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 Pierre, you don't even have to listen to David McGinty, and you don't even have to listen to Tom Mulcair.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 Polyev refuses to get a 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 timeframe on this.And I only grabbed a few.

And we're going to end it with Pierre Polyev actually explaining it to Mark Carney during the English speaking debate in the 2025 election.So.Here's the first part of this story.

...applicable to our security services that they cannot let the leader of the Conservative Party know about the threats facing him, his party, and our democracy because he refuses to get a security clearance.

Gerpoliev hasn't ever bothered to get his security clearance.I've already, during this leadership campaign, filled out my forms.It wasn't that hard to do, I have to say.and put them in, and I fully expect to get it in the near future.And now, in the face of President Trump's threats, Pierre Poliev still, still refuses to get his security clearance.

I'd like to hear an explanation as to why the leader of the official opposition refuses to seek top security clearance.that he can be briefed on these matters that you care so much about.

And Mr. Polyev, it is now 950 days, if my numbers are right, since you've had the opportunity to get your 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 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 Mulcair, the former leader of the NDP, said that when he was the leader 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 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 a quarter billion dollar loan for your company.But the reality 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 to impose on me.Let's let him respond.

Well, I...That was Pierre Polyev 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, 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 ENSACOP committee that had the INSECOP report, that they had the INSECOP briefing that would have imposed this gag order on Pierre Polyev.So you don't have to believe me.You don't have to believe Tony.You don't have to believe Pierre.Believe a Liberal, the actual chair of the INSECOP 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 Mulcair in this as well.

You have to understand and Canadians have to understand that the members of the committee are bound by the security of an information act.The members of the committee waived 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 authorised disclosure of classified information.That is a point I want to emphasise.Members of the committee, myself included, are necessarily circumspect in what we can say in Parliament, and in public.It also means that NSACOP 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 with a final point then for those who are having trouble understanding why not reading the report is actually a good thing.you agree with Poliev 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 up to the inquiry?No, not at all.

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 think that Poliev 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, Kvadev is completely right.

This is what it comes down to.You have the chair, the Liberal chair of the Yenisekov 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 getting this briefing if you literally cannot do anything on and this is what i mean let's say pierre polyev 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 polyev can't do anything anything what he can't do he can't kick him out of caucus he can't deliberately you know start withholding information from like he he can't do anything and he can't talk about it he can't even sayHey, you may want to look at Jim Bob over there.

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 is this is not new.Well, there's a reason why we're talking about this.

And the reason why we're talking about this is because an individual filed a court case on this.Because he What this meant is that the Prime Minister could restrict the parliamentary privilege of certain MPs that actually receive this type of briefing, which is what Pierre has been saying this whole time.Well, ladies and gentlemen, 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 Pierre.

You don't even have to listen to David McGinty and you don't even have to listen to Tom Mulcair.But there is one body that you must listen to and that is the Supreme Court of Canada.The Supreme Court of Canada.What am I talking about?Let's take a look.Parliament can limit lawmakers free speech in narrow circumstances.

Supreme Court rules.This came out Friday, folks.Friday, May 1st.

A Supreme Court of Canada ruling on Friday allows a Prime Minister with a majority government in Parliament to curtail the free speech of MPs and Senators in narrow circumstances.The 8 -1 decision focused on a constitutional challenge launched eight years ago in the lower courts by a Lakehead University law professor.In 2017, the federal government created a special committee of parliamentarians with top -secret clearance to review national security and intelligence operations.It reports to the Prime Minister, but it included a compromise.Committee members cannot reveal what they learnedThis was considered an abrogation of the centuries -old right of MPs and Senators to speak freely in Parliament without fear of any legal consequences.

That right is a fundamental pillar of Canadians' democracy, but the Security Committee law meant that revealing secrets in Parliament, even those in the obvious public interest, could lead to the arrest and jailing of MPs or Senators.Professor Ryan Alford at the Lakehead in Thunder Bay, Ontario took the federal government to court in 2018.He argued there is an absolute right of free speech in Parliament imbued in the Constitution.He won at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2022.but lost in 2024 at the Ontario Court of Appeal.On Friday, Justice Malcolm Roe, writing on behalf of the 8 -1 majority that included Chief Justice Richard Wagner, stated that the Constitution allows Parliament and provincial legislatures to define their privileges.

This includes imposing some limits on free speech in arenas such as the House of Commons.The ruling means a Prime Minister with a majority government can set the rules.Legal experts say it also means a minority government with the support of opposition MPs can collectively curtail their right to speak freely in Parliament.But Justice Roe made clear that any limitations, quote, cannot fundamentally alter or undermine Parliament's role within Canada's constitutional order, end quote.In the case at hand, the Supreme Court determined that the restrictions on parliamentary free speech in 2017's National Security and IntelligenceCommittee of Parliamentarians Act was, quote, a narrow limitation of parliamentary privilege, end quote.

Quote, it does not affect free speech in Parliament more broadly, end quote, Justice Roe wrote.In 2017, the majority government under former Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau passed the Security Committee law.The Conservatives, NDP and Bloc Quebecois voted against it.This would have been when the Liberals had a majority.On Friday, the federal government welcomed the Supreme Court ruling.The Security Committee, quote, has performed an important and necessary oversight function since it was created, end quote, said David Taylor, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Gary Anisangiri in an email, quote, this decision means its work can continue uninterrupted, end quote.

In a dissent at the Supreme Court, Justice Suzanne Cote said the limitations in the Security Committee law were too broad.She said the federal government overstepped its constitutional authority.

Okay, what does all that mean?What that means is that the Supreme Court says that those who take the INSECOP briefing and those who commit to serving on the INSECOP committee are bound.And the Prime Minister can say, nope.You cannot talk about anything that you learn in those briefings and in that material, and you cannot do anything.Just as David McGinty said, just as Pierre Polyev has said from the beginning.

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, Madam Speaker,all hold a top -secret security clearance, have sworn an oath, and are permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act.

Now, one very important point that the article mentioned at the end, just in case this gets misinterpreted online.This does not mean that Mark Carney can wave his hands and prevent MPs from speaking about oil and gas.He can't wave his hand and prevent MPs from speaking about the prescribed IT issue for Arrive Can, SDTC, Brookfield, any conflict of interest investigations.He cannot do that.That's been established by the Supreme Court.If he tries to do that, good luck with that.

What that means is if he tries to censor MPs and they continue to talk about it, they're not going to be arrested and they're not going to be prosecuted.

Well, because he can't try to censor them on those cases.As the article said, it is in very specific circumstances, very narrow scope.

So I very much appreciate the fact that the Supreme Court in their ruling not only ruled on the issue at hand, which is the ENSACOP committee.That's the National Security Council.for something in parliamentarians.But they also ruled on the boundaries of the actual power of the prime minister in terms of curtailing the parliamentary privilege.Now, remember, parliamentary privilege is an MP's right and ability to actually execute their parliamentary duties.So casting votes, speaking in the house, representing their constituents, that's all upholding and executing the privilege of a member of parliament.

basically doing their jobs.So when you hear somebody raisinga question of privilege or violating privilege, that's essentially saying something is impeding that member of parliament from being able to do their job properly.So that's a very important distinction in this ruling right here.They're saying if you take the briefing, yeah, the prime minister can say you can't say anything about it, but that's it.The Prime Minister can't just go off willy -nilly and stop you from talking about Brookfield.

Well, and the inverse of this means that the Prime Ministers, meaning Justin Trudeau and now Mark Carney, either of them could provide this information to Pierre Polyev and permit him to speak about this stuff publicly and in Parliament.

And I want to go back to something that Carney had said.

I've already, during this leadership campaign, filled out my forms.It wasn't that hard to do, I have to say.

Because the Prime Minister's security clearance is vastly different than everybody else's security clearance.The Prime Minister's security clearance, he gets access to see whatever he wants, but there's a very important distinction and privilege that the Prime Minister has.He gets to reveal whatever he wants, within reason, to the public if he believes it is in the public interest to do so.People that serve on the INSACOP committee, people that take the INSACOP briefing, like Yves Blanchet, like Jagmeet Singh, like Elizabeth May, like Pierre Paulieff, they are not allowed to decide that something's in the public interest and disclose it.And the article made that very, very clear.The ruling makes that very, very clear.

So what does this mean?It's a...I wouldn't even say it's necessarily a bad thing that this ruling came out because, number one, it just validates...The Bureau is right.The Bureau has been right all along.Oh, surprise, surprise!

Pierre was right and the Liberals were wrong.Breaking news.So he's been right all along on this again.The Liberals have been wrong on this all along again.And even more than that, it's obvious that the Liberals have been lying their keisters off all along again.Because one clip I didn't bother showing you is David McGinty is now out there questioning why Pierre Paulieff doesn't have a security guard.

Like, dude.Back in June of 2024, you were out there talking to reporters telling everybody this is what happens if you get the security clearance.You can't say anything.So I actually love this ruling because it completely validated everything that Pierre said and it sets guardrails around Mark Carney and that he can't just censor people willy -nilly.

That was a great birthday present.

So, um, so This is, I think, a really, really strong win from this.So anybody out there that is asking for the security clearance, just check the video.You'll see the link to that article.You can say, you want questions around the security clearance now?Go read this, because the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on it.There's no more appeals.

It's final.And Pierre was right all along.