Supreme Court Deals Major Blow To Carney, Proves Poilievre RIght

For anybody who is still questioning the

security clearance issue, you don't have

to listen to me. You don't have to

listen to Tanya. You don't have to

listen to Pier. You don't even have to

listen to David McGinty. And you don't

even happen to listen to Tomare. But

there is one body that you must listen

to, and that is

>> the Supreme Court of Canada.

For the last three or so years,

all we have heard from the liberals is

Pierre Polyv refuses to get his security

clearance. And why won't Pierre get his

security clearance? And we've explained

it. Pierre has explained it, but

here's just a couple of clips of the

time frame on on this. And I only

grabbed a few. And we're gonna end it

with Pierre Paulv actually explaining it

to Mark Carney during the

Englishspeaking debate in the 2025

election. So here's the first part of

this story. It is inexplicable to our

security services that they cannot let

the leader of the Conservative party

know about the threats faced uh facing

him, his party, and our democracy

because he refuses to get a security

clearance. Polyv hasn't ever bothered to

get his security clearance. I've already

during this leadership campaign has

filled out my forms. It wasn't that hard

to do, I have to say. Uh and put them

in. and I fully expect to get it uh in

the near future. And now in the face

of President Trump's threats, Pierre

Piev still still refuses to get his

security clearance.

>> I' I'd like to hear an explanation as to

why the leader of the uh of the official

opposition refuses to seek top security

clearance so that he can be briefed uh

on uh on these matters that you care so

much about.

>> And Mr. Polyv, it is now 950 days, if my

numbers are right, since you've had the

opportunity to get your top top secret

security clearance, and you've refused.

Why? Well, first of all, I have got my

security clearance when I was a

minister. I got top secret clearance at

the time, so there's no problem getting

that. But when the government made this

recent offer, they said that if I got

the secret security clearance briefings

that I would be gagged under the

security law and I could be prosecuted

if I spoke freely about matters of

foreign interference. Now, given that

Canada has experienced

Chinese interference by by Beijing, the

government of China in two consecutive

elections, I needed to do my job to

speak freely without fear of

prosecution. And that was not something

I would be allowed to do. Even Thomas

Mulair, the former leader of the NDP,

said that when he was the leader of the

of the opposition, he never would have

accepted the kind of gag order that your

government and Mr. Trudeau's government

was attempting to impose on me. And it's

good that I was I'd made that decision

because it has allowed me to speak

freely about things like the case where

one of your candidates, sir, actually

said that he wanted to send a political

opponent to China under a bounty

threatening his life or imprisonment and

you refused to get rid of him. Now, it

might have something to do with the fact

that you went to China not long ago to

get a4 billion dollar loan for your

company, but the reality it is you

refused to stand up for a Canadian who

was being threatened by a foreign

government and I was able to speak

freely on that matter because I refused

the gag order that the Liberal

government attempted. Let him respond.

Well, I

>> that was Pier Polyv explaining it for I

don't know how many times.

>> Well, and you still hear it in the House

of Commons every now and then. you still

see it constantly online.

>> Anyway, um but

>> it's been explained many, many times.

Now, so for people that are watching

this, if you still don't believe this,

here is

now Minister David McGinty, who was the

chair of the ENSOP committee that had

the ENSOP report that they had the ENKOP

briefing that would have imposed this

gag order on on Pierre Polyv. So you

don't have to believe me. You don't have

to believe Tonnie. You don't have to

believe Pierre. Believe a liberal, the

actual chair of the Anikop committee.

And shout out to Vesper on Vesper

Digital on X for putting together this

compilation. And you'll see Pierre's

reference to Tom Karen this as well.

>> You have to understand and Canadians

have to understand that the members of

the committee are bound by the Security

of Information Act. The members of the

committee waved their parliamentary

privilege for the privilege to sit on

this committee. That means if they

inadvertently reveal information, they

can be prosecuted. The members of the

committee are bound to this purity of

information act for the rest of their

lives.

>> Madam Speaker, members all hold a top

secret security clearance, have sworn an

oath, and are permanently bound to

secrecy under the Security of

Information Act. Madam Speaker, we

cannot claim parliamentary privilege in

the case of an authorized disclosure of

classified information. That is a point

I want to emphasize. Members of the

committee, myself included, are

necessarily circumspect in what we can

say in parliament and in public. It also

means that ENSOP members are subject to

prosecution under the Security of

Information Act should they disclose

information that they learned in the

course of their duties on the committee.

>> Okay. I just want to wrap up then w with

a final point then for those who are

having trouble understanding why not

reading the report is actually a good

thing. Um you agree with Paul of not to

read it. I still don't really get that.

Does that mean you just sort of wash

your hands of it, leave it at that? You

can have a member of your party who has

access to that information. And one of

the things that you have to do when you

do look at that information is to say

that you're not going to reveal any of

it. Be that as it may. I I think that

was wise not to tie his own hands. I

would never want to be hamstrung because

I looked at a government document. I

would never want to be told that I can't

ask all the questions I want of the

government. And I think that on this is

completely right.

>> This is what it comes down to. You have

the chair, the liberal chair of the

Enzikov committee, the committee that

Justin Trudeau actually set up telling

reporters that yes, you can be

prosecuted if you reveal anything as a

result of actually getting this specific

type of briefing. This is the issue. You

can't talk about it and you can't act on

it. So what the heck's the point?

Seriously, what what is the point of of

getting this briefing if you literally

cannot do anything else? And and this is

what I mean. Let's say Pierre Polyv

hypothetically takes this briefing and

finds out that Jim Bob, the MP,

>> the Conservative MP,

>> the Conservative MP is operating

as a collaborator with a foreign state,

right? Let's just say that that's

happening. Guess what Pierre Polyv can't

do?

>> Anything. anything.

>> That's what he can't do.

>> He can't kick him out of caucus. He

can't deliberately, you know, start

withholding information from like like

he he can't do anything

and he can't talk about it. He c he

can't even say, "Hey, um you may want to

look at Jim Bob over there.

He he could be prosecuted and go to jail

and that is for life." So that's the big

problem here. Now,

why are we talking about this? Now, this