reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The White House must be responsive to Congress, which is representative of the people. This involves working with allies in Congress to apply pressure to the administration. The approach remains consistent across administrations. The speaker was referring to potential appointees for key positions.

We had limited time in the house for debate, so online harms bill didn't make it to committee. The minister needs time to establish a regulator for hate speech. We want to move C-63 to the senate, but it was tabled in June. Despite being productive, delays were blamed on the conservatives and us.

Speaker 0 questions fairness in committee representation based on party votes. Speaker 1 explains that committee membership is based on the number of members in the house, not popular vote.

In comparing this Congress to the previous one, it's interesting to note that despite the Democrats having control over the house, senate, and presidency in the last Congress, this Congress has actually produced more bills that have become law. This is due to the changes we have made, such as opening up the House and requiring members to come to work. Bills now have to go through committee and there is a 72-hour reading period, not just for members but also for the American public. This return to a more transparent and inclusive process is a positive step towards fulfilling our commitment to the American people.

The speaker talks about a range of theories that could be undertaken, suggesting that some approaches might be carried out in good faith even if the underlying aim is partisan. They express a desire to appear nonpartisan, framing it as a plausible or acceptable stance, while asserting that the real objective is to help Democrats win elections. The speaker goes further, stating that the ultimate aim is for the Republican Party to become pro-Democratic again, implying that partisan goals should be achieved even as the outward posture remains nonpartisan. They acknowledge that there is money involved from a Republican congress, which informs why there is a need to maintain the appearance of nonpartisanship. This point is tied to the financial dimension of political activity, suggesting that funding sources influence how partisan or nonpartisan a campaign or effort presents itself. The speaker notes that in 2022 there was a Republican House of Representatives, establishing the political context for the discussion and the timing of the strategies being described. This reference to the 2022 House situates the dynamics of party influence and the practical environment in which these ideas are supposed to operate. A central claim is that the goal is to help Democrats win until they run Nikki Haley or the ghost of John McCain again, indicating specific targets or figures as benchmarks for when the strategy would shift or when the alignment might change. The mention of Nikki Haley and “the ghost of John McCain” is used to illustrate particular political moments or personas that would influence how the strategy is executed or reframed. The speaker then asserts that it is not enough to simply help Democrats win. Beyond that, there is a need to create a Coke and Pepsi dynamic so that the Republican party ends up back in the box—an analogy implying that the party should be contained, moderated, or redirected in a way that makes it more compatible with the nonpartisan or pro-Democratic objective. The use of this metaphor emphasizes a desire to reset or constrain the Republican Party’s behavior or identity to align with the overarching goal of shaping outcomes in favor of Democratic interests.

McCarthy deserves credit for devolving power, as he reinstated the motion to remove the speaker of the house. This motion allows any member to call for a vote to remove the speaker, and if 218 people vote in favor, the speaker is removed. Although I don't plan on using this motion, having it in place is important to prevent fear of retaliation for doing what's right.

In order to enforce the deal, we wanted specific people in key positions. We focused on getting more representation on the Appropriations Committee, as that's where the money is. The Rules Committee, although not well-known, governs what we can vote on. So, we demanded specific individuals and representation on this committee as well.

We demanded specific bills, set deadlines for their consideration, and insisted on sticking to a budget resolution. Our goal was to avoid voting on massive omnibus bills. It's absurd to think that legislating involves rushing through bills that are thousands of pages long, costing trillions of dollars, with only 48 hours to review. This approach undermines the value of each member and insults our constituents. We needed a better way to govern.

Friday's events were unacceptable and embarrassing to the House and Canadians. The speaker should listen to members and step down.

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.

In comparing this Congress to the previous one, it is interesting to note that despite the Democrats having control over the house, senate, and presidency in the last Congress, this Congress has actually produced more bills that have become law. This increase in productivity can be attributed to some significant changes. The House has been reopened, requiring members to be present and bills to go through committees. Additionally, there is now a 72-hour period for both members and the American public to review bills. This return to a more transparent and inclusive process is seen as a positive development and a fulfillment of our commitment to the American people.

Washington's leadership selection system is seen as broken, relying on lobbyists and special interest money. Kevin McCarthy, for example, raised and distributed $500 million in the last election cycle, highlighting the money-for-support dynamic. To challenge this cartel-like system, a different approach was sought. The desired changes can be categorized into three main areas.

Minister Champagne will summon the heads of major grocery stores to Ottawa to discuss the issue of rising food prices. The government expects to receive their plan to stabilize prices by Thanksgiving. If the plan fails to offer substantial relief to the middle class and those striving to join it, further action will be taken, including potential tax measures. The aim is to address the disparity between record profits for grocery stores and the struggles faced by Canadians in affording food.

One person can call for a vote to remove Kevin McCarthy, but a majority is needed, which means Democrats would have to vote against him. However, it is unlikely that Democrats will do so because McCarthy made a deal with them. The speaker believes that Democrats will actually support McCarthy to show who really governs and how it happens. The speaker wants to change this system and evaluate bills independently. McCarthy is making a secret deal on Ukraine while trying to get Republicans to vote for a continuing resolution that doesn't include Ukraine. McCarthy has lied to Democrats, Republicans, and the White House, but if they choose to keep him, he belongs to them.

Canada is currently being controlled by Albertans, which is not working for our community and social democratic agenda. Some believe that having more Quebecois in power is better for Canada. The speaker, who is liberal, agrees with this view. They mention that the most successful prime ministers of the 20th century were from Quebec, such as Trudeau, Moroni, Chrétien, and Paul Martin. They believe that if Quebec has a role in this country, then Canada belongs to them.

The first motion is about the continuation of the formation process. The leader of the largest faction, Mr. A. Plasterk, is appointed as the informer to carry out the advice given in the report of the scout. The motion is supported by several colleagues. The second motion is about establishing a parliamentary inquiry committee on COVID-19. The committee will be responsible for conducting external investigations and proposing any necessary changes to the investigation proposal. The motion is also supported by several colleagues.

Benabryth is calling for the reopening of a commission report to determine the number of Nazi veterans in Canada. The government's response is focused on the importance of taking appropriate next steps in the House of Commons. They emphasize the need for thoughtful consideration before proceeding further.

The vote for Mr. Radcliffe's nomination from the intelligence committee was 14 to 3, indicating strong bipartisan support. We’ve wasted a day that could have been used to act on this nomination, which is crucial for national security. The question is whether we want to vote on these nominations now or delay until later in the week. This should be straightforward; both parties agree on his qualifications. While there may be some opposition, the consensus is clear that we need to fill this important position quickly. Stalling serves no purpose, and we will proceed with the votes as necessary.

The debate centers on changes to Ontario’s Freedom of Information (FOI) rules embedded in the budget bill. The motion passes, with the ayes 57 and nays 33, and is declared carried. Opposition MPs denounce the vote as the FOI changes being rushed and retroactive, arguing they will limit public and media access to government documents and effectively shield records involving Premier Ford and his cabinet from scrutiny. The changes were fast-tracked after a late-night legislative session, bypassing the normal committee review that would ordinarily allow public input before proposals are enacted. Speaker 0 frames the outcome by asserting that rights are not being taken away and that the public will still have substantial access; he promises continued transparency and accountability, including quarterly reports on spending. He says that information access remains broad, with tools available for the public to scrutinize government actions. Speaker 2 notes Premier Ford’s claim that 95% of information would remain accessible while 5% could be redacted to protect personal data, but points to disputes over whether some information would still be accessible and under what circumstances. He highlights concerns that the FOI changes could limit scrutiny despite the stated intent to protect personal information. Opposition voices, including the NDP and Liberal leaders, criticize the move as undermining democracy. One speaker states, “Democracy dies in darkness,” arguing the budget bill is being used to hide government actions from Ontarians. The concern is that the changes would reduce transparency not only for the premier’s government but for all governments and all parties, affecting the public service and how billions of dollars are accounted for each year. Speaker 3 emphasizes the need for the public to know how the government uses the funds it receives annually, underscoring the role of FOI in keeping government accountable. The session notes that today’s vote occurred as the legislature plans a break tomorrow and a recess for the entire next week. Liberal leaders indicate they will use that time to propose additional motions to revisit and reopen debate on FOI provisions, attempting to block or modify the changes. They plan to bring more motions to surface the issue and seek greater public discussion and scrutiny, aiming to stop the FOI changes from taking effect.

We are proud of our influence in government. A constituent asked about outside interference in democracy, specifically regarding Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum. He claimed that the WEF has infiltrated over half of Canada's cabinet. In the interest of transparency, could you name the cabinet ministers aligned with the WEF's agenda? Order, please. The question is important, but the audio and video quality are poor. I apologize for that. The younger generation, including Prime Minister Trudeau, is involved.

Judicial recounts are normal, but the number of seat flips in the 2025 election is unusual. In 2011 there was one flip, in 2015 there were zero, and in 2021 there was one. In 2025, a number of seats have flipped to the Liberal party. This observation is not due to malicious intent or outside influence. The speaker is simply noticing a trend and a flaw. The speaker is calling on Elections Canada to improve voter education or to ensure correct postal codes on mail-in ballots. The speaker feels that the number of flips is weird.

We will govern responsibly and work with politicians from all sides of the house. Where there is constructive criticism of our agenda with responsible alternative policies, we will listen. That means we are also looking to the opposition to conduct its itself responsibly. I am under no illusions about what we face with the conservatives under the leadership of Pierre Pauliev. In the last parliament, mister Pauliev's approach was far from responsible. In fact, he shut down parliament for weeks on end last fall, as I'm sure you all remember. He thought and hopefully no longer thinks a bad day for the government was a good day for the opposition, but this is not how this country runs. We need more good days for parliament. And increasingly, Canadians are of the view that a good day for parliament is when parties work together.

The speaker believes that the legal profession needs reform, similar to the expansion of the Supreme Court in the United States under FDR. They suggest that the current conservative government may face opposition from liberal-appointed judges and senators if they try to address issues from the previous Trudeau era. Strong measures may be necessary to make changes.

Speaker 0 asks what you are here to talk about, says “Thank you very much,” and asks, “Any votes in the prime minister?”

The White House must be responsive to Congress, which is representative of the people. This involves working with allies in Congress to apply pressure to the administration. The approach remains consistent across administrations. The speaker was referring to potential appointees for key positions.