reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The USMCA is a good deal, but the speaker had a bad relationship with a person who worked for Trudeau's predecessor because they disagreed on the deal. The speaker claims to have called Trudeau "governor Trudeau," which may have hurt his election. The speaker questioned Trudeau about why the US was taking Canada's cars and suggested a 25% tariff on Canadian cars, to which Trudeau allegedly responded that it would mean the end of Canada. The speaker finds it hard to justify subsidizing Canada, potentially to the tune of $200 billion a year, while the US protects Canada militarily. The speaker believes it's hard for the American taxpayer to be happy about subsidizing Canada.

This election is about the heart and soul of the country's economy. Canada's economy only grew 1.4% in a decade, which is unprecedented. Gerald Butts was instrumental in helping Trudeau win and is now helping Carney's campaign. Butts was the policymaker behind Trudeau, who was an "empty suit." Butts is determined to turn Canada into a green utopia with no energy, pipelines, or resource development. He wants to take carbon taxes off the consumer and double down on business, making Canada the most uncompetitive place to invest. It is claimed that Canada cannot survive economically with these policies.

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.

You claim to be running against the Ottawa establishment, yet you've been part of it for a decade. Why should anyone believe you're not part of the establishment? People can see the dynamics of the race. I resigned because I recognized the need to focus on the threat posed by Donald Trump. Wouldn't you have had a better chance to help Canada by staying in cabinet? No, Canada is strong and will impress the world with our resilience. I take pride in rallying Canadians and advocating for our country every day.

All leaders performed relatively well in the debate, the first opportunity for Canadians to see them head-to-head. It was of particular interest how Mark Carney and Pierre Poliev would perform. Election debates typically only influence an election if someone does exceptionally well or terribly, which didn't happen. Mark Carney presented himself as the negotiator to handle Canada's crisis, appealing to concerns about Trump's threats and presenting himself as an economist. Pierre Poliev was a friendlier version of himself, after polls showed Quebecers were uncomfortable with his rhetoric. He focused on presenting a more personable version of himself. Jagmeet Singh had his best performance so far, appealing to Canadians to form a minority government. Yves-Francois Blanchet was in his comfort zone and less aggressive than expected, trying to win back voters looking at the Liberals.

Canada's conservatives express unwavering support for Ukraine, criticizing the NDP liberals for including a carbon tax in the trade agreement. They argue that this tax on infrastructure, worth $300 billion, hinders Ukraine's rebuilding efforts. The conservatives accuse the prime minister of betraying Ukraine by befriending Vladimir Putin, refusing to reduce European dependence on Putin's gas, and supplying him with a turbine for his war machine. In contrast, the conservatives promise to deliver what Ukrainians want: defense production and energy partnerships, not taxes. They prioritize the national interests of both Canadians and Ukrainians and vow to always support Ukraine.

The speaker questions the accuracy of polls showing Carney's popularity, claiming the People's Party isn't polled and that mainstream media is biased against them. They allege the Canadian debate rules were changed to exclude the People's Party, preventing them from participating despite qualifying in the past. The speaker highlights concerns about Canada's electoral system, specifically the lack of mandatory photo ID for voting and the promotion of mail-in ballots. They believe being excluded from debates is censorship and undemocratic. The speaker intends to challenge the debate exclusion in court to ensure their voice is heard.

Speaker 0: He's one of the greatest I've ever seen. Speaker 1: Don't mess with Whitey, I'm crazy. Speaker 2: Trudeau announced a 3-year exemption on carbon tax reform. Speaker 3: Will there be penalties or jail for not paying carbon tax? The government expects everyone to work. Speaker 1: We need to find ways to extract and use oil and gas with minimal emissions and carbon capture. Speaker 2: I demand the same carbon tax exemption for Saskatchewan families as others. It's only fair. Hopefully, it will be provided.

The speaker criticizes the conservative party for not supporting Ukraine in terms of military, financial, and humanitarian aid. They also mention that the party voted against the Canada Ukraine free trade agreement, blaming it on carbon pricing, which is irrelevant since Ukraine has had it since 2011. They ask the minister of international trade to explain the importance of the agreement. The speaker is interrupted and asked to focus on the government's business. The transcript ends with a mention of the next question from a member in South Coast, New York.

The speaker addresses Marilyn and shares her view on Mark Carney. She states that Carney has been Justin Trudeau's economic adviser for the past five years and argues that he is part of “the disastrous mess” created by the Liberals in terms of inflation and the increased cost of everything, and she does not see him bringing any change. She then critiques Carney’s staff and associates: - Marco Mendocino is described as having been kicked out of cabinet for “the lies that he told when he said that the police requested they enact the Emergency Measures Act, and the police clearly said they did not.” She also says Mendocino claimed he didn’t know anything about Paul Bernardo being transferred to a medium security prison, which she says turned out not to be true. - The transition team for Mark Carney is said to include David LeMetty, who is described as a minister in the middle of the SNC Lavalin scandal that “got the get out of jail free card for SNC Lavalin in the corruption case.” He is presented as evidence of “really bad judgment” and not speaking well of the government’s integrity. Regarding Mark Carney personally, she asserts: - Carney “wouldn’t disclose all of his assets in Brookfield” and “lied several times during the campaign leadership race.” She claims he said he had nothing to do with Brookfield’s move from Canada to the United States, but minutes allegedly show he chaired meetings, voted in favor of the move, and wrote letters to shareholders urging them to support moving the head office from Canada to the U.S. - She asks, “How does that inspire confidence that he cares about Canada at all?” and states there is “nothing but concerns” about Carney because he would avoid giving straight answers and avoids questions from the press. She notes that Carney has never been elected by the Canadian people; he was selected by a handful of Liberals in a leadership race that would determine the next Prime Minister of Canada, and so far, she argues, it “doesn’t look good.” Her conclusion is that this is what she thinks about Mark Carney.

The speaker is asked about their populist strategy and their use of strong ideological language. They deny talking about left or right but mention that many people believe in it. The interviewer suggests that the speaker is taking a page out of Donald Trump's book, but the speaker questions who would say that. The interviewer asks why Canadians should trust the speaker with their vote, and the speaker responds by emphasizing the need for common sense in the government. They criticize the current government's handling of the economy and promise to cap spending, cut waste, and balance the budget to bring down inflation and interest rates. They claim to have a common sense plan to improve the buying power of Canadians' paychecks.

According to Speaker 0, Mr. Polyev stated he would not reflexively oppose the government, but support it when in the country's best interest, because he wants the country to succeed. However, he then spent fifteen minutes attacking ministers like Sean Fraser and Stephen Guildeaux for ruining the country. Speaker 1 noted Mr. Polyev's approach suggests he won the election, not lost it. He will only be able to stand in defense of Canadians because of the Prime Minister's goodwill in calling an early by-election for him in Alberta, costing close to $2,000,000. Speaker 1 found it interesting that Mr. Polyev is going after Stephen Gabbeau, blaming Sean Frazier for the housing crisis, and wanting to fight the same political battles from the last campaign.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about their populist strategy, which involves appealing to people's emotions and using strong ideological language. Speaker 1 denies talking about left or right and questions who would say they are like Donald Trump. Speaker 0 mentions that many Canadians might think so, but doesn't provide specific names. Speaker 1 asks for evidence and the conversation becomes unclear. Speaker 0 then asks why Canadians should trust Speaker 1 with their vote. Speaker 1 responds by promising to bring common sense to the country, criticizing the current government's handling of the economy, and pledging to cap spending, cut waste, balance the budget, and reduce inflation and interest rates. They claim to have the only common sense plan to improve people's buying power.

The speaker presents a detailed, multi-faceted accusation about Mark Carney’s role in a long-running scheme tied to Canada’s net-zero push and the use of public pension funds to de-risk green-energy investment. Key points include: - Mark Carney is portrayed as a central figure who champions net zero and founded The UK’s G Fans in 2019, with capital access claimed to total over $130 trillion. The speaker asserts that net-zero efforts began to collapse when Republican attorneys subpoenaed banks in the U.S. over anti-competition rules, causing JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and others to exit net zero. - The strategy described is “de-risking green energy investment,” which, according to the speaker, provides guarantees to attract private investment while shifting all liability and cost onto federal funds and taxpayers. The claim is that private investors come in because the project is guaranteed by public money, with no immediate private risk. - Bloomberg is cited as reporting in 2020 that Carney was the unofficial economic advisor to Trudeau; the speaker argues that because Carney’s role is unpaid and unofficial, it does not trigger the Conflict of Interest Act, allowing him to influence Trudeau’s policy with zero consequence. - The three alleged key figures are Christia Freeland (Finance Minister), Justin Trudeau, and Mark Carney. From 2020 to 2025, $190 billion is claimed to have been allotted to de-risk green-energy investment. When GFANS collapses, the $130 trillion figure is said to disappear, leaving pension funds as the only source for such capital. - The Canadian Growth Fund (CGF) is described as created for $15 (presumably a capitalization reference) to de-risk green-energy investment, with Brookfield Growth Transition Fund I/II and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Fund and PSP Pension Funds named as limited partners. PSP board appointments are described as selected by the treasurer and finance minister, with final approval by the prime minister, and payments to board members alleged to be in the six- to seven-figure range and removable by the prime minister. - A subsidiary called CCFIM is said to manage the Canadian Growth Fund, with Brookfield’s transition fund reportedly totaling $20 billion in the final close of Transition Fund II, plus a separate UAE-linked Catalyst Transition Fund. - The principal “smoking gun” example given is Brookfield’s initial $300 million investment from the transition fund into Entropy Inc., resulting in Brookfield taking a majority stake. This investment allegedly qualifies as a pension fund investment under PSP due to a low-risk profile. The typical Brookfield fee structure is described as 1.5% management fee, with a 5–8% hurdle, a 20% catch-up, and an 80/20 split favoring pension funds after 100% capital return, potentially allowing Carney to receive a 20% carry after a long horizon (up to 10–15 years). - The speaker claims the Canadian Growth Fund used a 15-year de-risking contract guaranteeing $16 million per year and $200 million upfront, shifting all liability, debt, and control to taxpayers, with the completed project potentially owned by a foreign entity and profits accruing to the foreign owner. - A broader allegation is that the UAE commitments and Catalyst Transition Fund contracts are tied to the same de-risking framework, with maximum potential payments described as $750 million to $1.2 billion. - The conclusion presented is that pension and tax money are being leveraged to fund a system that yields net losses while enriching Carney and associated actors, creating a cycle described as a snake eating its tail. The speaker urges readers to look up information, share it, and contact Carney, PSP board members, Freeland, and others to make them aware of these alleged actions.

The speaker claims the prime minister is a climate zealot and eco extremist. They assert the prime minister has pushed for net-zero banking for decades, intending to prevent banks from investing in oil and gas. The speaker alleges the prime minister plans to increase carbon taxes on the oil and gas industry to eviscerate it, referencing the prime minister's book as evidence. According to the speaker, Canada's national identity, unity, freedom, and future are at a monumental crossroads.

The Prime Minister defends the carbon tax as revenue neutral, citing the parliamentary budget officer's report that 8 out of 10 families benefit from the rebate. He accuses conservative politicians of misleading Canadians, stating that the tax puts more money in families' pockets and helps combat climate change by making polluters pay. The Prime Minister argues that conservatives oppose climate action and the tax helps low and middle-income families.

In parliament, there is a debate about what Ukraine needs. Conservatives believe Ukraine needs weapons, while liberals think a carbon tax is necessary. The Canada Ukraine free trade deal, negotiated by conservatives, aimed to strengthen trade and prosperity. However, liberals want to turn trade deals into international agreements to promote their ideology. They proposed adding a carbon tax to the trade deal, which conservatives oppose. Conservatives argue that Ukraine needs weapons to defend itself against Russia. Liberals and New Democrats rejected the proposal for more weapons but supported the carbon tax. Conservatives prioritize supporting Ukraine and Canadians, promising to provide lethal weapons and maintain the tax.

Speaker 0 states this is the most important election in most of their lifetimes. They claim Trump has made unacceptable threats against the economy, workers, and sovereignty. They believe a particular leader can address these issues and needs support. Speaker 1 accuses Catherine McKenna of losing track of 20,000 contracts worth $236,000,000,000, which they claim is why she is no longer in parliament. Speaker 1 repeats the accusation and insults Speaker 0. Speaker 1 continues to harass Catherine, repeating the $236,000,000,000 figure and using abusive language. Speaker 1 then states that everyone is "fucking retarded."

The speaker is asked about their strategy and is accused of using populist tactics. They deny talking about left or right and being influenced by Donald Trump. The questioner asks why Canadians should trust them with their vote, but the speaker doesn't understand the question. They then explain their plan to bring common sense back to the country by capping spending, cutting waste, balancing the budget, and reducing inflation and interest rates. They claim to be the only one with a plan to improve the buying power of Canadians' paychecks.

All of the leaders performed relatively well in the debate, the first opportunity for Canadians to see them head to head. It was of particular interest how Mark Carney and Pierre Poliev would perform in this scenario. Election debates typically only influence an election if somebody really knocks it out of the park or does terribly, which didn't happen. Mark Carney presented himself as the negotiator to handle Canada's crisis, appealing to concerns about Trump's threats. He presented himself as the economist who knows how to navigate difficult times and had a relatively good French presentation. Pierre Poliev was a much friendlier version of himself, after polls showed Quebecers were uncomfortable with his rhetoric. He focused on presenting a more personable version of himself. Jagmeet Singh had his best performance so far, appealing to Canadians to form a minority government. Yves Francois Blachat was in his comfort zone and was less aggressive than expected, trying to win back voters looking at going to the Liberals.

The speaker attended Mark Carney's rally in Richmond, BC, after attending Pierre Poilievre's rally. The crowd at Carney's rally consisted mostly of older people, Gen X, boomers, and people from the Punjabi community, with a noticeable absence of Chinese and Asian attendees. The speaker felt the rally resembled a retirement home. Carney's speech lacked substance, with no policy discussion or solutions to key issues like the cost of living or housing crisis. The speaker claims the message focused on the idea that America and Trump are bad, and that voting Liberal would solve that crisis. Carney read from a teleprompter, unlike Poilievre, who used bullet points and spoke with passion. The speaker believes the polls are inaccurate, as the support for Poilievre seems much stronger. The speaker alleges that Liberals are supported by boomers who benefit from rising home values and the Punjabi community who benefit from lax policies and the temporary foreign worker program.

Speaker 1 asserts that Trudeau destroyed Canada economically, socially, and culturally, particularly through authoritarian COVID-19 measures and vaccine passports. Speaker 1 regrets not being vaccinated, while Speaker 0 agrees. Speaker 0 claims Trudeau systematically destroyed Canada, possibly on purpose, citing the MAIDS program. Speaker 1 accuses Trudeau of being a socialist, globalist, and follower of the World Economic Forum, doubling Canada's debt in ten years. Speaker 1 blames mass immigration, promoted by Trudeau's multiculturalism policies, for declining GDP per capita and societal fragmentation. Speaker 0 questions why Trudeau isn't in jail for his actions. Speaker 1 calls for an inquiry into COVID-19 policies and a moratorium on immigration and mRNA vaccines. Speaker 1 criticizes current political leaders for pandering to ethnic communities and supporting mass immigration, echoing the "replacement doc theory." Speaker 1 claims the democratic system isn't producing democratic results and that the mainstream media cancels opposing viewpoints. Speaker 1 says globalists are anti-western, targeting majority white Christian countries. Speaker 1 accuses Carney and Polyyev of prioritizing foreigners over Canadians, and says they love power. Speaker 1 says Canada has Chinese interference in elections, with some MPs not loyal to the country. Speaker 1 says immigrants bring internal conflicts to Canada. Speaker 1 says Polyyev and Carney want to impose a carbon tax. Speaker 1 says Canada has no gold reserves.

The speaker is asked about their strategy and is accused of using populist tactics. They deny talking about left or right and question the evidence. The interviewer asks why Canadians should trust them with their vote, and the speaker responds by emphasizing the need for common sense. They criticize the current government's handling of the economy, promising to cap spending, cut waste, balance the budget, and bring down inflation and interest rates. They claim that their plan will improve the buying power of Canadians' paychecks.

The speaker alleges that Mark Carney and Justin Trudeau are setting up a system where companies must buy carbon credits from companies like Brookfield if they are not "eco and green." They claim Brookfield will profit immensely from this. The speaker points to SEC filings showing Carney has 209,000 shares of Brookfield at $35 and 200,000 shares at $40, potentially netting him $6.8 million if sold. They suggest Carney's promotion of net-zero policies could greatly increase Brookfield's stock value, further enriching him. The speaker demands transparency regarding Carney's investments, questioning if he owns additional shares of Brookfield. The speaker plays audio of Carney discussing a $100 billion a year market in carbon offsets and stating that financial institutions expect to "make a lot of money off of this" transition to net zero. The speaker concludes that Carney has significant conflicts of interest and should not be Prime Minister.