reSee.it - Related Video Feed

There are concerns about releasing the names of parliamentarians in the unredacted NCAP report. The speaker emphasizes the importance of protecting secret information to maintain trade partnerships. They mention the distinction between need-to-know and right-to-know when sharing information with the government. If an MP were to reveal classified information under parliamentary privilege, it would pose a challenge for the RCMP Commissioner. The speaker hopes to avoid such a situation.

The meeting was abruptly adjourned after the motion was made by Madame Fortier. The motion was not up for debate, so a vote was taken. The majority voted in favor of adjourning the meeting, despite the presence of the RCMP commissioner and staff sergeant. The speaker expressed disappointment in the Liberal members who voted to shut down the meeting, accusing them of protecting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The speaker criticized the use of cabinet confidence to withhold information from the RCMP, hindering their investigation into obstruction of justice charges. The speaker concluded by stating that after 8 years of Trudeau's leadership, transparency and accountability are lacking in our democratic institutions.

The committee asked for information on how many of these so‑called police stations are operating currently in Canada, and whether any have been shut down. Response: There is deep concern about allegations and reports of foreign interference, including public reports of these so‑called police stations. The details of the investigation are the subject of ongoing initiatives by the RCMP, and questions about those details should be directed to the commissioner. The subsequent question specifically asked the commissioner to provide information to Canadians on how many of these alleged stations are operating in Canada, have operated previously, and if any have been shut down. Answer: Currently, we’re looking at three of the police stations in Toronto and one in Vancouver. We’re working with our police jurisdictions as well as with other Government of Canada national security agencies. An investigation has been initiated and is led by the Greater Toronto Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET). So far, elements of the investigation have been very overt—there have been marked police cars and uniformed members to cause disruption to the allegations. We’ve released that visible presence, and that’s mostly so that people will see the actions, for two reasons: first, because we need more information, and second, so that when police are in the area dealing with the allegations, people will come forward. The investigation is ongoing, and while the details can’t be discussed publicly, a statement in October/November indicated that an investigation was underway into reports of possible activities at those locations. The committee member then asked for clarification: Can you confirm that you know the locations of these supposed police stations, and that RCMP in uniform have been at those locations causing disruption? Response: No. In the initial instances, instead of disruption by going in uniform with marked police cars, the approach was to speak with the people involved at those police stations or locations because those locations are a legitimate business in the front. The committee then asked for a timeline on when the investigation would conclude and whether the allegations are true. The conversation moved to indicate the inquiry would continue, but no specific conclusion timeline was provided in the exchanged statements.

The speaker accuses the government of covering up corruption and obstructing a criminal investigation into the prime minister's conduct. They highlight the prime minister's involvement in the SNC Lavalin scandal and his firing of the attorney general. The speaker criticizes the prime minister's ethical violations and claims that he thwarted a criminal investigation. The meeting is abruptly adjourned, angering the speaker who believes the government is trying to protect the prime minister. They mention the use of cabinet confidence to hide information from the RCMP. The speaker concludes that after 8 years, the prime minister is not worth the cost and promises to speak further on the matter.

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.

The speaker asks if Mindon is part of the investigation, to which Speaker 1 responds that allegations have been received and the review is ongoing. Speaker 0 then mentions that Mindon has 4 years' worth of relevant emails that have been corrupted, but Speaker 2 questions the validity of this statement. Speaker 0 emphasizes the seriousness of deleting emails and asks when the president and the auditor general were informed. Speaker 1 states that the allegations were received on December 11th, but there is no evidence of deletion. Speaker 0 asks if the auditor general was notified, and Speaker 1 confirms informing them of the allegations. The Treasury Board Secretariat and RCMP were not informed due to lack of evidence of criminality. The conversation ends abruptly.

The speaker suggests including the institution of the law in the terms of reference, providing documents to the Royal Commission that name 28 people as alleged pedophiles, including prominent individuals. They mention that the Royal Commission deemed it outside their terms of reference. The speaker highlights a compromise at the highest levels, with a former prime minister being mentioned in the police document.

Speaker 0: It was January 2022 when a colleague of mine in the unit came to me saying, something's up. We've had a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year. And that's what got my curiosity piqued. Speaker 1: Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2: I have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 3: Doctors made extra money to push vaccines and they were given a billing code to do it. I have pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 2: They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved. They've distributed it to the province so the second it's approved, we can start jabbing ourselves with it. We can start jabbing pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4: Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, And then you don't. Speaker 0: I was suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials. Possible. They pushed on with this narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2: They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1: Our Canadian babies died, and the police are trying to cover it up to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it. Speaker 2: The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression. Speaker 4: If you don't want to get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk. Speaker 2: It started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public. Speaker 5: Canada has to shift their understanding of what the CBC is. It is a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 2: This is the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective, and they're still not investigating. Everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, our health agencies, how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.

The Prime Minister previously supported ENSCOCOP's role in examining foreign interference in Canada's democracy, but there seems to be a shift in stance. Questions arise about whether a recent ENSCOCOP report revealed involvement of Liberals seeking political and financial gain. Is the Prime Minister still committed to transparency and public trust in institutions, or has external influence changed this approach? In response, the Minister for Public Safety emphasizes the importance of oversight, noting that the government established a committee of parliamentarians to monitor security agencies for the first time. This committee includes members from all political parties, and their recommendations have been acted upon to enhance national security and combat foreign interference.

The discussion centers on allegations that the nine/eleven commission has been obstructed in its ability to access full information from the White House, particularly regarding what the President knew and when he knew it about the September 11 attacks. The first speaker asserts that President Bush personally nixed the commission’s access to crucial documents in the White House, especially the presidential daily briefs. According to this speaker, these briefs “basically tell[ the] commission and the American people what the President knew and when he knew it in regard to the potential attack on nineeleven and the attack itself and the follow-up.” The claim is that the White House has “personally nixed that information coming to nineeleven,” meaning all members of the commission would not see the real, sensitive documents. The speaker characterizes the White House’s actions as a cover-up and describes it as slow-walking the process from the beginning, implying deliberate obstruction. The second speaker describes the commission as an independent body intended to examine why and how the 9/11 attacks occurred, what the President and the government knew, and when they knew it. When asked why the White House would not permit access to the documents, this speaker characterizes the White House as resisting greater scrutiny: “They don't want any more eyeballs to see their documents than they could possibly get away with. It's a scam. It's absolutely disgusting.” This speaker’s framing suggests an intentional effort by the White House to limit oversight and information flow. The third speaker adds a critical evaluation of the commission’s setup, stating that “the commission in many ways was set up to fail because we had, not enough money. We didn't have enough time.” This indicates a belief that structural constraints undermined the commission’s effectiveness and its ability to fulfill its independent mandate. Across the statements, the overarching claim is that there was deliberate resistance by the White House to provide the commission with full access to key documents, notably the presidential daily briefs, thereby impeding the commission’s ability to comprehensively determine what the government knew about the threats prior to and following the attacks. The speakers collectively portray a pattern of obstruction, cover-up, and insufficient resources that hampered the commission’s work.

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

Speaker 0 pressed whether federal agents or assets were present on January 5 and 6, whether they agitated to enter the Capitol, and whether any did. Speaker 1 refused to comment on an ongoing investigation, saying, 'I'm not gonna violate this norm of the rule of law. I'm not gonna comment on an investigation that's ongoing.' He later said, 'I don't know the answer to that question' when asked how many agents or assets were involved or if any entered the Capitol. The discussion moved to confidential human sources (CHS). Speaker 2 said, 'Our report will include the information in that regard,' but noted it is 'in draft form' and not yet through classification review. On release timing, he said it would be 'in the next couple of months' but may not come before the election. He stated CHS protocols should be followed, and four years into the process, delays.

Speaker 0: Some Republicans argue that Nancy Pelosi staged January 6 and the select committee covered it up. Based on what you know, what are the verifiable events in the lead ups? Speaker 1: I was DoD chief of staff on January 6. We deployed National Guard; in the Oval Office the president, president Trump at the time, authorized pursuant to law up to 10 to 20,000 National Guard. We took that authorization because the law's second part required a request from who? Nancy Pelosi and the Metropolitan Police and the mayor at the time. And what did they say? No. And remember what happened for the next two years? They say, Oh, Kash is lying. Trump’s lying. And what do we find? Letters of their declination of the National Guard refusing to have the National Guard show up. Nancy Pelosi and her team were busy filming a movie on January 6 while this so caused chaos around her was going down. If she had just look at it this way. If she had said yes to the National Guard and we had 10,000 uniformed military officers establish a secure perimeter, do you think January 6 would have gone differently? Speaker 0: It is intriguing that 02/1950 FBI plain clothed agents were inside the Capitol on January 6. Speaker 1: This is a great example of the president's initiative to solve all the answers on January 6, and it's another example of our transparency efforts. Pursuant to the president, we investigated the matter and found out why FBI agents were placed there in the first place. And it turns out, we found documentation and witnesses and whistleblowers that said we were forced to go there to do riot control. Armstrong, do you know what the FBI does not do ever? Riot control. Speaker 0: And you believe them? That's their word, not mine.

I will be questioning the RCMP commissioner tomorrow about why they chose not to investigate Justin Trudeau's actions in the SNC Lavalin scandal. Trudeau pressured Jody Wilson Raybould to offer a deal to SNC Lavalin, but she stood firm. I will ask why Trudeau wasn't charged with obstruction of justice. Stay tuned for updates.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

Speaker 0 calls Speaker 1 to confirm that three excavators were disabled to prevent illegal activity. Speaker 0 asks about the expectation of how the excavators would be used, but Speaker 1 doesn't have an answer. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 and ends the call. Speaker 0 then calls Corporal Southern Cobb to confirm the damage caused by the RCMP. Speaker 1 doesn't know the specific steps taken to disable the vehicles. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 and ends the call.

Speaker 0 confirms making a phone call to the Prime Minister at 3:34 pm. Speaker 1 questions if there is a record of this call that hasn't been disclosed. Speaker 0 clarifies that there is a record of the call but not the content. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 remembers what was said, to which Speaker 0 affirms.

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.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

The Liberal NDP Coalition government held an emergency meeting with the Auditor General of Canada to discuss the $54 million ArriveCAN app scandal. The RCMP is now investigating potential criminality related to the app's contracts. However, the government shut down the Auditor General's testimony after just 30 minutes of a scheduled 2-hour meeting. Serious allegations of fraudulent contract practices have been made, and there is concern about how an app could cost taxpayers such a large amount. The opposition party vows to expose the corruption and hold those responsible accountable. They believe the NDP liberal government is not worth the cost.

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.

Speaker 0 asks why Paul Irving, who had the authority, didn't give the okay. Speaker 1 explains that he testified at the Senate hearing in 2021 and disagreed with Speaker 1's recollection. Speaker 1 turned over his phone records and fought to testify. Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 wasn't allowed to testify since he was the chief of Capitol Police on January 6th. Speaker 1 explains that initially, the hearing was only for current employees, excluding the top 3 people in security. Speaker 1 called someone on the rules committee to request testifying and promised to show up in person. Speaker 0 highlights the denial of Speaker 1's request for national guardsmen, which was a pivotal moment.

The denial of the request for national guardsmen on January 6th was a pivotal moment. The person who made that decision has not answered why. Representative Bennie Thompson stated that Speaker Pelosi was off limits to the inquiries of the January 6th committee. However, if we truly want to find out what happened, everyone's records should be examined. The speaker emphasizes that they have been forthright and provided their phone records. They made numerous calls to request approval and called multiple police agencies and officers to help regain control of the Capitol. The speaker's recollection is detailed and precise.

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.

New information reveals that ArriveCAN contractors submitted receipts for a non-existent company. The investigation already involves allegations of identity theft, forged resumes, contractual theft, fraudulent billing, price fixing, and collusion in the creation of the $54 million ArriveCAN app. The speaker questions how much worse this situation can get and asks which Liberal insiders got rich. In response, the honorable minister states that public servants are expected to follow appropriate contracting practices. The Border Services Agency uncovered information during an internal audit and referred it to the police. The minister emphasizes the importance of letting the RCMP handle the investigation.