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."

Canadians demand transparency in investigating potential traitors. The government is cooperating with the Hogg Commission and providing necessary documents. The National Security Committee of Parliamentarians will also be involved. The opposition should refrain from making baseless claims in parliament.

The transcript traces the origins, scope, and controversy surrounding the Patriot Act in the wake of the September 11 attacks. It explains that the reforms were designed to prevent another terrorist attack by granting vast new powers to U.S. intelligence agencies, notably increasing the NSA’s access to Internet records, expanding phone tapping capabilities, and enabling greater sharing of intelligence information. The act was presented as a step toward defeating terrorism while protecting constitutional rights. It then notes that the law’s authors recognized a fine line between privacy and national security, a line that Snowden’s revelations disrupted. Snowden showed that the government “unreasonably intrude into the private lives of ordinary citizens, individuals who have never been suspected of any wrongdoing or criminal activity.” The mass-surveillance debate intensified after Snowden exposed that the Patriot Act was secretly being used to justify the collection of phone records for millions of Americans. The public alarm centered on the claim that “Right now, in America, someone is keeping a record of every call you make, who you call and who calls you, when you talked, and for how long,” with such records stored for years and obtainable without the knowledge of the individuals. The narrative then moves to the period immediately after 9/11. Congress, shocked and in a hurry, received the Patriot Act—a 342-page document. The attorney general, John Ashcroft, urged Congress to pass the anti-terrorism bill within a week. It is asserted that “Virtually no one in this chamber have any idea what's in that bill” and that “It's only the constitution. It's only individual liberty at stake.” The act was signed into law three days after its introduction. The discussion highlights provisions that appeared harmless but were consequential, especially section 215. Proponents claimed it would help the FBI find the bad guys; however, more than a decade later, the NSA and FBI were “misusing section two fifteen to sweep up the information of ordinary US citizens.” Section 215 allowed the government to collect tangible things relevant to an authorized investigation, and the government later claimed that “the records of every phone call you make now and in the future are a relevant tangible thing.” This broad interpretation extended beyond suspected terrorists. Finally, the account notes that most members of Congress did not know the law was being misused, and that the program was overseen by a secret court where everything is classified. It was this secret court, not Congress or the public, that decided that phone records were to be accessible, framing the controversy around secrecy and the expansion of surveillance powers.

Trudeau government covered up a security breach at a sensitive lab where dangerous viruses are studied. Head of pathogens collaborated with Beijing's PLA, allowing access to virological secrets. PLA official accessed computers and sensitive information. Read the report for details.

Speaker 1 outlines concerns about Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act of 2026, asserting that if it becomes law, the Government of Canada will be able to secretly order Apple to build in a capability into its infrastructure to allow Canadian law enforcement and national security authorities to track every iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, AirPod, and AirTag in real time. This capability would enable authorities to require Apple to confirm whether it provides any services to a user, and to obtain device identifiers for all devices used with those services. The process could involve going to a justice of the peace and obtaining an order without any requirement that a crime has been or will be committed, effectively mandating Apple to hand over moment-by-moment locations for all user devices. The speaker further notes that with that secret order, Apple would be compelled to provide the moment-by-moment locations of all devices associated with a user, based on the digital ID tied to iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, AirPod, Apple TV, and AirTag. In addition, the order would require Apple to maintain location history for a full year, enabling cops to access that historical data as well. The overarching concern highlighted is whether such expansive powers—secret orders, real-time tracking, access to device identifiers and services, and a year-long location history—are desirable for Canadian police and law enforcement. Speaker 0 interjects with a prompting remark, inviting the audience to consider the implications and framing the discussion as a best attempt to evaluate the issue. The dialogue centers on the potential reach of government surveillance powers under the proposed act, the mechanisms by which these powers could be exercised (secret orders and judiciary involvement), and the practical consequences of requiring a tech company to reveal comprehensive location data and device identifiers without demonstrating a crime or imminent wrongdoing. The core issue presented is whether granting law enforcement such pervasive, real-time, and historical access to users’ device data aligns with acceptable governance and privacy standards in Canada.

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.

It was passed in the wake of nine eleven and calls for new and vast powers for US intelligence agencies understandably had lots of backing. The reforms known as the Patriot Act according to President Bush were designed to prevent another attack like the one on September 11. It essentially gave organizations like the NSA more access to internet records, made it easier to tap phones, and made it easier to share intelligence information. May we take an essential step in defeating terrorism while protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans? Snowden announced the Patriot Act was secretly being used to justify the collection of phone records from millions of Americans. Right now, in America, someone is keeping a record of every call you make, who you call and who calls you, when you talked, and for how long.

The Canadian government is proposing a bill, C-63, to combat online hate speech by defining and punishing hatred. Offenses motivated by hate could lead to life imprisonment. The bill also allows for pre-crime reporting and anonymous complaints, with rewards for accusers. Critics fear abuse of power and suppression of free speech. Prime Minister Trudeau's past accusations of hate against protesters raise concerns about misuse of the proposed legislation. People are mobilizing to oppose the bill.

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.

Carla Treadway interviews constitutional lawyer John Carpe, founder and president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF). Carpe says Canada’s underlying problem is a cultural decline in which Canadians increasingly accept authoritarian ideas—believing government knows best and can violate constitutional rights for reasons like safety and security. He argues this decline is reinforced by ignorance of history and recurring “pretexts” governments use to justify rights-restricting measures. Carpe points to legislation expanding government surveillance powers. He contrasts long-standing principles of privacy and property protections with bills that, in his view, enable state surveillance over texts, phone calls, and communications. He says police should need court authorization (warrants) to violate individual privacy rights and that surveillance should be limited to cases involving active crimes and small numbers of people or groups. Treadway asks why Canadians may not understand the seriousness of bills. Carpe says the education system emphasizes only the positive role of government and that many Canadians are not taught that governments can also become tyrannical and oppressive. He also describes a pattern of human rights violations receiving broad popular support in their time and becoming widely condemned only decades later. He links this dynamic to Canadian attitudes during COVID-related restrictions, including punishments directed at people who declined a COVID vaccine. He describes these measures as causing, in his view, severe human rights harms with substantial public support. Carpe argues that independent media and podcasts are growing as alternatives to declining legacy outlets, but he warns of the threat posed when governments attempt to suppress “misinformation.” He says the key issue is who decides what is misinformation versus accurate information, and he argues that allowing government to decide truth and punish disagreement leads toward repression. He raises concerns about government being “the arbiter” of information without accountability. The discussion then focuses on Bill C-34, described as the Safe Social Media Act, and a broader package of connected online-related laws. Carpe lists C-11 (Online Streaming Act), C-18 (Online News Act), C-8, C-9, C-22 (Lawful Access Act), and C-34. He argues that together these measures move toward a surveillance state. Regarding C-34, he says the bill creates a new digital safety commission with powers similar to the CRTC to create rules affecting internet content, and he highlights that the bill does not specify which social media companies will fall under its requirements, leaving that decision to the federal cabinet. He says the structure could enable requirements such as age verification using digital ID, including facial recognition, which he argues would create a total surveillance system. He says a policy framed as protecting children would become an across-the-board requirement (i.e., everyone would have to prove age to access social media). Treadway challenges this with the “it only applies to kids” framing. Carpe responds by emphasizing that if age verification is required for teens, the mechanism logically expands to everyone, and he uses a hypothetical political analogy to illustrate how identity-based access could be used to cut off political opponents. Carpe says criminal harms online are already illegal and should be addressed through better enforcement rather than new powers. He argues that child pornography, threatening people, certain forms of bullying, and willful promotion of hatred against protected groups are already criminal, and he says the problem is enforcement rather than missing criminal provisions. He argues that centralized digital ID and surveillance are a path toward systems like China’s social credit system. He describes Bill C-22 (as he portrays it) as requiring telecommunications companies (like Bell and Rogers) to retain individual data for six months, including tracking and tracing like the timing and geographical location of communications, while claiming content is exempt. Carpe discusses “broad popular support” and enforcement unevenness, mentioning examples where police allegedly watched vandalism and where prosecutors allegedly decided not to prosecute. He also says criminal enforcement on online harms is inconsistent and argues ordinary citizens should inform themselves and contact representatives rather than rely only on lawyers. The conversation addresses political engagement, including petitions and public participation. Carpe says petitioning and staying involved matters because governments can be pressured by constituents. He encourages contacting MPs/MLAs/city councillors/school board trustees and supporting candidates aligned with truth, justice, and freedom. Carpe cites multiple JCCF “wins.” He describes a successful Supreme Court-based challenge to an Ontario policy that restricted political expression on billboards, involving a case where a billboard message accusing politicians of lying about vaccines was censored and later allowed. He also describes a victory regarding pro-life signs on Parliament Hill, saying the court rejected limitations based on “offensive and disturbing” expression and recognized that the “free expression only if it doesn’t offend” standard is inconsistent with free speech principles. He further discusses a successful challenge to the Emergencies Act, saying courts held the government did not meet statutory requirements, acted wrongly by unleashing violence on peaceful protesters, and improperly froze bank accounts; he says the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision. Treadway asks about how opposition changes Ottawa’s calculus. Carpe cites earlier outcry against other bills (including the Strong Borders Act, which he says should have been called a Strong Surveillance Act) and says public opposition from across the political spectrum can lead to changes or delays. He says the same dynamic could apply to C-34 if constituents push back. Finally, Carpe discusses the JCCF’s approach of voluntary donations and argues independence from government funding matters because government-funded media and government-funded organizations can be beholden to state interests. He closes by reiterating that the JCCF fights in courts and in public opinion while supporters continue donating.

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.

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.

Counselor Lisa Robinson argues that Bill C8 and Bill C9 are not protective measures but power grabs in disguise, aimed at expanding government control at the expense of Canadians’ freedoms. She claims Bill C8, titled the Cybersecurity Act, would allow the government to seize control of telecom networks, issue secret orders, and cut off access without notifying individuals. Under C8, the government could tell internet providers what to block, remove, or silence, justified by cybersecurity and national security, effectively giving the government power to “pull the plug on your voice.” Regarding Bill C9, she describes it as the hate propaganda and hate crime bill, asserting it would let the government decide what symbols are hateful and what speech is intimidating, with prosecutors able to pursue cases for “the wrong things.” She emphasizes that C9 removes the attorney general’s oversight, meaning prosecutors could pursue hate speech actions without a second opinion or accountability. She frames this as ideology with a badge and warns it would target speech rather than stop hate, undermining free expression. She stresses that combined, C8 and C9 erode digital independence and freedom of speech, enabling the government to determine what you may say and how you say it, and to shut you down if you dissent. She warns that such power could be abused over time and that history shows powers granted in this way tend to be used against ordinary people. She opposes the idea that protecting democracy requires censoring speech, arguing instead that democracy is defended by defending the right to offend, to question, and to challenge power. Her call to action is direct: contact MPs, flood inboxes, call offices, and tell them to vote no on C8 and C9. She warns that passing these bills would not only reduce privacy but strip the freedom to discuss them, turning Canada toward a “digital dictatorship run by bureaucrats and hate speech committees.” She concludes by urging Canadians to wake up, defend freedom now, and reject C8 and C9, presenting herself as the People’s Counselor who will “never whisper the truth to protect a lie.” She ends with a plea to follow, subscribe, and share the message, and a final exhortation to stand strong and say no to the bills.

Participants argue Bill C-22 is being rushed and contend it contains provisions that pose major risks to Canadian privacy. One view says the process is “quite rushed,” noting the committee has had only three sitting days to hear witnesses, which is not enough for legislation of that complexity. A participant describes Bill C-22 as the “most dangerous surveillance bill” they have seen in more than 10 years in Canada, and even in other democracies. They say the Public Safety Minister should not be trusted to claim limited amendments will fix C-22, stating that nothing short of striking the majority of Part 2 would protect Canadian privacy. Multiple speakers focus on Part 2 as the key problem. They argue Part 2 is incompatible with the fundamental human right to privacy and could ultimately make Canadians less safe, not more. Concerns include a blanket secrecy provision that would prevent them from explaining to users what changes were made or, if discovered, why they were made. Speakers also say C-22 would let the government compel organizations to build surveillance capabilities to log who is talking to whom, when, and from where for up to a year. One participant states this would affect Canadians who rely on secure private communications to bank, access healthcare, run a business, or talk to family, emphasizing it is not a hypothetical risk. Google is cited as having significant concerns with several elements of Part 2 as currently drafted, particularly the potential for the law—without stronger definitions—to force dismantling critical privacy protections. Examples given include breaking encryption, overriding users’ data deletion controls, and building remote access capability, which the speakers say could facilitate foreign interference and weaken global user privacy. One speaker characterizes a “backdoor built for the good guys” as “simply a vulnerability,” waiting for bad actors. In closing, a speaker urges taking more time to receive and review all public evidence and to thoroughly reform or abandon Part 2 of C-22 before it moves forward, describing the process as under-researched given the “massive stakes.”

Large American online platforms are full of racism, misogyny, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and hate. Criminals are using them to harm children. The government will act with a plan to fight crime, protect Canadians, and build safe, secure, and strong communities. The plan aims to make Canada secure and strong.

Bill c eight can hand the government secret warrantless powers over Canadians' communications. This is a serious setback for privacy. The commissioner notes that privacy impact assessment is required by the treasury board directive but "it's not a legal obligation in the privacy act." He argues there should be "the opportunity for my office to give input before the fact" on major changes, including legislation, and that we are "not consulted on the specific pieces of legislation before they're tabled." He calls for "necessity and proportionality, strict criteria for the exercise of powers, and appropriate transparency and reporting mechanisms." The bill's provisions would allow "secret orders to disable an individual's telecommunications access" and "a minister compel data without judicial oversight," with concerns about secrecy and reporting, "reports to appropriate authorities" and "confidential reporting" to raise questions. He warns of "a parallel system" where data can be seized in secret with no redress.

The Canadian Liberal party is promoting Bill C293 to protect citizens. To keep people safe, the bill avoids defining "pandemic" or "emergency." While admitting past surveillance issues where 33,000,000 Canadians were secretly tracked, the party claims they will improve. Decision-making will be ceded to the WHO due to international border concerns. Businesses can be closed and used as shelters. Food production can be slowed or stopped due to health risks associated with agriculture. The bill allows for freezing and redirecting assets, and nationalizing industries. Private property and land can be expropriated for pandemic-related causes. The promise is that people will own nothing, but be happy, safe, and healthy.

Trudeau government covered up a security breach at a sensitive lab where dangerous viruses are studied. Head of pathogens collaborated with Beijing's People's Liberation Army, allowing access to important virological secrets. A PLA official had personal access to computers. Read the report for details. Translation: The Trudeau government hid a security breach at a lab studying dangerous viruses. The head of pathogens worked with China's People's Liberation Army, giving them access to vital virological information. A PLA official had personal access to computers. Check the report for more information.

The RCMP has expanded surveillance capabilities in the last 5 years, adopting technologies that raise privacy concerns. Covert software infiltrates devices, accessing communications and activating cameras/microphones. Cell site simulators collect data from nearby devices, raising concerns about tracking innocent individuals. The speaker claims the RCMP is unwilling to target organized crime and protects corrupt politicians, and that these actions demonstrate unfairness and injustice towards Canadians. The speaker suggests these surveillance tools encourage self-censorship because the RCMP can infiltrate devices and monitor citizens. Surveillance in totalitarian regimes aims to control populations by creating constant observation, driving obedience.

The RCMP has expanded surveillance capabilities in the last 5 years, adopting technologies raising privacy concerns. Covert software infiltrates devices, accessing communications and activating cameras/microphones. Cell site simulators collect data from devices, potentially tracking innocent individuals. The speaker suggests the RCMP's actions indicate a willingness to protect corrupt politicians and a tendency towards unfair practices, leading to self-censorship among Canadians. The speaker claims that the RCMP's surveillance capabilities can cause people to curb what they are saying. The speaker equates these surveillance tactics to those used in totalitarian regimes to drive obedience within the population.

Justin Trudeau's proposed bill in Canada aims to address online harms, including hate speech and child exploitation. However, critics argue that it could be used to silence dissent and control information. The bill would hold online platforms accountable for harmful content and establish a censorship organization. It also introduces stricter penalties, including life imprisonment, for hate offenses. Trudeau's government has been accused of authoritarianism and limiting freedom of speech. Similar legislation is being introduced in other countries, suggesting a coordinated global effort. Critics fear that these laws could be misused to impose control on the population and suppress dissent.

Hon. member for Kitchener South Kessler criticized Bill C-8, saying: 'fifteen point one and fifteen point two give the minister the unprecedented, incredible power to kick any Canadian citizen off the Internet to cut off their phone line, to turn off their cell phone.' He argued the minister can act on 'any threat' rather than 'extreme threats,' and warned of digital suppression. He cited '15.2 clause five' as enabling a secret decision and warned of a 'digital gulag' with 'no warrant, no trial, no automatic judicial review.' He noted: 'An order made under subsection one or two may include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or some or all of its contents by any person.' Civil society groups warned that 'Bill c 26 grants the government sweeping new powers ... intrude on the private lives of Canadians' and urged committee fixes. He urged Conservatives to repair the bill.

Canada will be a police state by Christmas if parliament passes bills c two, c eight, and c nine in their current form. C two is the Strong Borders Act. It should be called the Strong Surveillance Act. It empowers Canada Post to open letter mail without a warrant, it criminalizes the use of cash in amounts greater than 10,000, and it empowers a vast army of government officials, not just police, to conduct warrantless searches of the computers and cell phones of Canadians. It is a massive invasion of privacy. It's extremely dangerous. There have been warnings that the Online Harms Act, which prior to the last election was known as bill c 63, might be reintroduced. If brought back and passed into law, you're gonna see the Canadian Human Rights Commission with massive new powers to prosecute Canadians over offensive noncriminal speech with penalties up to $50,000. You're gonna see a digital safety commission with a vast army of bureaucrats to enforce federal regulations that are passed in respect of of the Internet and Internet contents. And you're gonna see Canadians punished preemptively based because their neighbor fears that they might commit a hate speech crime in future, the Online Harms Act would authorize judges to place Canadians under house arrest, wear an ankle bracelet in respect to curfew, etcetera. Giving the federal government giving federal cabinet ministers power to kick Canadians off the Internet is not necessary for protecting public safety or defending our national security. Our freedoms are fragile. It's imperative that every Canadian contact their member of parliament, whether your MP is liberal, conservative, NDP, block, or green, does not matter. Contact your member of parliament and tell him or her to vote against bills c two, c eight, c nine, and tell them to not bring back the online harms act.

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.