 1: No. There's no distinction. What I said, and I was right, was that there were media reports of a terror related event. By your admission, there were media reports of a terror related event. And that media report, According to CTV, unless you're questioning their integrity now, came from security officials in the Trudeau government.
So do you think the CTV was irresponsible in putting out that tweet?
Speaker 0: Do you think it was responsible for coming to making the House Do
Speaker 1: do sorry. I'm asking. I I have already answered that. Do you do you think CTV was irresponsible to put that tweet out?
Speaker 0: That's none of my business. That's not for me to comment.
Speaker 1: Well, you just did comment.
Speaker 0: Okay.
@ryangerritsen - Ryan Gerritsen🇨🇦🇳🇱
The real cost of Trudeau’s climate ideologies. https://t.co/HiUcJ3aOFi
Video Transcript AI Summary
Zicky Swazi, an 11-year-old boy who never attended school, supports his grandmother by washing cobalt. He is one of around 1,000 children involved in this dangerous work. These kids, some as young as 10, carry heavy sacks of cobalt to be washed in rivers, exposing themselves to toxic fumes. Despite officials claiming that no one under 18 is allowed to work, child labor remains prevalent. Companies were questioned about their use of child-mined cobalt, and while they acknowledged issues in the supply chain, they claim to follow responsible sourcing guidelines. However, our investigation reveals the challenges in tracing the origin of child-mined cobalt.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Zicky Swazi has never been to school. He has no idea how to read or write, but he is an expert in washing cobalt. My parents are dead, he told us, and I stay with my grandma. So you need to make money for your granny? Yes.
There are 1,000 more children like 11 year old Zicky. Barely 10 years old, these kids lug heavy sacks So cobalt to be washed in rivers. And even those too young to work spend much of their day breathing in toxic fumes. Officials make a great job chasing children away saying nobody under 18 is allowed to work here. But clearly, that is not the case.
We asked these companies whether child mined cobalt is being used in their products. All acknowledge problems with the supply chain, but say they require their supplies to follow responsible sourcing guidelines. But our investigation shows just how complicated it is to trace child mind cobalt.
@NorthrnPrspectv - Northern Perspective
@PierrePoilievre Here is our full take on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YleXeXTeOjE
Video Not Available
youtube.com
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Trudeau says that what Pierre Poilievre "is proposing to do is to make Canada great again. That is not what Canadians want." https://t.co/g8laRmvfEv
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes the leader of the opposition for suggesting that everything was perfect under the previous conservative government and wanting to make Canada great again. Canadians do not share this nostalgia. The speaker highlights the leader's past as part of Stephen Harper's failed housing minister, where he violated the rights of indigenous peoples, ignored environmental responsibilities, and lacked a plan for the future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister speaker, what we hear from the leader of the opposition is, under the previous conservative government, everything was perfect, and what he is proposing to do is to make Canada great again. That is not what Canadians want. He is pining for a nostalgia that, quite frankly, Canadians do not feel. They remember what he did as part of Stephen Harper's failed housing minister. He remembers the people who the rights of individual in the, indigenous peoples violated, the, ignoring of environmental responsibilities and the lack of an environmental and economic plan for the future, we're gonna continue.
@WiretapMediaCa - Wiretap Media
BREAKING: Yesterday Yves Giroux exposed the Government's Carbon Tax Ponzi scheme, so today members of the Trudeau Crime Family play Mien Kempf on Canadians and repeat their more money-back "Air Tax" narrative over and over again. https://t.co/2wTdZcNrSM
Video Transcript AI Summary
In my Ontario riding, the carbon rebate means $11.24 back, which can make a significant difference. The majority of households will be negatively impacted by the carbon tax. The Canada carbon rebate benefits 8 out of 10 families, particularly those who need it most, and supports the economy during tough times. Since 2019, 8 out of 10 low to middle-income Canadian families have received more money back than they paid.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I want to mention something that Minister Gilleau mentioned because it's important to have facts and have numbers. And in my Ontario riding, the rebate means $11.24 back, and that is significant. That money can go a long way.
Speaker 1: The majority of households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon tax.
Speaker 2: Not only does the Canada carbon rebate send more money back to 8 out of 10 families, which happen to be the 8 out of 10 families who need it the most, it also supports, our economy throughout difficult times.
Speaker 1: The majority of households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon tax.
Speaker 3: Many of us have said in the past since 2019, when we've put that measure in place, 8 out of 10 Canadians, low income to middle income Canadians, get more money back than they pay. That's a fact. Like, you go back and you look at the numbers from 2019 to 2023, 8 out of 10 Canadian families get more money back. [SPEAKER PAUL
Speaker 1: EDGECLIFFE JOHNSON:] The majority of households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon
@McfarlaneGlenda - Glenda M 🇨🇦 🍎
This why Pierre Poilievre will be our next Prime Minister. https://t.co/AlQ7vCISFo
Video Transcript AI Summary
Justin Trudeau is not a liberal. He believes in government control over money, kids, the economy, speech, and more. This goes against the traditional liberal belief in liberty and limited government involvement in people's lives. A true liberal government should focus on doing a few things well and letting people live freely.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Justin Trudeau is not a liberal. It might surprise you to hear me say that. He's not a liberal. Liberals used to believe in liberty. And conservatives believed in liberty in conserving it.
That was the common sense consensus we had in Canada. Justin Trudeau does not believe in liberty. He believes in government control. He wants to control your money. He wants to control your kids.
He wants to control the economy. He can control your speech. Control your bank account. He wants to control everything. That is illiberal.
It's the opposite of liberalism. I don't want to run your life. I want to run your government. And a government that does a few things well rather than a lot of things poorly, a government that minds its own business and lets people live their lives. That is the tradition
@MBDan7 - Dan Mazier
JUST IN Trudeau's environment committee chair revealed why the Liberals refuse to hand over proof the carbon tax reduces emissions. There is NO proof! We finally know what Trudeau's radical environment minister has been hiding from Canadians. You won't believe this👇 https://t.co/UoqsFcZKUw
Video Transcript AI Summary
There are estimates and modeling on how a price on carbon can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but there is no specific data proving a direct correlation between the two. It may not even be possible to definitively link a price on carbon to a specific reduction in emissions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My understanding is there is no you know, there are estimates. There's modeling estimates of what how much the price on carbon will will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My understanding, and maybe I'm wrong, is that there is no data specifically stating that the price on carbon resulted in an x amount of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. And I don't even think that's possible, quite frankly. There is no data specifically stating that the price on carbon resulted in an x amount of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
And I don't even think that's possible, quite frankly.
@ContrarianTribe - Contrarian
🇨🇦Trudeau today in his testimony let everyone know he does not bother reading briefings especially ones on Foreign Interference?🤔 https://t.co/9CVoX9p46Z
Video Transcript AI Summary
In briefings, decisions on what to read are crucial. It's more about discussing than just reading notes to ministers. The briefing notes highlight the seriousness of foreign interference and the need for action.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When it comes to briefings, and others can speak to this and how they make decisions about what to read from their prepared notes during an actual briefing with ministers or a prime minister. But it is much A conversation than someone reading a prepared text to, to to, the minister that they're briefing. There are elements in here that say, for example, having read the briefing note in preparation for this, this inquiry, They talk about how serious foreign interference is and how we need to do more.
@KatKanada_TM - Kat Kanada
Pierre Poilievre jokes that if Trudeau read 1984, he would think it’s an instruction manual. 😂😂😂👏🏽 https://t.co/n8GTBFEd3L
Video Transcript AI Summary
An impending law could potentially subject individuals to house arrest or peace bonds based on mere suspicion of future unacceptable behavior. The speaker suggests that someone, upon reading 1984, might interpret it as an instruction manual rather than a cautionary tale.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And save on the Internet. But if you would then act before another law which could put you under house arrest or a peace bond under suspicion of something unacceptable, you might say, in the future. You know, this guy, if he read, if he had read 1984, he would have thought it was an instruction man and not a warning.
@TheoFleury14 - Theo Fleury
Canadian government official praising a communist country???? Do you think this dude is one of the compromised MP’s??? Yes he is. He just outed himself. Canada has been compromised by China 🇨🇳
@truckdriverpleb - The Pleb 🌍 Reporter
Pierre Poilievre demolishes Trudeau for what he did to Canada Absolutely brutal response but well deserved https://t.co/kp3etb3qCx
@TruthSeek01011 - TruthSeeker01011
Canadian propaganda is at an all time high again and Canadians are falling for the same playbook over again. https://t.co/egNSOKbb2y
Video Transcript AI Summary
Watching Canadian propaganda from the outside is eye-opening. As a Canadian, I've witnessed constant government-controlled media pushing narratives, making it hard for people to see the truth. It's baffling to see Canadians, even conservatives, rallying behind Justin Trudeau's call for unity, especially considering his ethics violations and the unconstitutional Emergencies Act during the trucker protests.
Now, he's urging a boycott of US products while people struggle to find Canadian alternatives at American companies like Costco and order coffee online from Amazon. No one in the US cares about invading Canada. They think we are pathetic. Trudeau promised to resign, but instead, shut down the government. Mark Carney, with controversial ties, might be the next Liberal leader, potentially staying in power until 2026 through a loophole. The government labeled anyone exposing the fifteen minute cities as Russian bots. Canada is being infiltrated by globalists, and if we don't wake up and recognize the propaganda, there won't be a Canada by 2030.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Watching Canadian propaganda outside of Canada is a whole different experience. I mean, I've seen the mind control and the propaganda being pushed into Canadian lives almost every single second because we do not have anything outside of government owned media and TV that is paid for by our tax money. And so I understand that it's really hard for Canadians to realize what the truth is and to see what is actually going on outside. But watching bunch of people, including conservatives, right now stand under Justin Trudeau's words of let's unite as Canadians is like the wildest thing to me ever. The same guy who has multiple ethics violations, the same guy who froze Canadians' banks accounts, the same guy who literally called the WARS Act or the EA Emergencies Act during the trucker protest completely unconstitutional, which was actually ruled in a courtroom that it was.
This guy is now telling you to unite under Canadian products and boycotting The United States, and I'm watching you guys even fail that. I'm watching people at Costco Costco trying to find Canadian products. Costco, an American company. I watched some ding dong be like, I ordered Canadian coffee. I didn't realize that we could grow coffee beans in the great cold North, but apparently, here we are.
And the worst part is his package was delivered by Amazon. Yeah. Amazon. You know, the conglomerate US company. So you guys are doing that wrong.
And now you're the only ones talking about, like, The US invading you. No one in The States gives a shit about Canada. They all think we're a bunch of pathetic sissies, and they're not really wrong in their assumption of us. I mean, what like, what is wrong with you guys? And the fact that you think that that's being, like, you know, Canadian or pro whatever is just wild to me.
And now the only, like, he literally oh my god. You guys are so slow. It's actually painful. Because Justin Trudeau said he was going to resign. He didn't.
He just, like, shut the government down. And now Mark Carney, who has literally tanked The UK, whose wife is best friends with, like, Ghislaine Maxwell, is now, like, the leader of the Liberal Party? How how did that happen? And the fact that they're even propagating more propaganda with foreshadowing by telling you that, like, if Mark Carney gets in, the polls are showing that the Liberals would win. That's your stolen election sign right there.
That's if if you even get an election because Mark Carney has two avenues. He fakes an election or he pretty much gets to stay in power till 2026 because of a certain loophole that was put in by Harper. And you guys don't even see this. How about in 2021 when we were exposing the fifteen minute cities, The US, UN Paris Accord, the all of it, the land grabs, everything. What did the government do then?
Oh, yeah. Labeled everybody a Russian bot, and you guys believed it. You're like, oh, that's Russian propaganda. Dude, Russia doesn't give a shit about Canada. Why?
Because we're tanking our own country with the rogue government that we have who has been infiltrated by literally every globalist that wants a piece of Canada, and you guys are literally falling and voting and following somebody who doesn't have your best interest at heart. And it's just wild to watch, like, this entire thing go down. And the fact that some of you in Alberta who work on the rigs are now, like, oh, yeah. We're brokeredated. Shut up.
Shut up. Most of the companies up there are American. So please just stop and think for two seconds. Are you being mind screwed, or are you actually thinking clearly about any of the issues that's hitting Canada right now? Because if you don't, Canada's gonna tank in two years, and there won't be an out after that.
Like, I came from communism. I know how it goes. And the fact that so many people who have come from communist countries are trying to literally warn you about this, and you guys are just like, nah. We know better. No.
You don't. I'm surprised you can even dress yourself in the morning half the time. But, hey, whatever. Either way, man, if we don't wake up as Canadians and realize, like, the actual problem and you don't recognize the propaganda that is being used on you, there won't be accounted up by twenty thirty.
@JasminLaine_ - Jasmin Laine 🇨🇦
In 2 minutes, CBC insults Pierre Poilievre, mocks him, defends Carney’s cabinet picks and reminds us how unbiased they are. Weasels… but they did just get a big payday from the Liberals, so get ready for even more of this! https://t.co/3oAf6Aw6qH
Video Transcript AI Summary
According to Speaker 0, Mr. Polyev stated he would not reflexively oppose the government, but support it when in the country's best interest, because he wants the country to succeed. However, he then spent fifteen minutes attacking ministers like Sean Fraser and Stephen Guildeaux for ruining the country.
Speaker 1 noted Mr. Polyev's approach suggests he won the election, not lost it. He will only be able to stand in defense of Canadians because of the Prime Minister's goodwill in calling an early by-election for him in Alberta, costing close to $2,000,000. Speaker 1 found it interesting that Mr. Polyev is going after Stephen Gabbeau, blaming Sean Frazier for the housing crisis, and wanting to fight the same political battles from the last campaign.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And talking about how, he would not be opposing the government reflexively, that he would do things in the best interest of the country and support the government in those issues and that he says he wants, the country to succeed. He then spent the next fifteen minutes talking about all the ministers, who were there previously and the things they did to to ruin the country, naming particularly Sean Fraser and Steven Guildeaux, taking some questions about how he will approach things inside the house of commons. But but overall, you know, it started out in one tone and finished in another. That's all I'll say. Because he he he leaned into attacking the people that he thinks still represent, don't represent change, are still more of the Trudeau government, and particularly don't represent the things that he thinks Canadians want right now.
Speaker 1: Yes. Cabinet is broken, is essentially what he said. Right? It's not no longer Canada's broken. He's saying this cabinet has not changed.
A silent approach from Mr. Polyev, Rosie, that would suggest it's almost as if he won the election rather than lost the election and lost his own seat. You know, talking about how he's going to stand there in defense of Canadians, he'll only be able to stand there, actually, in the chamber behind him because of the goodwill of prime minister who's going to call an early by election for mister Polyyev so he can run-in one of his MP seats in Alberta at the cost of close to $2,000,000 to have a by election, all while he stays in Stornoway throughout this. So it's interesting that given that sequence of events and given those series of factors that it was that kind of approach and response to things there from Mr. Polyev, going after Stephen Gabbeau talking over the radical environmental agenda, blaming Sean Frazier for the housing crisis, which is Sean Frazier is in, I don't think he's 40 yet or he's just 40.
I don't think he caused the housing crisis in There's a whole bunch of layers and effects of that. But, you know, wanting to fight the same political battles we just enjoyed during the five weeks of the campaign and for the two years leading up to that. So, the pivot that people have suggested Mr. Hawley have kind of needed to made ever since Justice Trudeau left and Donald Trump came in, it's
Speaker 0: still
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
Pierre Poilievre was RIGHT. Justin Trudeau BROKE THE LAW in SNC and then ABUSED his power to COVER IT UP. RCMP confirm this. CBC why are you not showing this clip? https://t.co/21f9icWnTj
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the RCMP examination into whether the prime minister violated section 139(2) of the Criminal Code by obstructing justice, specifically in relation to SNC-Lavalin. The RCMP confirmed that the strongest theory of obstruction centered on the prime minister’s decision to shuffle Jody Wilson-Raybould from the position of attorney general to a different role, in order for a new attorney general to potentially make a different decision regarding the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. It was acknowledged that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence surrounding Wilson-Raybould’s removal as attorney general.
The witnesses clarified that the missing material evidence was central to determining if the prime minister had broken the law, and the gap existed because the scope of the order in council with respect to waiving cabinet confidentiality did not permit full examination of that evidence. The RCMP stated that the parameters of the order limited their ability to pursue the most consequential line of inquiry related to obstruction of justice.
When asked who could expand the parameters of the order in council, the witnesses indicated that the prime minister would be the responsible decision-maker within the government, though one witness was unsure of the exact process. The RCMP had, prior to their assessment, requested an expansion of the parameters to obtain that evidence, but the request was denied. The denial was attributed to the Prime Minister’s Office (PCO), and a letter from the Department of Justice was referenced in the RCMP investigation report as having clarified that the expansion was not permitted.
The RCMP observers testified that the refusal to expand the scope significantly impeded the full investigation into the prime minister’s potential obstruction of justice, limiting their capability to pursue a full inquiry. One speaker acknowledged the difficulty of speculating about what additional information might exist, describing it as potentially a “Pandora’s box.”
In response to questions about accountability, one speaker stated that no single Canadian could block an RCMP investigation, but conceded that the RCMP must operate within the parameters and regulations in place. The Prime Minister’s personal department’s refusal to broaden the search was characterized as part of a pattern of cover-up by the questioning party, with the suggestion that the prime minister, to be subject to the rule of law, should not be shielded by his department from investigation.
Both speakers emphasized that the investigation proceeded within the established regulatory framework, that attempts were made to obtain more information, and that those attempts were refused. The session concluded with a formal courtesy and thanks to the commissioner and the justice officials.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister chair. Thank you to the witnesses. A part of the RCMP's examination to determine whether the prime minister violated section one thirty nine sub two of criminal code by committing obstruction of justice. Correct? That was part of the RCMP's examination.
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair. And
Speaker 0: paragraph 19 of the RCMP investigation report states that the strongest fury towards an offensive obstruction of justice was that the prime minister shuffled Jody Wilson Raybold out of the position of attorney general so that a new attorney general would make a different decision regarding the prosecution of SNC Lavalin. Correct? That's correct, mister chair. And it's fair to say that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence surrounding miss Wilson Rabel being shuffled out as attorney general. Correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair.
Speaker 0: And so, just to clarify then or emphasize, the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence on the strongest theory surrounding the prime minister's potential criminality involving obstruction of justice. Correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair. And
Speaker 0: the reason the RCMP did not have access to that material evidence on what was central to determining whether the prime minister broke the law was because of the parameters of the scope of the order of counsel with respect to the waiver of cabinet confidentiality. Correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair. The parameters did not allow us to fully look into this one. However, I should just
Speaker 0: Thank add thank you for that. You answered it. The parameters did not allow you to, get that evidence. Now there is one person who had the authority to expand the parameters of that order and council, and that is the prime minister himself. Correct?
Speaker 1: I would have to say, mister chair, I'm not exactly sure of the exact process of where the prime minister would be involved in such a decision. However, I I do believe the decision has to be made within the Somewhere. Somewhere within the government.
Speaker 0: I would submit the decision would have to be made by the prime minister, but the RCMP went and requested an expansion of the scope to obtain that evidence, to follow that evidence. Correct?
Speaker 1: Before we proceeded with the assessment, yes. We did make a request for an expansion to the parameters.
Speaker 2: I just have, mister Cooper, it's not to follow the evidence. It's to glean additional information. That could be evidence. Correct.
Speaker 0: And that request was turned down on 08/30/2019.
Speaker 1: I would have to say, mister chair, that the request for the expansion was was not allowed.
Speaker 0: It was turned down, and it was turned down by the PCO, the prime minister's department. Correct?
Speaker 1: We mister chair, we did receive a letter from the Department of Justice. I could not remember exactly specifically if this came from the
Speaker 0: Well, it was from the PCO, and that's in the RCMP's investigation report. And, would it be fair to say that the refusal by the prime minister's personal department, the PCO, to expand the scope of the order in council significantly impeded the full investigation into the prime minister's potential obstruction of justice.
Speaker 2: It limited our capability of pursuing a full investigation.
Speaker 0: And it would have limited it in a fairly significant way. Because after all, we're talking about going to the heart of the matter of obstruction.
Speaker 2: And again, I I don't know what additional not knowing what additional information is out there, it's hard for me to speculate that there's a Pandora box out there which is full of information, so it's hard for us without speculating.
Speaker 0: Well, let the record show that the prime minister's department, the PCO, obstructed the RCMP investigation into the prime minister's potential obstruction of justice. Are you aware of any other Canadian who can single handedly block the RCMP from investigating his own criminality in such an effective way as the prime minister? Good question. Fantastic.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't I wouldn't use the term, mister mister president. I wouldn't use the term block. The RCMP is when it runs an investigation, operates within the parameters and the regulations that we're allowed to. And we see international security investigation as well where there's some information that we don't have access to, we can't use into investigations. It's the it's the parameters it's the it's the parameters that we are
Speaker 0: I think the answer to that question is there is no one who has such powers. And was any explanation provided by the prime minister's personal department why there was this refusal to expand the scope of the order in council?
Speaker 1: Again, mister chair, as far as for a response on this one, of course, it was indicated, of course, the the importance, of course, of these privilege that do exist. They are there for a reason. And, again, as the commissioner mentioned Well we do have to operate within these parameters.
Speaker 0: It would seem to me to be part of a pattern of cover up.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 0: That's what it would seem to me to be. How can the prime minister be subject to the rule of law like every other Canadian if his personal department can shield him from an RCMP criminal investigation?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. So mister chair, I'll I'll I'll let individuals draw their own conclusion. What I what I come back to is we operate within a set of regulations and parameters that, unfortunately, we did we made the effort to go and get additional information, and it was refused.
Speaker 0: Thank you, commissioner. Thank you. Justice, I Thank would you, mister Cooper.
@JinglaiHe - Jinglai He 🇨🇦
BREAKING: Conservative MP Michael Cooper makes the RCMP confirm that Justin Trudeau ILLEGALLY obstructed the investigation into SNC-Lavalin and broke the law. Well would you look at that, Pierre was RIGHT AGAIN! Why isn't the CBC covering this clip? https://t.co/NqZoCE0I2O
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the RCMP examination into whether the prime minister obstructed justice under section 139(2) of the Criminal Code. The RCMP’s strongest theory of obstruction involved the prime minister shuffling Jody Wilson-Raybould out of the position of attorney general so a new attorney general might pursue a different decision regarding SNC-Lavalin. It is stated that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence related to this strongest theory, because of the parameters of the order in council concerning the waiver of cabinet confidentiality. The RCMP acknowledge that the scope limitations prevented them from fully examining this central aspect of potential criminal conduct.
When pressed, it is indicated that the decision to expand the parameters would have to be made within the government, and that the RCMP did request an expansion to obtain additional evidence, but the request was denied. The denial occurred on 08/30/2019 and came from the Prime Minister’s Department (the PCO). The RCMP clarifies that they did receive a letter from the Department of Justice, but cannot confirm if it originated from the PCO; regardless, the refusal by the prime minister’s personal department significantly impeded the RCMP’s ability to pursue a full investigation into potential obstruction of justice. The RCMP describes this as limiting their capability and suggests that, given the scope constraints, they could not reach the heart of the obstruction issue.
Speaker 0 asserts that the prime minister’s department obstructed the investigation, and questions whether any other Canadian could single-handedly block RCMP access in such a way. Speaker 2 emphasizes that the RCMP operates within established parameters and regulations, noting that certain information remains inaccessible under those rules, including some international security information. Nevertheless, Speaker 0 states that there is no one with such powers and characterizes the situation as part of a pattern of cover-up. Speaker 2 reiterates that they made efforts to obtain additional information, but the expansion request was refused, leaving the investigation constrained.
In closing, Speaker 0 thanks the commissioner and Justice, and the exchange underscores that the RCMP felt hindered by the parameters set by the PCO, which curtailed their ability to conduct a full investigation into the prime minister’s potential obstruction of justice.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister chair. Thank you to the witnesses. A part of the RCMP's examination to determine whether the prime minister violated section one thirty nine sub two of criminal code by committing obstruction of justice. Correct? That was part of the RCMP's examination.
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair. And
Speaker 0: paragraph 19 of the RCMP investigation report states that the strongest fury towards an offensive obstruction of justice was that the prime minister shuffled Jody Wilson Raybold out of the position of attorney general so that a new attorney general would make a different decision regarding the prosecution of SNC Lavalin. Correct? That's correct, mister chair. And it's fair to say that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence surrounding miss Wilson Rabel being shuffled out as attorney general. Correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair.
Speaker 0: And so, just to clarify then or emphasize, the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence on the strongest theory surrounding the prime minister's potential criminality involving obstruction of justice. Correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair. And
Speaker 0: the reason the RCMP did not have access to that material evidence on what was central to determining whether the prime minister broke the law was because of the parameters of the scope of the order of counsel with respect to the waiver of cabinet confidentiality. Correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair. The parameters did not allow us to fully look into this one. However, I should just
Speaker 0: Thank add thank you for that. You answered it. The parameters did not allow you to, get that evidence. Now there is one person who had the authority to expand the parameters of that order and council, and that is the prime minister himself. Correct?
Speaker 1: I would have to say, mister chair, I'm not exactly sure of the exact process of where the prime minister would be involved in such a decision. However, I I do believe the decision has to be made within the Somewhere. Somewhere within the government.
Speaker 0: I would submit the decision would have to be made by the prime minister, but the RCMP went and requested an expansion of the scope to obtain that evidence, to follow that evidence. Correct?
Speaker 1: Before we proceeded with the assessment, yes. We did make a request for an expansion to the parameters.
Speaker 2: I just have, mister Cooper, it's not to follow the evidence. It's to glean additional information. That could be evidence. Correct.
Speaker 0: And that request was turned down on 08/30/2019.
Speaker 1: I would have to say, mister chair, that the request for the expansion was was not allowed.
Speaker 0: It was turned down, and it was turned down by the PCO, the prime minister's department. Correct?
Speaker 1: We mister chair, we did receive a letter from the Department of Justice. I could not remember exactly specifically if this came from the
Speaker 0: Well, it was from the PCO, and that's in the RCMP's investigation report. And, would it be fair to say that the refusal by the prime minister's personal department, the PCO, to expand the scope of the order in council significantly impeded the full investigation into the prime minister's potential obstruction of justice.
Speaker 2: It limited our capability of pursuing a full investigation.
Speaker 0: And it would have limited it in a fairly significant way. Because after all, we're talking about going to the heart of the matter of obstruction.
Speaker 2: And again, I I don't know what additional not knowing what additional information is out there, it's hard for me to speculate that there's a Pandora box out there which is full of information, so it's hard for us without speculating.
Speaker 0: Well, let the record show that the prime minister's department, the PCO, obstructed the RCMP investigation into the prime minister's potential obstruction of justice. Are you aware of any other Canadian who can single handedly block the RCMP from investigating his own criminality in such an effective way as the prime minister? Good question. Fantastic.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't I wouldn't use the term, mister mister president. I wouldn't use the term block. The RCMP is when it runs an investigation, operates within the parameters and the regulations that we're allowed to. And we see international security investigation as well where there's some information that we don't have access to, we can't use into investigations. It's the it's the parameters it's the it's the parameters that we are
Speaker 0: I think the answer to that question is there is no one who has such powers. And was any explanation provided by the prime minister's personal department why there was this refusal to expand the scope of the order in council?
Speaker 1: Again, mister chair, as far as for a response on this one, of course, it was indicated, of course, the the importance, of course, of these privilege that do exist. They are there for a reason. And, again, as the commissioner mentioned Well we do have to operate within these parameters.
Speaker 0: It would seem to me to be part of a pattern of cover up.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 0: That's what it would seem to me to be. How can the prime minister be subject to the rule of law like every other Canadian if his personal department can shield him from an RCMP criminal investigation?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. So mister chair, I'll I'll I'll let individuals draw their own conclusion. What I what I come back to is we operate within a set of regulations and parameters that, unfortunately, we did we made the effort to go and get additional information, and it was refused.
Speaker 0: Thank you, commissioner. Thank you. Justice, I Thank would you, mister Cooper.
@SandraCobena_ - SandraCobena
POV: you’re trying to get a straight answers from the Minister of Finance. #cdnpoli https://t.co/yhj63WhmWn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 discusses public fatigue with politics and asks for simple answers, focusing on whether money will be printed or put on the line of credit, mentioning figures “11,000,000, 11.3.” Speaker 1 responds by asking how Speaker 0 would explain to constituents what they will vote on, and suggests Speaker 0 should help explain to Canadians. The exchange centers on whether the minister will print money or use the line of credit, with Speaker 0 pressing for a direct answer.
Speaker 0 continues to press for a clear position, asking the minister to reveal what they will do and to share with Canadians. Speaker 1 repeats the question in a different form, asking what will be said to constituents if they vote in favor but are not willing to support Canadians, and asserts the need for help to explain.
Speaker 0 insists on an answer, and Speaker 1 questions how not to explain to constituents what they will do, asking for clarity about the measure. The dialogue returns to the core inquiry: “Will you be printing money or the line of credit?” Speaker 0 asks if the government is running a deficit and asks for the deficit amount.
Speaker 1 reiterates that the measure is intended to support Canadians at a time of need, and asks Speaker 0 to stand by their vote and say yes in favor, since it will support Canadians. Speaker 0 asks whether the program is a capital investment or an operating expense, noting difficulty in distinguishing with broad definitions.
Speaker 1 responds that the definition is not as broad as suggested and directs attention to what the IMF says about Canada’s adopted definition. Speaker 0 presses for a determination on whether the program will be a capital investment or an operating expense, asking again for clear categorization. Speaker 1 states it will be a funding expense and an operating expense aimed at supporting Canadian health, but then interrupts to allow for clarification, indicating that there is also an aspect that could support capital investment. Speaker 0 clarifies the focus on Canada, and Speaker 1 explains the IMF reference as part of the discussion.
A pause is requested by Speaker 1 with Miss Cobina on the floor, and Speaker 1 acknowledges the need to finish the clarification, allowing Miss Cobina to continue.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When I speak to people in my writing, they are tired of politics. They want simple answers. 11,000,000, 11.3, will it will you be printing money or putting it on the line of credit?
Speaker 1: So how are you gonna explain to your people in your writing simple question you vote
Speaker 0: in finance minister. Finance is based on numbers. Will you be printing money, or will it go on the line of credit?
Speaker 1: What will you say to your constituent? And you say you vote in favor, but you're not willing to support Canadians. So I think people will be confused. You should help me. We can help you.
Speaker 0: Minister, please just an answer.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what I'm saying. How do not explain that to your constituents? You
Speaker 0: must have thought. You know what you're gonna do. Would you please just share with Canadians?
Speaker 1: Well, exactly. That's why
Speaker 0: I'm saying finance this.
Speaker 1: I'm sure your constituents are confused. You're voting in favor, and now you're saying you're not for the measures.
Speaker 0: Minister, will you be printing money or the line of credit?
Speaker 1: Are you in favor of the measure or you against?
Speaker 0: You are running a deficit. How much will the deficit be then?
Speaker 1: Well, like I said, this is a measure that supports Canadian. You're voting in favor of it, and I think you should stand by your vote and say, yes. We favor that because it's gonna support Canadians at the time of need.
Speaker 0: Minister, will this be, a capital investment or an operating expense since it's hard to tell with your broad definition now?
Speaker 1: Well, would not say it's so broad. You should look at what the international monetary
Speaker 0: an operating expense or a capital investment?
Speaker 1: Madam chair, do you want me to answer? I'm happy to listen to the questions.
Speaker 0: We're waiting for an answer.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what I'm saying. I was referring to the International Monetary Fund that
Speaker 0: you Well, we're talking about Canada here.
Speaker 1: Well, that's why I'm I'm trying to help you that the International Monetary Fund said that the definition that Canada has adopted, other countries are looking at that, and they praise the framework
Speaker 0: that Canada adopted. On the definition. I'm asking, will this program be a capital investment or an operating expense?
Speaker 1: It's be a cost of funding expense. Excuse me? It's gonna be an operating expense support Canadian health. But on the family But let me finish because No. No.
I need that clarification, mister. But there's aspect of it that support Sorry. Capital investment as Minister mister mister Cobina, I would ask both of you to pause for a second. Miss Cobina, please continue.