reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Liberals are proposing a law where a minister can ban me from the Internet, my Internet service provider ban me from the Internet, and neither of us be able to say anything about it. Matt Strauss, who's a doctor and a physician and also a member of parliament, said that you need to be concerned about bill c eight. It allows Melanie Jolley to kick anyone off the Internet with no trial and no warrant. Worse off, you won't be able to say that you've even been kicked off. And this is the Emergencies Measures Act on steroids, only permanent and secret? "Watch this. Ministers order if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunication system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, degradation, the minister may by order and after consultation with the minister of public safety, prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specified person, including telecommunications service provider." "The order may also include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or some or all of its contents by any person." "This is crazy." "The minister may require any person to provide to the minister or any person designated by the minister, meaning she's able to designate whoever the heck she wants, within any time and any subject to any conditions that the minister may specify." "Any information that the minister believes on reasonable grounds is relevant for the purpose of making, amending, or revoking an order under section 15." "This is insane." "This is a minister that will have the sole power to kick you off the Internet at their will, then ban you or anyone else from being able to speak on this." "If the conservatives did this, there would be an uproar all over the media, all over the world." "They would call them a dictatorship. They would call them communist. They would say this is Nazi like." "But the liberals are doing this, and now everyone's quiet." "Come people have to speak up." "I promise you, if this bill goes through, it's gonna be ugly for everyone." "And if I get kicked off, I'm going to break that ban." "I will talk about it. I will let the world know that a totalitarian state, a communist state of the Liberal Party is trying to silence its people at its discretion, not the police, but the government." "Ridiculous."

The White House is considering declaring a national climate emergency, referred to as a climate crisis by some. If President Biden declares this emergency, he could have extensive powers similar to those during COVID and 9/11 emergencies. This could allow him to implement a Green New Deal without congressional approval.

A speaker warns that something very serious is happening in Canada related to Alberta’s push for independence. He says rumors from private conversations indicate discussions about how far the federal government will go to prevent Alberta from separating, noting that actions against protesters—bank account freezes, jailing, and emergency powers—have occurred in the past, implying they could be used against a province seeking independence. He adds that, concurrently, there is quiet military movement and exercises increasing in Alberta. Speaker 1 reports that the Canadian Forces base at Suffield, Alberta will see increased activity this summer, with larger base size and infrastructure drawing renewed interest for military use, suggesting a coincidence with Alberta’s referendum timing. He also mentions claims of a foreign security presence from China in Alberta’s oil patch with heavily armed guards, tying this to federal pressure, military movement, and foreign influence in the same region as the independence push. Speaker 2 provides an update on the Stay Free Alberta petition, noting 178,000 signatures collected—enough to trigger a referendum. An Alberta judge paused the signature validation process after three First Nations challenged it as infringing treaty rights. The pause affects what comes after collection, not the collection itself. Petitioners must submit signatures by May 2 for Elections Alberta validation. After failed mediation, the judge ordered a one-month pause while she decides whether to shut down the petition altogether. Courts have already blocked delivery of petition signatures, indicating the process is being slowed or obstructed. The speaker asks what happens if the vote cannot proceed but pressure continues, and mentions a looming court challenge and possible injunction that could restrict canvassing rights. Speaker 3 echoes concern about the campaign, urging supporters to keep collecting signatures as if the future of children and grandchildren depend on it, despite uncertainties about legal obstacles and potential injunctions. He discusses alleged internal communications from a private visit, where Mark Carney was reportedly asked what he would do if Alberta moved toward independence. He recounts an alleged message from a Stelco employee claiming Carney answered that there will be no Alberta independence because he would invoke the Emergencies Act. The claim is presented as an unreported allegation from a private source, not mainstream media. A speaker identifies the incident as a pivotal element that would move beyond politics into enforceable power, implying implications beyond Canada. Speaker 4 notes Alberta’s resource wealth and the strategic interest of the United States, suggesting Alberta could be a valuable partner for energy trade. The discussion touches on the possibility of Alberta voting on independence and the broader geopolitical attention this situation attracts. The overall message emphasizes internal pressures, legal challenges, military and foreign dimensions, and alleged statements about invoking emergency powers in response to Alberta’s independence movement, with ongoing updates and calls for continued public action.

The speaker is concerned about the government's need for emergency powers when the focus should be on boosting cybersecurity and resilience against natural disasters. They question the necessity of secret courts and blocking individuals from the telecommunications sector. In response, another speaker explains that emergency powers are crucial in dealing with network breaches and systemic effects. They argue that quick action is necessary to prevent further damage. The second speaker also mentions the importance of checks and balances, judicial review, proportionality, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They emphasize the potential harm if the government lacks the power to address network infiltrations. The conversation ends with limited time remaining.

We must acknowledge President Trump's repeated desire for Canada to become the 51st state. None of us want to be caught unprepared, failing to defend Canada or collaborate with our democratic allies to safeguard our borders. They are willing to cooperate with us. It is imperative that we take immediate action domestically, connect with them, and establish a new global order that protects democracy and Canadian sovereignty.

The Prime Minister is under fire for his "radical liberalization of hard drugs," specifically the decriminalization of fentanyl, crack, and heroin in partnership with the BCNDP, and lowered jail sentences for fentanyl producers. Eighty percent of fentanyl ingredients enter Canada unregulated and are then manufactured into fentanyl. This threatens the trade relationship with the U.S. The Prime Minister is accused of scoring "cheap political points" instead of delivering solutions based on science, compassion, and public health. The opposition claims it is irresponsible to allow unregulated fentanyl ingredients into the country, decriminalize hard drugs, and then support decriminalization nationwide despite rising deaths. The Prime Minister is asked to confirm he opposes decriminalization.

There was a terrorist attack and explosion at the Niagara crossing of the Canada-US border, resulting in at least 2 deaths and 1 injury. The prime minister is being asked for an update and an action plan to ensure the security of the people. The prime minister acknowledges the seriousness of the situation and mentions that multiple agencies are involved in providing support. Four border crossings are currently closed, and additional measures are being considered across the country. The prime minister excuses himself to gather further updates. In a separate discussion, concerns are raised about government spending and its impact on inflation.

NBC News reported that if Joe Biden declares a national climate emergency, he could have COVID-like powers similar to 9/11 emergency powers. The Center For Biological Diversity estimated he could have around 130 wartime-like powers to implement the Green New Deal without Congress. The Biden White House is considering this move, potentially giving Biden dictatorial powers to push through the Green New Deal without democratic approval. This has sparked concerns and is widely covered in the media.

According to Speaker 0, Canada's new prime minister threatened to seize capital from companies not advancing Canada's climate agenda. Speaker 1 stated the goal is for every financial decision to consider climate change, backing companies that are part of the solution and taking capital away from those who are part of the problem. Speaker 0 claims the prime minister is a fan of censorship and threatened American social media platforms, referencing a statement by Speaker 1 that large American online platforms have become seas of hate and are being used by criminals to harm children, and that his government will act. Speaker 0 asserts there is no free speech in Canada and that the prime minister wants to ban social media platforms, shut down dissent, and use the climate crisis as an excuse to steal from businesses and control their means of production. Speaker 0 concludes that while the friendship between the US and Canada will continue, the "free ride" is over.

The Canadian government has invoked the Emergencies Act, granting unprecedented power. Financial service providers can now freeze accounts without a court order, and those involved in protests may face financial sanctions and criminal charges. Some banks have already frozen accounts of protesters. A speaker warns of growing authoritarianism and urges people to fight back. The Prime Minister acknowledges the right to protest but criticizes using protests to demand policy changes. He emphasizes the importance of following science to protect freedoms and values. Critics accuse him of admiring China's dictatorship and suppressing citizens' rights. Responsible leaders are urged to consider their stance.

The speakers discuss a dangerous and divided world, citing threats from Iran, Russia, and China, as well as changing security and commercial relationships with the United States. One speaker mentions having obtained top secret security clearance within three weeks to be informed and make decisions. He then points out that another speaker has refused the opportunity to obtain top secret security clearance for 950 days. The other speaker explains that while he previously held top secret clearance as a minister, he refused the recent offer because it would have gagged him under security law, preventing him from speaking freely about foreign interference without fear of prosecution. He claims Canada has experienced Chinese interference in two elections. He says that refusing the clearance allowed him to speak freely about issues such as a candidate who allegedly threatened a political opponent, and a quarter billion dollar loan obtained in China. The first speaker responds that robust debate has occurred despite the situation, and observes that China is not the only country accused of foreign interference.

Emergency powers can be abused, as seen in Canada. In early 2022, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked emergency powers during protests against COVID-19 restrictions, allowing him to freeze the bank accounts of protesters without due process. This included taking funds raised through crowdfunding to support the truckers. The Emergencies Act of 1988 granted the government significant authority to act against dissent. Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland warned that financial institutions could freeze accounts without a court order if vehicles were used in protests. This situation highlights the dangers of excessive presidential power, which can target citizens unexpectedly. If such actions can occur in Canada, they could potentially happen in the U.S. as well.

Speaker argues that under Governor Pritzker and the Democratic super majority, Illinois has lost 6,000 megawatts of reliable 24-hour power, which they equate to three nuclear plants or enough power for a million homes. They claim this leads to $8,000,000,000 in rate increases on the people of Illinois. They question the timing of a bill, saying a study on a bill didn’t exist when the study was done and that the bill wasn’t filed until Tuesday, asking who believes the administration. They state that people believe their power bill because they get it every month, and accuse the administration of “taking the caps off” and inviting higher costs. They present electricity price data: in 2019 electricity was 8.6¢ per kilowatt-hour, while in the summer of this year it was 23¢ per kilowatt-hour, describing it as triple. They attribute this rise to the leadership of Governor Pritzker and the Democratic super majority, who they say “keep telling us, oh, we’re here to help, little guy. We care. We care about you little guy. We’re gonna make sure your power bills go down.” They reference a green line from 2021 to 2025 showing the rise and increase in costs. They compare Illinois to neighboring states: Illinois residential at 18.09¢ per kilowatt-hour, Kentucky at 13.4¢, and note Illinois is higher than Indiana, Iowa, and Missouri. They say Illinois was right there with Wisconsin, but after this passes it will be a trifecta, resulting in Illinois having the highest energy cost in the entire Midwest. They conclude by reiterating the $8,000,000,000 rate increase on Illinois residents and question how this demonstrates care, stating that this is exactly why nobody believes anybody anymore.

The speaker claims that every Canadian prime minister has been compromised by agents of influence working for Chinese intelligence. This poses a significant security risk, raising concerns about who is truly in control of the country. They suggest the need for an independent investigation to protect against future threats, citing Australia's law against foreign interference as a model to follow.

An executive order signed by the president last week suspended a previous order aimed at preventing foreign interference, particularly from China, in the U.S. power grid for 90 days. Given the concerns about China, questions arise about the rationale behind this suspension, especially regarding national security. The president's perspective on the U.S.-China relationship was shared, but clarification on this specific decision will be provided later.

Speaker 0 argues Canada introduced a bill allowing the minister to 'kick any Canadian citizen off the Internet to cut off their phone line, to turn off their phone.' 'If there is reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunication system against any threat, the minister may prohibit a telecommunication service provider from providing any service to the specified person.' He warns 15.2 clause five makes the decision 'secret.' He says this signals 'Chinese Communist Party levels of government overreach.' He links the bill to the digital ID agenda and World Economic Forum's claim that digital identity is crucial for 'civic participation' and to UN 'Real ID' plans, noting Rand Paul tweets. He argues it could isolate people from paying bills, banking, or organizing politics, describing a potential 'digital gulag.' He advocates repeal in the US and hopes Canada defeats the agenda.

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.

The White House is considering declaring a national climate emergency, referred to as a climate crisis. If President Biden does so, he could gain extensive emergency powers similar to those during 9/11. This could allow him to implement a Green New Deal without congressional approval, raising concerns about bypassing democracy. Reports suggest Biden might take this step, potentially giving him dictatorial powers to push through his agenda.

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.

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.

There was a terrorist attack and explosion at the Niagara crossing of the Canada-US border, resulting in at least 2 deaths and 1 injury. The prime minister is being asked for an update and an action plan to ensure the security of the people. The prime minister acknowledges the seriousness of the situation and mentions that various agencies are involved in providing support. Four border crossings, including Rainbow Bridge and Peace Bridge, are currently closed, and additional measures are being considered for all border crossings. The prime minister excuses himself to gather further updates. In another topic, the government's spending is criticized for causing inflation to rise.

By 2035, Canada will mandate that citizens can only purchase electric vehicles due to a change in the Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) quietly put in place by the environmental minister. The mandate stipulates that all vehicles made in Canada must have zero emissions. A speaker argues that the government is overreaching, citing issues such as cold climates, the needs of rural Canadians, and power outages, such as one that occurred in Peterborough three weeks prior, as examples of why the mandate won't work. During the five day outage, electric vehicles were rendered useless. The speaker suggests that families should be able to choose to buy electric vehicles if they want, and the government's role should be to ensure the infrastructure is in place to support them.

Speaker 0 raises concerns about the current policies that are damaging our way of life and questions why such drastic measures are being taken. They mention influential globalists, like Claus Schwab, who see the pandemic as an opportunity to reset the world. Speaker 1, the Prime Minister, claims to be unaware of Schwab's book but advises against conspiracy theories. Speaker 0 presents evidence of a letter from the Prime Minister to Schwab, thanking him for his book and calling it a hopeful analysis. Speaker 1 dismisses it as a polite gesture and implies that they cannot read every book they receive. Speaker 0 points out the contradiction, and Speaker 1 deflects the accusation.

The speaker is asked if they would abuse power as retribution, and they respond by saying they wouldn't, except for day 1 when they want to close the border and drill. They clarify that this isn't retribution, but rather their plan. The speaker is then asked if they would be a dictator, and they deny it, saying they won't be except for day 1 when they will close the border and drill. The interviewer suggests that this sounds like going back to their previous policies as president.

Trudeau announced that the Canadian Armed Forces can now be deployed against civilians, a move criticized by some. This action would not be accepted in the United States. Spread the word about this concerning decision.