reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I apologize to everyone here. However, our apology is not accepted by the speaker. They are tired of liberal apologies and believe they hold no value. They mention an ethics violation in February and another one now. They criticize our pride on the first day and claim that Justin Trudeau's actions prove we cannot be nonpartisan. They suggest that if we have any integrity, we should step down.

Mister Trudeau's leadership is precarious, with significant dissent within his party. A fifth of Liberal MPs have called for his resignation, and his deputy prime minister has left, along with his housing minister and several female ministers who have expressed dissatisfaction with his treatment and dishonesty. Currently, 80% of Canadians lack confidence in Trudeau. The pressing question is why Jagmeet Singh is delaying action while awaiting his pension, despite the growing unrest in the country.

Canadians demand transparency in investigating potential traitors. The government is cooperating with the Hogg Commission and providing necessary documents. The National Security Committee of Parliamentarians will also be involved. The opposition should refrain from making baseless claims in parliament.

We are proud to have infiltrated cabinets globally. A constituent asked about outside interference in democracy, referencing Klaus Schwab from the World Economic Forum boasting about infiltrating half of Canada's cabinet. They requested transparency on which ministers support the WEF's agenda. The audio and video quality were poor, causing disruption. Mention of Prime Minister Trudeau's involvement was made. Translation: We are proud to have infiltrated cabinets globally. A constituent asked about outside interference in democracy, referencing Klaus Schwab from the World Economic Forum boasting about infiltrating half of Canada's cabinet. They requested transparency on which ministers support the WEF's agenda. The audio and video quality were poor, causing disruption. Mention of Prime Minister Trudeau's involvement was made.

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.

The speaker's decision to resign due to lack of trust and embarrassment among parliamentarians and Canadians. It impacted various communities, including Jewish and Ukrainian, and tarnished Canada's reputation. Politicizing the issue only worsens the hurt felt by these communities. Moving forward, parliamentarians must elect a new speaker to restore trust and dignity in the house and regain Canadians' trust.

The speaker raises concerns about outside interference in democracy, specifically mentioning Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF). They question which cabinet ministers in Canada support the WEF's agenda. The speaker's audio and video quality are poor, leading to interruptions and apologies from the speaker. Another member accuses the previous speaker of promoting disinformation, and the debate continues.

Speaker 0 notes that part of the RCMP’s examination concerned whether the prime minister violated section 139(2) of the Criminal Code by obstruction of justice. Speaker 1 confirms this. Speaker 0 cites paragraph 19 of the RCMP investigation report, stating that the strongest fury toward obstruction of justice was that the prime minister shuffled Jody Wilson-Raybould out of the position of attorney general so that a new attorney general would make a different decision regarding the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 adds that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence surrounding Wilson-Raybould being shuffled out as attorney general. Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 emphasizes that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence on the strongest theory about the prime minister’s potential criminality involving obstruction of justice, and explains this was due to the scope parameters of the order in council with respect to the waiver of cabinet confidentiality. Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 clarifies, and then emphasizes, that the reason the RCMP could not obtain that evidence central to determining whether the prime minister broke the law was because of the scope parameters of the order in council. Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 asks who had authority to expand the parameters, suggesting the prime minister could do so. Speaker 1 responds that he is not exactly sure of the process but believes the decision must be made within somewhere in the government. Speaker 0 asserts that the decision would have to be made by the prime minister, but the RCMP requested expansion to obtain that evidence. Speaker 1 says yes, they did request an expansion before proceeding with the assessment. Speaker 2 corrects that the request was not to follow the evidence but to glean additional information that could be evidence. Speaker 0 states the request to expand was turned down on 08/30/2019. Speaker 1 clarifies that the request for expansion was not allowed. Speaker 0 states it was refused by the prime minister’s personal department, the PCO. Speaker 1 recalls receiving a letter from the Department of Justice and notes it originated with the PCO, as referenced in the RCMP investigation report. Speaker 0 asks whether the refusal by the prime minister’s department significantly impeded the full investigation. Speaker 2 says it limited the RCMP’s capability to pursue a full investigation. He adds that there could be additional information but cannot speculate about its contents, describing a “Pandora box” metaphor. Speaker 0 states the record shows the prime minister’s department obstructed the RCMP investigation and asks if there is any other Canadian who could single-handedly block such an investigation. Speaker 2 declines to use the term “block,” reiterating that the RCMP operates within allowed parameters and acknowledges information outside access cannot be used. Speaker 0 asks whether the prime minister’s personal department provided an explanation for refusing to expand the order in council. Speaker 1 states that privilege exists for a reason and that they must operate within the established parameters. Speaker 0 suggests the situation appears to be part of a pattern of cover-up. Speaker 2 agrees to let others draw their own conclusions but reiterates that the RCMP made efforts to obtain more information, which was refused. Speaker 0 thanks Commissioner Cooper.

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.

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.

The speaker questions outside interference in democracy, referencing Klaus Schwab's claim of infiltrating governments. They ask for transparency regarding Canadian cabinet ministers involved with the World Economic Forum. Another member interrupts due to poor audio and video quality. The discussion shifts to disinformation and the need to address it. Translation: The speaker raises concerns about outside influence in democracy and asks for transparency about Canadian cabinet ministers involved with the World Economic Forum. Another member interrupts due to technical issues and the conversation shifts to disinformation.

Today at the committee, officials were set to discuss the Winnipeg Lab document scandal involving Justin Trudeau. The Liberals and NDP members did not show up, leading to the shutdown of the meeting. The scandal involves a national security breach at Canada's highest security lab, with the government accused of covering it up. The opposition is demanding answers from the top officials involved. This display of shutting down important work is seen as a betrayal of democracy and transparency promised by Trudeau. The fight for truth and accountability continues.

In this video, a member of parliament raises concerns about outside interference in democracy. They mention Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum, who allegedly claimed that his organization has infiltrated governments, including Canada's cabinet. The member asks for transparency regarding which cabinet ministers support the WEF's agenda. However, the audio and video quality are poor, leading to interruptions and apologies from the speaker. Another member accuses the first member of promoting disinformation. Then, a third member thanks a colleague for their speech and intends to ask a specific question related to the legislation being discussed.

Speaker 0: Battle River Crowfoot, Tony Lauren. Speaker 1: Farmers want the carbon tax axed. The PM's promise of an independent senate is a farce. He bullied his senators to gut bill c234. The PM lied and his minions continue to act out of order. Speaker 0: Order! Retract and apologize for using that word. Speaker 1: I won't apologize to that broadcaster. Speaker 0: Apologize or leave. Speaker 1: It's the truth. Speaker 0: Leave now. Speaker 1: Fine, I'll leave.

The video discusses allegations of criminal activity, including identity theft, fraudulent resumes, contractual theft, fraudulent billing, price fixing, and collusion involving senior bureaucrats and three contractors. The RCMP is investigating the matter. The meeting is adjourned after a motion to do so is passed.

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.

Speaker 0: We are proud to have penetrated the cabinet. Speaker 1: A constituent asked about outside interference in our democracy. Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, boasted about infiltrating governments worldwide, including over half of Canada's cabinet. Can the member disclose which cabinet ministers support the WEF agenda for transparency? Speaker 2: Sorry for the poor audio and video quality. I'm unsure if the member...

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.

The member for Oshawa raised concerns about outside interference in democracy by the World Economic Forum. They questioned which Canadian cabinet ministers support the WEF's agenda. The discussion was interrupted due to technical issues. Another member criticized spreading disinformation. A member from Lambton Kent Middlesex thanked a colleague for their speech and asked for more details on the legislation.

I am here to ask Justin Trudeau basic questions about the carbon tax. Seven premiers oppose the tax hike, including Danielle Smith. The police are behaving strangely, following me and not allowing me to approach the prime minister. We just want answers to questions that Canadians care about. This behavior is outrageous and unnecessary.

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.

The video features a confrontation between individuals and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The speakers accuse Trudeau of censoring the internet, gaslighting, and dismissing dissenting voices. They also criticize his handling of veterans and accuse him of being a weak leader. The speakers express their anger and frustration, calling Trudeau a narcissist, weakling, and a Nazi. They demand accountability and express their belief in the power of truth and Jesus Christ. The video ends with a confrontation between the speakers and law enforcement officers.

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.