Liberals BLOW UP Ethics Committee to Protect Corrupt Minister!
Episode Stats
Words per minute
183.1986
Harmful content
Misogyny
13
sentences flagged
Toxicity
5
sentences flagged
Hate speech
14
sentences flagged
Summary
It was already bad enough that the Liberals got their majority government not through the ballot box, but through sleazy floor crossing, but now it's even worse that they are using this artificial majority government to not just stack the policy-based committees in Parliament, but also to stack the ethics committee.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey guys, Wyatt Claypool here, and welcome back to the National Telegraph YouTube channel.
00:00:06.400
It was already bad enough that the Mark Carney Liberals got their majority government not through
00:00:12.680
the ballot box, but through sleazy floor crossings. But now it's even worse that they are using this
00:00:19.140
artificial majority government to not just stack the policy-based committees in Parliament,
00:00:24.520
but they are using it to stack the ethics committee. The liberals have been saying that
00:00:30.440
they need to add extra liberal members to all the committees to help get their agenda through
00:00:35.760
faster. But why does that require them to also stack the committee that is meant to hold them
00:00:42.280
accountable? It's because they want no accountability. And the liberals know this is a bad
00:00:47.880
look, and you can tell by watching their press conferences. Watch Steve McKinnon, the liberal
00:00:53.640
House leader, answering this journalist's question as to why it was okay for them to
00:00:59.640
filibuster before to prevent the finance minister from testifying, but why it's bad that the
00:01:05.280
conservatives were quote-unquote filibustering against liberal policy, and he is now required
00:01:11.120
to stack the deck on all of the committees. I mean, the vision is that filibusters are only
00:01:16.820
good if you believe the principle you're defending is good, but if it's the opposition, then it's bad.
00:01:20.820
No, that's not what I just said. What I just said is that in the case that Hélène asked about, the Minister of Finance went above and beyond, and the Ethics Commissioner, in fact, recognized that the Minister had done things that even were not required under the circumstances.
00:01:43.020
so what is happening here is that the reporters had previously asked steve mckinnon about the
00:01:50.900
fact that the liberals before they got their majority had been basically running out the
00:01:55.280
clock for days preventing the opposition the conservatives and the bloc quebecois
00:02:00.200
from requiring francois philippe champaign the finance minister to come and testify in front of
00:02:06.340
them about his conflict of interest with the Alto high-speed rail project. His wife was only hired
00:02:13.400
as the vice president of environment a couple months before he started advocating and hammering
00:02:19.240
through the project in the budget. And then he didn't disclose that he had a conflict of interest
00:02:24.280
until late March, early April, but he claims that he disclosed it back in September, but the ethics
00:02:30.640
commissioner had no record that he did that. Him saying the ethics commissioner said that
00:02:35.040
Champagne went above and beyond is really just a symptom of the fact that many of these watchdogs
00:02:40.940
in government are liberal lackeys. But he's just saying that now Francois-Philippe Champagne is
00:02:46.660
going above and beyond. He didn't, in fact. He's going above and beyond now when it doesn't matter,
00:02:51.600
but he didn't do it before when he was actually hammering through the Alto train projects. So I
00:02:56.380
guess you can be corrupt and then disclose your conflicts of interest after, and then it's all
00:03:01.980
good but they were asking him basically well why was it okay for you guys to obstruct them bringing
00:03:08.940
in champagne for to testify but now you guys are saying you have to stack all the committees because
00:03:14.280
there was too much filibustering going on you yourselves were doing it so that can't be a
00:03:18.460
justification for now stacking all the committees and again why do you need to stack the ethics
00:03:24.020
committee that has nothing to do with policy it just has to do with whether or not they can force
00:03:29.180
a liberal to testify on the way from committee to explain because this this um felt like a deeply
00:03:35.480
partisan um and uh vexatious uh series of attacks on the finance minister that were completely
00:03:44.420
unwarranted sorry but if it's all untrue it should be so easy for francois philippe champagne to show
00:03:52.520
up and clear himself answer questions easily prove everyone has no clue what they're talking
00:03:58.040
about in fact it would actually raise his profile it'd make him look better than ever if he can show
00:04:02.920
up and disprove all of these claims against him the fact that they say well he's not going to do
00:04:08.040
it because it feels vexatious that's not a reason that's a feeling that's an emotion why can't he
00:04:13.820
come and answer these charges what the heck i just want to move on to the next english question he
00:04:29.520
But I want to move on now to the response from Conservative MPs
00:04:33.620
because very clearly, the Liberals just do not want accountability.
00:04:40.800
the Conservatives and the Bloc are being so obstructionist.
00:04:44.420
Everyone always thinks their opposition is being obstructionist.
00:04:47.780
You then have to ask, why is it that you don't just want
00:04:51.340
an extra couple liberals on the finance committee. You don't just want an extra couple of liberals
00:04:56.360
on, you know, the justice committee. You want more liberals on the ethics committee,
00:05:01.340
the oversight committees. And this is what the liberals are also doing with the parliamentary
00:05:04.560
budget officer. They got rid of the excellent Jason Jocks, who is literally rated the best
00:05:10.840
PBO in the world. I thought that sounded fake, like who's out there rating PBOs. But there is
00:05:15.800
a body who is saying that he is the most detailed with the most constructive criticism, who has
00:05:21.180
the best, basically, who has the most stringent oversight. He was rated very well. And he has
00:05:27.800
been replaced by a woman that Mark Carney went to Harvard with. What? I'm not sure if they were
00:05:34.680
in the same classrooms, but it was just some fellow Harvard alumnus, apparently has 25 years
00:05:40.320
of experience in some related finance area or some accounting area. But you're replacing the best
00:05:47.500
with somebody else. Why? It's because he has too many good questions and the Liberals don't like
00:05:53.280
accountability. But here is Conservative MP Andrew Lawton reacting to Steve McKinnon's statement as to
00:06:00.920
why he is stacking the committees and what powers he has to do that. Andrew Lawton correctly points
00:06:06.360
out here, the Liberals got less than 44% of the vote in the last election. Thanks to their
00:06:11.620
aggressive recruitment of floor crossers, they now have 51.4% of the seats in the House of Commons.
1.00
00:06:18.100
They now seek to ram through changes that will give them 58% of the seats on committees. Yes,
1.00
00:06:23.660
because of course committees are not balanced because you need to be an official party to be
00:06:27.520
able to have a seat on the committee. The Greens and the NDP do not have enough seats to be official
00:06:32.920
parties, and so the Liberals end up getting this bigger advantage when it comes to who sits on the
00:06:38.400
different committees. And again, we have to keep asking, why do you need to stack the Ethics
00:06:44.360
Committee? Again, they're going to now fall back on, well, they were being mean to Champaign. Well,
00:06:49.660
I guess it does feel mean when people are asking about corruption. But if you are not guilty,
00:06:54.860
it should be very easy to answer these claims. We're not charging them with anything. They are
00:07:00.400
literally just wanting to ask them questions. Here's Conservative MP Michael Cooper talking
00:07:06.200
about this fiasco with the ethics committee mark carney has just launched an unprecedented
00:07:11.960
parliamentary power grab last night his house leader put on notice a motion that will stack
00:07:18.280
the deck in favor of the liberals at all parliamentary committees liberals will now
00:07:23.560
command a majority on all committees including oversight committees like ethics and public
00:07:28.840
accounts committees that are tasked with holding the liberal government to account as a result
00:07:35.080
Liberals will be able to shut down investigations into government mismanagement, shield Carney from
00:07:42.040
his vast conflicts with respect to Brookfield, and block whistleblowers from testifying publicly.
00:07:49.160
As I said, a total power grab. Look, the Liberals won a minority government in the last election,
00:07:56.920
and consistent with a minority result, no one party controlled parliamentary committees.
00:08:03.160
But in recent months, Mark Carney has done something no Prime Minister has ever done before.
00:08:09.720
As part of a strategy, he has picked off various MPs through undemocratic floor crossings
00:08:15.960
to cobble together a majority government in the House of Commons that he didn't earn at
00:08:21.880
the ballot box. What we have is effectively an illegitimate liberal majority government
00:08:28.440
that is now using its illegitimate majority to rig committees to shut down accountability
00:08:35.560
it's wrong it removes critical checks and balances it's blatantly anti-democratic and
00:08:43.000
conservatives are going to fight this outrageous power grab every step of the way michael cooper
00:08:48.920
i think is one of my favorite mps i think he's very very good he reminds me of like really good
00:08:53.720
congressmen in the united states who when they get onto an issue become like that becomes
00:08:58.200
their big thing that they will grab on to some ethics investigation or some financial fraud issue
00:09:05.160
and they will just fight with for it for like a year i think he's really great and i think that
00:09:10.440
anyone watching this video if you have liberal friends and they start defending the restacking
00:09:15.880
of committees saying well parliament is now a majority liberal why shouldn't the committees
00:09:20.520
be a majority liberal now maybe that's a fine argument that the committee should reflect
00:09:26.280
respect whatever parliament looks like. They at least should at least acknowledge that this is
00:09:32.460
not how the last election actually happened. And I think on many of the committees, they should stay
00:09:36.140
at the original makeup, because if you're crossing the floor, you should at least not be stymieing
00:09:41.440
your previous party by not letting them have the power on committees they used to have.
00:09:45.840
But people like Gladju, while she wished her colleagues well when she left, in fact, she does
00:09:50.440
not wish them well. She's going to make their jobs more difficult by leaving and giving more power to
1.00
00:09:55.640
the liberals in order to stack the committees? And then ask your liberal friends, because they're
1.00
00:10:00.660
going to say, well, of course they can do this. Okay, let's say they can do this. Is it needed
00:10:05.520
for them to stack the ethics committee, public accounts to make sure that conservatives and
00:10:10.740
bloc can ask where the money is going? Why is it that those two committees need to be liberal
00:10:16.160
majorities? Now, they can still ask certain people to testify, but it basically has to be that the
00:10:22.280
liberals allow it you know so uncontroversial speakers will be allowed to speak ones that the
00:10:27.440
liberals are not threatened by but if francois philippe champagne is summoned to speak or another
00:10:33.520
senior member of cabinet up to no good is summoned to speak somebody like gary amasangari or someone
00:10:39.500
else with heavy conflicts of interest or who is incompetent they can just prevent that person from
00:10:45.320
actually having to ask questions and now questions kind of fall back on the media who's not going to
00:10:51.220
ask them. We have seen Rosemary Barton and other members of the media just falling back constantly
00:10:56.780
on the idea, well, that, you know, the liberals are allowed to do this. Don't you know they're
00:11:01.600
allowed to do it? Oh, why is it bad? They're allowed to. No one said anything about them not
00:11:07.740
being technically allowed to. But if politics in Canada turns into what we're technically allowed
00:11:14.220
to do, it's going to become a very dark country very quickly. I always want to
00:11:21.220
get to this last post. I thought it was kind of strange that he was someone to make a post on
00:11:25.640
this, but I thought this was quite good. The food professor, I think, what is his name? I love his
00:11:31.880
last name, but I'm forgetting his first name. But his last name is Charlebois, which I always love
00:11:35.580
to say. But he's very good when it comes to talking about food inflation, taxes, and regulations.
00:11:41.560
He says here, we are learning that the Liberal government, now holding the slimmest of majorities
00:11:46.300
in the House of Commons, intends to assert control over all parliamentary committees,
00:11:51.200
over votes, witness selection, points of order, agendas, and more. Committee work is among the
00:11:56.920
most important responsibilities of parliamentarians, full stop. It is where legislation is thoroughly
00:12:02.480
examined and ensured that decisions made by government serve the best interests of all
00:12:10.140
Canadians. While the Liberals are entitled to seek greater control, what I witnessed firsthand in
00:12:15.580
Ottawa last week was troubling. A ton of arrogance, along with the mistreatment of some witnesses who
00:12:22.700
expressed views not aligned with the party in power. This is what is unfolding, and Canadians
00:12:27.300
should be aware. Parliament will be very different over the next three years, even with only a razor
00:12:32.860
thin majority. And that's the thing. Does this feel deserved? I'm also remembering what his full
00:12:38.340
name is, Sylvian Charlebois. I wish I could change my name to that. It's a brilliant name. It feels
00:12:43.680
like confetti should rain down from the sky every time sylvian charlebois is said but yeah getting
00:12:50.420
to his point though this is a very thin majority that they did not actually win and yet we are
00:12:56.540
having our institutions including the media pretend as if they want it and are not asking
00:13:02.740
a lot of questions about why the ethics committee needs to be shuffled now sometimes the media asks
00:13:08.220
a good question they stumble into it you know someone from the national post is apt to usually
00:13:12.720
ask a good question. But most of the media is not going to drill down on this. In fact, what we have
00:13:17.660
is we have the media grilling people like Andrew Scheer on if there is potential hypocrisy going
00:13:23.560
on right here. I believe this is the clip I wanted. But on an individual level, how is what
00:13:27.820
Chris Dantremont did any different than what Leona Alisleff did? I mean, I was watching in the
00:13:31.860
Question Period Gallery, you were the conservative leader. Melissa Lansman, before she was in
00:13:35.460
Elected Life, was a consultant, and she helped orchestrate the day where Leona Alisleff stood,
00:13:41.860
voiced her displeasure with the direction under Justin Trudeau, and joined your caucus. I mean,
00:13:46.760
that happens in Westminster Parliament. Not like, you know, this, the changing from minority to
00:13:53.320
majority, but how is one floor crossing so fundamentally different from another floor
00:13:57.060
crossing, except who it benefits in these examples? That is an asinine question to ask
0.97
00:14:03.480
to Andrew Scheer, the conservative House leader. I didn't think that the conservative should have
0.93
00:14:08.420
accepted, Leona Alislev. She just watered down the conservative brand. I don't know why she needed
0.66
00:14:13.220
to be part of the conservative camp. It didn't change any standings in parliament. So that's
0.99
00:14:17.540
also why it doesn't really matter. It was a lady going from the majority liberals to the
1.00
00:14:21.900
conservatives. Now, it might have been self-serving. Maybe she thought she could win more easily in
0.94
00:14:25.840
that from that seat. I think she was reelected once and then she got beaten eventually in 2021.
0.98
00:14:31.420
But why is all of the scrutiny from someone like David Cochran on the CBC going towards
00:14:38.140
Andrew Scheer. So intense. But if Steve McKinnon comes on, is he going to hold his feet to the
00:14:43.660
fire and say, this is not what people voted for. Don't you guys think that this looks sleazy?
00:14:48.500
Don't you guys think that these floor crossers should come out and actually give a full interview
1.00
00:14:54.140
about exactly why they left outside of just boilerplate talking points? Can you do that?
1.00
00:14:59.360
But no, we're asking him, what about Leon Ellis left? Maybe the difference here in why we care
00:15:04.980
so much is because a government did not get elected with a majority and they're just being
1.00
00:15:09.380
given a majority because of a ccp puppet like michael ma a greedy moron like chris donchermont
0.99
00:15:16.040
who wanted to be deputy speaker a cell a guy like matt generu who doesn't live in the riding he was
0.98
00:15:22.720
representing and was trying to flee to the riding he currently lives in he wants to run in victoria
00:15:28.040
next time and that's a liberal stronghold so he just happened to cross the floor as the mp for
00:15:34.120
Edmonton Riverbend to the Liberals, setting him up to run for the Liberals in the much easier to
00:15:39.140
win Victoria riding. That's why he left. And then we have Marilyn Gladew, who's a massive attention
00:15:45.520
seeker. She needs to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. And so she crossed
1.00
00:15:50.040
the floor probably for that. And then you have Laurie Idlet from the NDP, who the NDP or the
0.99
00:15:55.680
Liberals basically bribed her to cross the floor by just shoveling as much money towards none of
00:16:00.280
but as humanly possible, building a new Inuit school, shoveling over a bunch of more money
00:16:05.300
for infrastructure projects. They're building a $900 million highway into the province that there
00:16:10.540
was no business case for. The liberals said it, and they're funding it anyways, despite the fact
00:16:15.080
that that is their top reason not to help even deregulate in favor of a pipeline. They always
00:16:20.240
say there's no business case for it. The oil and gas companies aren't looking for a handout.
00:16:24.500
They want you to deregulate, and that's too much of an ask. But you want to build a highway to
00:16:28.640
benefit chinese firms in nunavut perfect 900 million dollars on the way you're seeing the
00:16:34.680
frustration here you're seeing why this is so hypocritical as i said you know none of the floor
00:16:39.360
that particular floor crossing others didn't fundamentally change the nature of the government
00:16:43.840
she was elected as a liberal in in aurora oak hills had a majority yeah they shouldn't have
00:16:48.780
had her come over bad andrew sheer should have not accepted her but again he is missing the
00:16:54.560
fundamental big issue here. I actually, and also, by the way, I actually do think she had a better
00:16:58.940
reason to cross the floor than any of the conservative or NDP floor crossers to the
00:17:04.160
liberals. I believe she was leaving due to corruption, like due to the fact that she
0.99
00:17:09.420
couldn't ethically be in that government. Maybe she should have just gone as sad as an independent.
1.00
00:17:13.620
Maybe she would have. At least she had a more principled reason than I want to be deputy speaker
0.99
00:17:24.520
Like, come on, can we have a little bit of coherent thought
00:17:32.720
between someone who kind of had their eyes open
00:17:34.960
about the type of leader that Justin Trudeau was.
00:17:38.920
or is it the will of the voters in the ridings?
00:17:40.600
No, it's the collective will of the Canadian people
00:17:47.480
have fundamentally changed the nature of this parliament from a minority to a majority.
00:17:52.680
Canadians voted for a strong opposition to have a very strong check and balance on this government.
00:17:58.200
We were elected to provide that, and the strongest opposition in Canadian history,
00:18:02.760
elected to provide that oversight, and now they're taking the express will of the Canadian people away.
1.00
00:18:09.540
And the thing that needs to be mentioned as well is that the chances that any of these floor crossers
0.88
00:18:16.680
outside of Matt Jenneru will be re-elected is quite slim. Glad you were said to be retiring
0.99
00:18:21.940
anyways. Probably the same with Michael Ma. He's too scandal plagued. Probably the same with Chris
00:18:28.580
Don Tremont. That is a safe conservative riding. It was with win 1% in the last election, but it's
00:18:34.500
typically much safer. Acadianapolis is a very safe conservative riding. The difference was is that I
00:18:39.940
think the conservatives just did a very poor job in campaigning in Nova Scotia, but he still held
00:18:44.240
onto his camp his seat anyways and he's crossing the floor not only for the deputy speaker role
00:18:49.560
but he thinks he can get re-elected this way but he's probably not going to be re-elected that's
00:18:53.740
the funny thing all of them are going to get wiped out well you know alice love could have actually
00:18:57.600
have said to have been stepping in in line with her voters again i still don't even think the
00:19:02.700
conservative should have taken her but she actually got re-elected the first time despite it being a
00:19:07.160
very uh close swing riding the liberals typically win she was a re-elected as a conservative because
00:19:13.400
they agreed the liberal government was corrupt and we want someone who's not a liberal. Now,
00:19:19.160
we can argue back and forth on whether or not there should be automatic by-elections or there
00:19:23.020
should be some other mechanism controlling how people are able to cross the floor, but can we
00:19:28.120
all agree that if you have no principled reason to do it, you shouldn't? And also that we should
00:19:33.620
be able to have people like the finance minister testify when he has a massive conflict of interest
00:19:39.200
issue? Can we agree that it's unethical to stack the ethics committee? Maybe, possibly, can we agree
00:19:45.960
to that? But whatever, I'm not going to try and reason with liberals. But if you have liberal
00:19:49.880
friends, do ask them that. If they say, well, parliament is a majority liberal, why should the
00:19:54.820
committees not be? And say, okay, I will give you 90% of the committees. What about ethics and public
00:19:59.640
accounts? Can we say that those should stay as they were for proper accountability? And if they
00:20:05.080
say, no, no, no, that one should be liberal too. They're just being a bad actor in both senses of
00:20:09.600
the word. Anyways, with all being said, thank you guys for watching. Like, share, subscribe. Consider
00:20:14.460
hitting the join button and becoming a member of the channel. It really does help make the channel
00:20:18.640
more sustainable for me. I feel so arrogant, I guess, every time I talk about the actual standing
00:20:25.860
of the channel. Not arrogant like I'm going to brag. In fact, the opposite. Sometimes the videos
00:20:31.460
just get destroyed by YouTube like YouTube just decides to bulldoze my videos like I put out two
00:20:37.880
videos yesterday and as soon as each one of them went out the reach after like 30 minutes usually
00:20:44.100
when you have reach on a video a healthy video in like the first hour YouTube will give it like
00:20:49.060
30,000 50,000 people who at some point on their screen in the first hour someone's screen my video
00:20:55.500
should pop up somewhere either on the home screen or in subscriptions or as a recommendation and if
00:21:01.360
your subscribers should pop up right away. And if you follow Canadian politics, it should be
00:21:04.880
another top video. These days, sometimes it will be like an hour and 45 minutes in. And I have like
00:21:11.460
maybe 3000 reach, like nobody outside of subscribers is being recommended the video and
00:21:17.420
your subscriber base is obviously much smaller than the general public. And that's so that's why
00:21:21.980
becoming a channel member really helps because at the end of the day, viewership is money and it is
00:21:28.460
a for-profit channel and so by becoming a member and just donating even three bucks a month that
00:21:34.440
helps massively compensate for the fact that every once in a while YouTube just puts my channel in
00:21:39.120
the doghouse for no reason I have no channel violations just nobody has shown the videos
00:21:43.640
the arc of viewership is usually like whoop and then I put out a video and it's just like
00:21:48.280
flatlining and like slowly going up and it's like oh my goodness people but that's my rant over I
00:21:54.940
and again it feels very self-interested telling you guys about the back end but that's it it's
00:21:59.100
annoying and stressful but usually i get through it anyways but becoming a channel member does help
00:22:04.700
so that's my sales pitch do not join if you're a senior on a fixed income i am not in a crisis in
00:22:10.140
any way i do not want you hurting your personal finances contributing to the channel liking
00:22:14.780
sharing hyping is already good enough anyways with all that's being said thank you guys for