TruthArchive.ai - 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.

The government appealed a ruling without reading it first, claiming it was wrong. This move was seen as political maneuvering. The speaker believes a previous Supreme Court would have addressed the issue immediately instead of allowing the government to create ambiguity by appealing.

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.

We just wrapped up a four-hour legal battle suing David Lemenyi, Trudeau's former Justice Minister, for illegally deleting his Twitter account after he was found to have invoked the Emergencies Act unconstitutionally. The government is trying to argue that it's a private account and they have no control over it, but we believe it's a public record. The Chief Justice presided over the hearing, which was surprising, and it lasted four hours, covering various acts and charter submissions. We argued that Lametti broke the law and the government is trying to let him off easy with just a "pinky swear" not to do it again. Despite contradictory arguments from their counsel, we feel our arguments were consistent. Even if we don't win the injunction, we've already moved from deleted records to promises of preservation. We're concerned about deleted direct messages that could reveal more about Lametti's conduct as a minister. This legal fight is costly, but we're committed to holding the government accountable.

I'm in a taxi heading to the federal court of appeal in Toronto for a hearing regarding my book, "The Libranos," published during the 2019 election. Elections Canada has been prosecuting me for five years, spending over $1 million on this case, while ignoring serious foreign interference in our elections. My book, critical of Justin Trudeau, is the only one among 24 published that has faced legal scrutiny. I'll be live tweeting the proceedings, and I'm likely to be alone in court without support from civil liberties or journalism groups. If you believe in defending free speech, please consider helping with legal costs at thelibranos.com. I'm fighting against Trudeau's government, and I appreciate any support. I'll update you soon on Twitter.

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.

It's alarming that a candidate running for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, potentially our next prime minister, learned of her disqualification via an email received by the media outlet interviewing her. While shocking, it's not surprising. Our internal polls showed my campaign was neck and neck with the front runner. They didn't want me on the debate stage or on the ballot. The Liberal Party wanted to ensure Mark Carney's coronation. The allegations against me are completely false.

The speaker asserts that every federal government from Mr. Mulroney to Mr. Trudeau has been compromised by agents of communist China. Every government were informed at one point or another. Every government chose to ignore ceases warning either by negligence, self interest or partnership partisanship, sorry. Every government were infiltrated by agent of influence acting on behalf of the Chinese government, and we knew who they were. The speaker states that every government took decisions about China that are questionable and can only be explained by interference exercised from within or motivated by self interest. Not only the sitting government have been compromised, but all federal political parties have been compromised at one point or another. The inaction of the federal government, all federal governments, were led to attacks on many municipal and provincial government. Ultimately, every government have been part of the problem, not the solution. And I and remember, not only China is practicing interference.

Speaker 0 accuses the Liberal government of attempting to censor Canadians online through bills like C-11, C-18, and C-63. They claim these bills give the Liberals control over online algorithms, squeeze out independent media, and criminalize thought. The speaker alleges that cabinet ministers are competing to oversee the latest online censorship law. Speaker 1 responds by stating that Google agreed to pay $100 million to support Canadian journalism. They accuse the Conservative Party of opposing this initiative, which they claim would prevent deaths and hinder the media from receiving funding for local content and journalists. The speaker deems this opposition unthinkable and immoral.

I want to be very clear. We can prove that every federal government, from mister Mulroney to mister Trudeau, have been compromised by agent of the communist China. Every government were informed at one point or another. Every government chose to ignore CISO's warning either by negligence, self interest or partnership partisanship, sorry. Every government were infiltrated by agents of influence acting on behalf of the Chinese government, and we knew who they were.

I will be questioning the RCMP commissioner tomorrow about why they chose not to investigate Justin Trudeau's actions in the SNC Lavalin scandal. Trudeau pressured Jody Wilson Raybould to offer a deal to SNC Lavalin, but she stood firm. I will ask why Trudeau wasn't charged with obstruction of justice. Stay tuned for updates.

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.

The federal government's use of the Emergencies Act to clear convoy protesters in 2022 has been ruled unreasonable by a federal judge. The government plans to appeal the decision. The court stated that there was no national emergency to justify the use of the act. The public safety minister and deputy prime minister disagreed with the ruling and emphasized the seriousness of the situation at the time. The transcript includes discussions about frozen accounts, text messages, and the right to protest. The government maintains that the safety and security of Canadians, including economic security, were under threat. The decision to invoke the act was made after careful deliberation and consideration of the context. The transcript also mentions a plan by the Ottawa Police Services and an investigation into the government's decision.

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.

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.

In the Peckford Charter Challenge cross examinations, government officials and external experts were brought in to testify. The head epidemiologist for the Public Health Agency of Canada admitted that they never recommended vaccinating air travelers. The experts' written advice focused on masking, spacing, and quarantine for sick individuals, but not vaccination. When confronted, the head epidemiologist stated that scientific evidence did not support the effectiveness of vaccination. This disconnect between politicians and experts suggests that the Liberal government has been prioritizing politics over Canadians' charter rights. The cross examinations, which began in mid-May and are set to conclude at the end of June, have been a grueling daily schedule.

They aim to harm us for disagreeing with them. Our justice system no longer prioritizes truth, but winning at all costs.

The Liberal NDP Coalition government held an emergency meeting with the Auditor General of Canada to discuss the $54 million ArriveCAN app scandal. The RCMP is now investigating potential criminality related to the app's contracts. However, the government shut down the Auditor General's testimony after just 30 minutes of a scheduled 2-hour meeting. Serious allegations of fraudulent contract practices have been made, and there is concern about how an app could cost taxpayers such a large amount. The opposition party vows to expose the corruption and hold those responsible accountable. They believe the NDP liberal government is not worth the cost.

I want to be very clear: we can prove that every federal government, from Mulroney to Trudeau, has been compromised by agents of communist China. Every government was informed at some point, and every government chose to ignore warnings, whether through negligence, self-interest, or partisanship. Each government was infiltrated by agents of influence acting for the Chinese government, and we knew who they were.

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.

The discussion centers on the RCMP examination into whether the prime minister obstructed justice under section 139(2) of the Criminal Code. The RCMP’s strongest theory of obstruction involved the prime minister shuffling Jody Wilson-Raybould out of the position of attorney general so a new attorney general might pursue a different decision regarding SNC-Lavalin. It is stated that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence related to this strongest theory, because of the parameters of the order in council concerning the waiver of cabinet confidentiality. The RCMP acknowledge that the scope limitations prevented them from fully examining this central aspect of potential criminal conduct. When pressed, it is indicated that the decision to expand the parameters would have to be made within the government, and that the RCMP did request an expansion to obtain additional evidence, but the request was denied. The denial occurred on 08/30/2019 and came from the Prime Minister’s Department (the PCO). The RCMP clarifies that they did receive a letter from the Department of Justice, but cannot confirm if it originated from the PCO; regardless, the refusal by the prime minister’s personal department significantly impeded the RCMP’s ability to pursue a full investigation into potential obstruction of justice. The RCMP describes this as limiting their capability and suggests that, given the scope constraints, they could not reach the heart of the obstruction issue. Speaker 0 asserts that the prime minister’s department obstructed the investigation, and questions whether any other Canadian could single-handedly block RCMP access in such a way. Speaker 2 emphasizes that the RCMP operates within established parameters and regulations, noting that certain information remains inaccessible under those rules, including some international security information. Nevertheless, Speaker 0 states that there is no one with such powers and characterizes the situation as part of a pattern of cover-up. Speaker 2 reiterates that they made efforts to obtain additional information, but the expansion request was refused, leaving the investigation constrained. In closing, Speaker 0 thanks the commissioner and Justice, and the exchange underscores that the RCMP felt hindered by the parameters set by the PCO, which curtailed their ability to conduct a full investigation into the prime minister’s potential obstruction of justice.

Look for a few minutes at the Liberal Hall Of Shame for 2015 to 02/2021. Liberal MP William Amos was caught twice on house Zoom proceedings in indecent positions. Liberal MP Yasmin Rathansi was wrongfully employing her sister with taxpayers' dollars and deliberately hiding this information from Canadians. Liberal MP Ramesh Sengha was removed from the Liberal Caucus in January 2021 after he accused multiple other Liberal MPs of supporting the calisthenia movement. Liberal MP Darshan Singh Kang had to leave the Liberal Caucus in 2015 over accusations of sexual harassment. Liberal MP Nikola Di Laurio didn't show up for work for a year after he announced his resignation in 02/2018. Then the public found out, oh, he actually didn't resign. He still collected his salary as an MP even if he was working full time in a law firm in Montreal. To this today to this day, this situation has never been clearly explained by Trudeau and the Liberals. Liberal MP Raj Greywall admitted he racked up millions of dollars in debts, paying casino blackjack, and ended up resigning from the Liberal caucus in 2018 after the news came to light. Following an RCMP investigation. But after suddenly announcing he had paid off his 7 figure debts, he stayed on as a member of parliament for the rest of the parliamentary session. You may recall that mister Graywald was already under investigation by the federal ethics commissioner at the time and was later found guilty of being in violation of conflict of interest. Then there was a liberal MP Marwin Tabarro. He was allowed to run against again for the liberal party in February even though detailed allegations of sexual harassment had been made against him. After being arrested in April 2020, he remained in caucus for almost two months because the prime minister's office claimed they knew nothing about it, took a newspaper article for the liberals to kick him out of caucus. Then former Liberal MP Frank Bayless signed one of those juicy sole source contracts with the Liberal government during the COVID epidemic. He received $237,000,000. Public health agency figures disclosed that more than 90% of the 10,000 Bayless Medical Company ventilators it bought were never used in any clinic or any hospital. Sadly, these ethical lapses were even worse amongst cabinet ministers. Let me give you a few examples. Anita Anad's husband was the recipient of one of those juicy COVID contracts. LifeLabs received tens of millions of dollars of COVID contracts. They sell test kits. Anita Anad's husband, John Knowlton, is a director of LifeLabs. The LifeLabs division has received multiple contracts worth millions since Anad was elected to the parliament in 2019. Navdeep Baines was industry minister and, as such, promised to crack down on big telcos who overcharge Canadians for Internet and cell phone service. Guess what? He found a job at Rogers after leaving the government. The lobbying commissioner said she was frustrated at this, but liberals will always find loopholes that means more money for them. Then there was Bill Blair, on several occasions, lied, meddled into the work of the RCMP regarding the worst mass killing in the history of Canada in Porta Peak, Nova Scotia. While he was the president of the Treasury Board, Scott Bryson tried to block approval for the contract of a navy supply ship being built at the navy shipyard in Quebec because he was lobbied to do so by New Brunswick's powerful Irving family, owners of the rival Halifax shipyard. Minister Bryson also tried to argue there was no need for him to set up a conflict of interest screen to prevent him from participating in government decisions involving two of Atlantic Canada's wealthiest families, even though he used to chair one of their investment firms and that his spouse continued to sit on the company's board of directors. Francois Philippe Champagne owned two apartments in London, England worth millions of dollars. His mortgages were with a Chinese bank. Strange indeed for a Canadian in The UK, Canadian MP in The UK to have to go to a Chinese bank for a mortgage. Judy Foote got involved in the Frank Norman affair. I will talk about that in a bit. But what is interesting here is that she resigned for health reasons. But suddenly, her health improved, and she was rewarded with the job of lieutenant governor in Lupinland and Labrador. Steven Gebel forgot to pay his taxes, but he never forgot to travel, especially to China. This minister is running around the globe, busy lecturing Canadians, but patting Chinese or Gulf Emirates officials on the back. Catherine McKenna and John Wilkinson, his predecessors, and environment were of the same ilk, jetting around the world to lecture the common folks that they should bicycle to work. Foreign affairs minister Melanie Jolie's office staff didn't read an email that said her department was sending a representative to a Russian embassy party. So we had a representative at a party drinking vodka with the Russian officials just after Putin invaded Ukraine. Not reading their emails is a hallmark of Trudeau ministers and their staff. It was the excuse given by Bill Blair and Marco Mendocino and, of course, Justin Trudeau. When David LaMetti was turfed from cabinet, a lot of people wondered why. He had actually, after all, done much of Trudeau's bidding, we thought. Well, in the last few weeks, we learned that LaMetti canceled a verdict of first degree murder against Jacques Delisle, a former judge, even if all the experts were against this decision. Lemetti and the government refused to come clean on why he did that, even though Delisle later pleaded guilty to manslaughter. You all heard senators' nonanswers to our questions on this issue. What about Dominique Leblanc, who, despite despite connection to the powerful Irving family, was appointed to be minister of fisheries, oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard. He had to consult with the Essex commissioner for weeks in order to figure out how to stick handle around this very obvious conflict of interest. Then there was a time when minister LeBlanc flew from Moncton to Montreal and back aboard a jet owned by JD Irving Limited. Nothing to see here, folks. But when the ethics commissioner, Mario Dion, found minister LeBlanc guilty of breaking a conflict of interest act because he awarded a lucrative Arctic surf clam license to a company linked to his wife's cousin. He couldn't wiggle out of that. Speaking of Dominique Leblanc and Scott Bryson, we still don't know what their exact role was in the vice admiral Norman affair. The Liberals tried to renege on a contract for a supply ship in order to give it back to the Irvings. When they got caught, they decided they would get the height ahead of vice admiral Norman. The prime minister even sent him to trial before the police had investigated its investigation. Scott Bryson and Judy Foote left their positions, and taxpayers ended up being invoiced for an undisclosed sum of money paid out to vice admiral Norman. That is a first class cover up. Marco Mendocino's case was hopeless. Conflicts of interest, emails not read, bold lies in public, pure incompetence. When you are so bad that even Justin Trudeau thinks you're bad, you've hit the bottom. Someday, I will have a speech just on Marco Mendocino's scandals. I may need my unlimited time for that. It happens that ministers organize fundraisers outside their writings, but when you represent a downtown Montreal riding, this is strange. It is even stranger if this fundraiser happens to be in New York. New York, USA. To my knowledge, that is the first, and this honor belongs to Mark Miller. Mary Anne Monsoff had to admit that she was actually not born in Afghanistan, as she had told people and led people to believe for years. Bill Morneau is another minister who was scandal prone. He started his political career with violating the Elections Act, for which he was fined. This is, after all, the same finance minister who forgot that he had and forgot to declare his villa in France in his ethics reporting. This is the same finance minister who sponsored Bill C27, which happened to increase the value of pensions sold by the minister's own company, Morneau Shepell. When the bill was tabled in the House of Commons, the value of Morneau Shepell shares joked, and minister Morneau just happened to still be holding $21,000,000 worth of shares. And as I already mentioned, his role in the We Charity scandal, when he quit, he pretended he was going to the OECD top position. No one knows for sure if this was true. One thing is true, and it's real. Taxpayers footed the bill for his failed campaign. I still have an order paper question on the true cost. Still unanswered after twenty five months, it was reported in the media that this phony campaign cost at least $11,000,000. Mary Ang was found guilty by the ethics commissioner for giving contracts to her best friend. In a Trudeau government, that means you pretend to be sorry, and that has no consequences. How about Seamus O'Regan? The government spent $180,000 defending him in a defamation suit. And do you remember Hunter Tootoo? He had to leave cabinet to deal with, sadly, addiction issues. But what was strange was when he said that Justin Trudeau had hugged him after he revealed that he had an inappropriate relationship with a staff member. Harjit Sajid was found to have lied about his role in Afghanistan. But this happy bunch knows how to organize a party sorry, a cabinet retreat. The three affordability retreats held in Charlottetown, Vancouver, and Hamilton between 2022 and August 2023 cost 1,325,000. Hey, life is better with lobster and white wine, especially when you are discussing affordability. It's not surprising to see all those ethical lapses. After all, this is the leader of an organization who sets the tone. Justin Trudeau does not believe the rules of ethics apply to him. So how could he insist that his officials, his MPs, and his ministers be any better? In 02/2015, we learned that Justin Trudeau was billing charities for speaking engagements, even as an MP. This was a First Colleagues, a sitting politician who charges people to hear him speak. When he got caught, he said he was sorry and wrote a check. A few weeks later, he was caught again. He had charged the House of Commons for expenses that had also been reimbursed by the organizations to which he spoke. Again, we had the, I'm sorry, here's a check routine. This was a preview of things to come. Who can forget the thank you for your donation comment and incident where the PM's elitist and condescending attitude was on full display when he jeered at an indigenous protester before that? Before that, we had Elbowgate when Justin Trudeau pushed aside fellow MP Ruth Ellen Brasso Brasso because he was in a hurry to vote. His time was more precious than others, and pushing aside women who get in the way is something our fake feminist prime minister does without hesitation. That was in line with Justin Trudeau's behavior in the Kokanee grope incident where he groped a female journalist. Then he said, oh my, I would not have done this had I known that the woman was a national reporter. I guess in his mind, it's more acceptable to grope a person that is not a national reporter than one that is. Now we all remember, of course, that our prime minister decided that this was indeed a lesson, not just for him, but for all of us. We all know that some people experience things differently, he said. Now let's not forget the three, four, five, maybe more incidents where Justin Trudeau wore blackface because he thought it was funny to pretend that he was black. We don't know how many times he did that because he can't re

I stormed out of the courtroom due to perceived corruption in the system. The Charter of Rights in Canada seems ineffective, as rights can be disregarded for government interests. Drawing parallels to apartheid in South Africa, I see a divided society in Canada. The government may target more dissenters after this case. Law enforcement in Canada has used violent tactics, including seizing bank accounts. The trial for the Coutts 4 is starting soon, with updates to come. Support independent journalism at mediabezigian.com/donate.