reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Bomb-sniffing dogs searched bags to ensure safety. The Montreal police put up caution tape and escorted people out. Leaders of Canada's four parties who were able to participate in the debate didn't feel they could guarantee a proper environment and are not taking questions from journalists. This is an important part of the ritual of elections, democracies, and accountability. It is part of the stress test that these leaders go through as they seek to lead the country, spend tax revenue, and make laws. Serious things are being discussed about criminal justice and using the notwithstanding clause, requiring a serious and mature debate, not financially motivated stunts. With everything going on with Donald Trump, the economy, and the world, this is where the national Canadian election debate has ended up.

Chaos in Los Angeles. Stores looted, cars burnt to a crisp, and American flags torched. Anarchists and dirt bikes are waving Mexican flags around LA while the city's engulfed in flags. Hello everyone. Today I'm speaking out against the blatant hypocrisy of the Canadian and Quebec media. Despite burning streets, vandalized cars, and widespread destruction, some media outlets still described these riots as mostly peaceful. Burn it down so long as the politics align. Yet, where was the same outrage when Barack Obama, a Democrat, deported nearly 3,000,000 during his presidency? Nowhere to be found. The media remained silent because it didn't suit their narrative. I too was shot at point blank range by the RCMP while covering the convoy dismantlement. A canister exploded against my leg releasing orange powder that burned my face and my eyes. I’m still fighting a legal battle against the RCMP for their assault on press freedom. Standwithalexa.com.

During a question period, Pierre Polayev cited a Fox News report about a terrorist attack, which was the only outlet reporting it at the time. He was questioned about the responsibility of using media reports when the Canadian government was still learning about the situation. Polayev defended his statement by criticizing the Canadian press for making three corrections in one article. Another speaker pointed out that attacking the agency instead of addressing the question was not appealing in terms of leadership and constructive conversations. The discussion ended with the mention of a GTA voter who didn't appreciate the aggressive tone.

Host: You mentioned at one point that CDC management actually prevented you from interviewing Conservative leader Pierre Pauli on your show. Can you describe what happened there? Guest: Well we I mean I basically wasn't allowed to pick the phone and and talk to conservatives. I have some g chats here which I just want to you know read you part of this. I'm talking to my senior producer I'm saying okay, you know this is an editorial discussion. Can we get a Conservative perspective on this is essentially what I'm saying. It is a no to the Conservatives I'm told. We can't chase anyone from the entire party. The chase is with P and P. So if power and politics is not able to secure a conservative, or, you know, somebody that presents an alternate perspective, then we are not allowed to. I'm told at one point we're sure that there's a myriad of other types of interesting guests that you can chase outside of the Conservatives. Can I be included on conversations with power and politics? That's not how we work. I say to management by playing petty office politics we feed into Conservative narratives that we have a bias against them. Canada tonight is a melting pot of news of the day and politics and decisions, from it largely impact Canadians. So we need flexibility to to respond to emerging stories. So yes, I wasn't even allowed to pick up the phone and call to request Pierre Pauliev. Host: Look at what happened when I had Melissa Lanceman on my show, right? That I was threatened to be pulled off the air which CBC then said in a news statement they didn't threaten to do that. There are recordings of them trying to do this. Why Guest: I mean there's an effort to essentially, protect those in Ottawa in in terms of their perspectives on these things, in terms of who they want on the show. It should be about you know, we did an interview with Karen Johnson, my cohost on the new podcast I'm doing. She's another former CBC employee that is talking about the toxic culture. She said that she alleges that she was called a brown Barbie, a bimbo, but she says that it's it's a very high school culture. And these are things that this is fine if you if you have hosts doing that it's not fine but it okay but management you are responsible for dealing with that and so if management is not going to do anything, if the President of the CBC is going to come here and expect a tongue lashing and then be able to go back to the CBC and continue to get funding without accountability, these practices will continue. So shame is clearly not enough to get the CBC to a place where they will hold themselves accountable so it's incumbent upon this committee to do that.

Paola Lorigio from The Canadian Press questions the speaker's decision to label the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge as terrorism, despite no official confirmation. The speaker defends their statement, citing media reports and claiming that the government of Canada presumed it to be a terror-related event. They also criticize The Canadian Press for issuing three corrections in one article. When asked if they think CTV was irresponsible for reporting the incident as terrorism, the speaker redirects the question. The conversation ends with the speaker pointing out the contradiction in the reporter's comment.

A journalist, while interviewing Minister Freeland, is arrested by a police officer. The journalist claims he was just doing his job and denies assaulting anyone. He requests to have the microphone and expresses his disbelief at being arrested. He accuses the police of following orders and compares the situation to the Gestapo. The video ends abruptly.

Weird events on the White House lawn aside, attempts to silence this show have been relentless, from censorship to deplatforming. Now that we've succeeded and exposed entities like the Global Disinformation Index, critics are resorting to personal attacks. A journalist from the Daily Mail plans to write a lengthy article discrediting me based on my clothing choices. I find it amusing that they can't challenge our credibility anymore, so they focus on my wardrobe instead. While they cover my fashion for the next four years, I'll be in the White House press briefing room cohosting a significant podcast. It's disappointing but revealing that, lacking substantial arguments, they choose to critique my appearance rather than our work.

The speaker defends their statement about the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge checkpoint being terrorism, citing media reports that the Canadian government presumed it to be so. They criticize CP for making false claims in an article and question CTV's responsibility for reporting on the incident. The speaker also mentions the awkward situation of CP attacking CTV's reporting, considering that CP works for CTV.

Speaker 0 told Speaker 1 they need to read a book because they have no understanding. Speaker 0 then called Speaker 1 an incompetent journalist and said CBC has sunk. Speaker 1 responded that the accusations and shouting were not helpful to the case. Speaker 0 denied shouting and said they were just telling Speaker 1 something as someone doing an interview on the case. Speaker 1 then ended the interview.

Bomb-sniffing dogs searched bags to ensure safety. The Montreal police put up caution tape and escorted people out. Leaders of Canada's four parties didn't feel they could guarantee a proper environment, so they won't take questions from journalists. This is an important part of the ritual of elections, democracies, and accountability. It is part of the stress test that leaders go through as they seek to lead the country, spend tax revenue, and make laws. Serious things are being discussed, like criminal justice and using the notwithstanding clause. This requires a serious and mature debate, not financially motivated stunts. With everything going on with Donald Trump, the economy, and the world, this is where the national Canadian election debate has ended up.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

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.

Speaker 1 attempts to interview Speaker 2, who claims Speaker 1 says lies. Speaker 2 says they founded the Asylum Seeker Network of Support to fight US policy, which evolved into creating programs. Speaker 2 says Speaker 1 is there to take from them, while they stand as a community. Speaker 1 asks why pictures of children are being taken, citing trans flags and condoms on a table as inappropriate for children. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of touching and stepping on them. Speaker 2 says Speaker 1 is not welcome. Speaker 1 claims they are being assaulted and asks why they were hit. Speaker 2 denies violence and asks for personal space. Speaker 1 accuses them of gaslighting and asks why coffee was thrown at them while covering the event.

The speaker discusses Canada becoming interesting in January and February due to protesters in Ottawa. The job of reporters, according to the speaker, is to go out and ask protesters why they are on the streets, why they are there with their kids, and why there is a bouncy castle in the middle of Ottawa, to discover the story. The speaker claims the Government did not want that and that the Prime Minister decided in advance that the protesters were all the modern excommunications—Nazis, white supremacists, anti-Semites, probably homophobes, misogynists, probably transphobes, etc.—and then he brings in the Emergency Powers Act. The speaker asks what the mainstream media would do at such a time, and asserts they would question it, but claims the Canadian mainstream media did not and instead acted as an Amen Chorus of the government. Several examples are provided. A CBC host described the Freedom Convoy as a feral mob. A Toronto Star columnist said, “sorry for the language, it's a homegrown hate farm that was then jet fueled by an American right funded rat fucking operation.” The speaker notes that CBC claimed two indigenous women who were scared to go outside in Ottawa because of racist violence did not bother to mention that indigenous drummers had led the truckers in an 0 Canada rendition. The National Observer allegedly stated that many black and indigenous freedom convoy supporters were, in fact, duped by the truckers. A Globe and Mail reporter claimed, “My 13 year old son told me to tell protesters I'm not a Jew” out of fear of antisemitic violence, without mentioning that one of the convoy leaders was Jewish. The speaker argues this demonstrably rancid and corrupt behavior is rooted in a system where in Canada, the media is funded by the government. It is stated that in 2018, election year, there was a coincidence with the government funding; the Canadian media allegedly received $595,000,000 over five years, and the Toronto Star estimated it was going to be getting $3,000,000 from the Government in the first half of the year. The government is described as able to tell banks to shut down people’s bank accounts, and able to tell the media what to do, with the media then doing the bidding of the government camp. The speaker concludes that this is not a free society’s media.

My name is Kian Bexy from the Countersignal, an accredited journalist at the Alberta Legislature. We're in Edmonton, and access is being blocked by someone who doesn't even claim to be part of the campaign. This individual is preventing multiple journalists from entering the building to cover a potential future prime minister's appointment. Is this the kind of country he aims to create? This behavior is unacceptable, especially when a diverse group of journalists, including students and accredited professionals, are waiting to enter.

CTV reporter Abigail Beamon attempted to ask Rob Batherson, a Conservative candidate in Halifax West and former party president, a question. The video shows Beamon trying to speak with Batherson while someone repeatedly tells her, "Don't push me, Riley. Please don't push me." Beamon asks Batherson if he is "yeshering to us or to the party?" and requests a few questions about the race in The Atlantic. She also asks for comments on Trump's remarks about Canada's sovereignty and the new auto threat, given their location at a car dealership.

An individual questions a reporter about third-party advertising spending in the election, specifically referencing Rebel News and Ford Canada, both allegedly owned by Ezra Levant. The reporter denies any spending and accuses the individual of lying and not doing their homework. The individual insists that Rebel News Network Limited is registered with Elections Canada under Ezra Levant's name and accuses the reporter of using third-party advertising trucks. The reporter claims the truck is for Canada, a separate entity. Accusations of lying and emotional outbursts are exchanged, with the reporter telling the individual to control their emotions and calling them "tantrum boy." The individual defends their facts and questions the reporter's journalistic integrity.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

Speaker 0: Hello Mr. Trudeau, Alexandre from Rebel News. I want to quickly address what happened yesterday. You demonized one of the few media outlets that doesn't receive government funding. You expressed your opinion that we spread misinformation. If that were true, the Supreme Court wouldn't have allowed us to be here today. Will you kindly answer my question as the Prime Minister, or will you continue to demonize my profession? I shared my perspective on your organization last night, and I have nothing more to say. It makes one wonder who you really are. Thank you.

The speaker expresses outrage over a debate commission event, claiming right-wing "incel asswipes" turned it into a "clown show" by exploiting Michelle Cormier's weakness. They allege the commission allowed Ezra Levant and "arsonists" into the room and provided them with opportunities to record everything. The speaker, along with Corey, Kathleen, and others, were kicked out of the media filing room while The Rebel was allowed to remain. This led to "pandemonium" where the Rebel harassed media and provoked people, then ran to the police claiming assault when challenged. The situation escalated to the point where CBC's Dave Cochran and Rosie Barton required security escorts due to concerns about their physical safety. The speaker asserts these individuals disrupted a democratic process, profited from it, and that Michelle Cormier and the commission were unable to manage the situation, resulting in a "complete fuck show."

The Conservative Party of Canada, all MPs are on side with the ostriches. The Charles Darwin Foundation, one of the largest foundations on the planet is on side with the ostriches. They have given their full support, and they should be issuing something soon to the public stating such. The speaker was there to coach them on social media security—how to handle an aggressive person, deescalate conflicts, and police themselves. The RCMP's guard right now is coming down. They are openly chatting with everybody. The only thing that will shut down a chat with the RCMP here is if you pull out a camera and shove it in their face. it was a pleasurable conversation because I didn't show the camera in their face. If you guys see something online that questions start popping up in your head, send it to me.

Speaker 0 questions Nicole about online posts to the Prime Minister of Canada, asking if she has anything to say about that. Speaker 1 asks for specifics: what post, what she specifically said, and whether there is a screenshot. Speaker 0 cites that she online said something specific and asks for clarification. Speaker 1 replies that she said, "he's a Zionist scumbag, and he's not my prime minister," adding that she believes she is not spoken to properly and questions whether she looks like a threat. Speaker 0 explains that they came to talk because those threats were made. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying that the officers should be busy addressing real crime rather than harassing her over things she says online, and questions whether she seriously looks like a threat. Speaker 0 acknowledges and continues. Speaker 1 accuses the officers of wasting tax dollars and asserts that they should not be harassing her for what she says online because she dislikes the prime minister. Speaker 0 states Nicole should be aware that if such behavior continues, there will be consequences, implying potential arrest for threats. Speaker 1 asks what kind of threats they are referring to and demands to see what she said, noting that she still has not been shown. Speaker 0 attempts to explain what she said and what constitutes threats, warning that if those threats continue, she could be arrested and charged. Speaker 1 complains about being interrupted, asking to show what she said, and then launches into a hostile remark, calling the situation Communist Canada and asking how the officers can take pride in their work. Speaker 0 reiterates that she may have her opinion, but she insists she cannot say what she says. Speaker 1 refuses to discuss further, telling them not to touch her door. Speaker 0 says a report will be filed, stating that the search behavior continues, and mentions Trump in a dismissive way ("the Trump blah blah blah blah blah"). Speaker 1 asserts she will say whatever she wants about the prime minister and that they cannot control her speech, calling it just words. Speaker 0 responds that they are asking for non-threatening language. Speaker 1 concludes by stating they will continue to speak freely and that the conversation is over, wishing them a nice day and goodbye.

A journalist confronts Chrystia Freeland, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, about the government's support for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRDC). The journalist is then arrested by the police for allegedly assaulting someone. The journalist protests his innocence and requests the microphone to record the incident. He criticizes the government for suppressing freedom of speech and accuses them of prioritizing political correctness over addressing the IRDC's alleged terrorist activities. The journalist expresses frustration with the arrest and claims that Canada is becoming a totalitarian state. The video ends with the police providing a brief statement assuring everyone's safety.

An individual questions a reporter about third-party advertising spending in the election, specifically by Rebel News and Ford Canada, alleging both are owned by Ezra Levant. The reporter denies any spending and accuses the individual of lying and not doing their homework. The individual insists that Rebel News Network Limited is registered with Elections Canada under Ezra Levant's name and accuses the reporter of being a disgrace to journalism. The reporter counters that the individual is out of control emotionally and that their facts are wrong. The exchange escalates, with accusations of lying and being an embarrassment. The individual defends their ability to do the work of multiple reporters, while the reporter suggests they don't understand what they're looking at.

Michelle is upset about a CTV article about her video discussing the election loss and the need for unity. She says the article falsely portrays her as blaming Pierre, which she denies, emphasizing her full support for him and his leadership. She believes the media is fueling divisiveness, the very thing she addressed in her video. Michelle is also critical of a CBC article that labels her comments as "outlandish" and links to an article where she discusses parents trafficking their children. She clarifies that she never said parents traffic their children, but that organizations who deal with these issues did. She urges people to research the issue and stop vilifying those who speak the truth. She calls on people to call out the media for creating a "gossip train" and reporting feelings instead of facts.