reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims that law c 69 guarantees there will not be a one-stop shop because it requires the Canadian government to duplicate regulations. They argue that there should be strong rules enforced once, rather than multiple levels of regulation. The speaker states that it currently takes seventeen years to get a major project approved in Canada. They assert that in the last ten years, Canada has had the worst economic growth and cannot afford a fourth Liberal term.

The speaker believes a dying government is most dangerous in its final months, anticipating unreasonable policies if reelection seems unlikely. These policies would be difficult to undo and could negatively impact the investment community. The speaker is particularly concerned about COP 2029 in Baku, fearing the federal government will grandstand internationally to gain favor with environmental groups, boasting about their actions in Canada. The speaker asserts the federal government lacks constitutional authority over resource management and production pace, which are provincial responsibilities. The speaker suggests taking action now to counter potentially "ridiculous policies" expected to be announced in Baku.

The speaker discusses the limitations of relying solely on wind, solar, and battery power for an industrialized economy. They mention the high cost of battery storage for renewable energy, emphasizing the need for base load power to ensure a reliable energy grid. The speaker stresses the importance of practical solutions over fantasy thinking in addressing energy needs.

It's April 30, and I saw that yesterday the Department of Justice is suing New Jersey over the Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act, which restricts when law enforcement officers, including federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement, can have masks on. This stood out to me because this is exactly what Assemblywoman Dawn Fantasia said was going to happen. Remember this clip? “The love of God and all that is good. Can you differentiate between the fact that we don't make laws that control the federal government? My God, what are we doing here? I'm not a lawyer. I was an English teacher and I comprehend that. My fifth grade middle school English students would understand it. I am coming to you not from a point of ideology because I know in the minority party, we already lost that argument. You guys are way, way out in the ether with that. I'm not even hoping to win the ideology. I'm hoping to win the logical argument to say, why do we keep passing laws that are gonna end up in court, we lose, and the taxpayer gets shafted over and over and over? You cannot vote yes for a law that controls local, county, state. Oh, oops. And federal. No. Federal's gotta come off for this to count. The only reason why you're passing it is to affect federal agents. Hello? Lights on. No one's home. I'm not an attorney. I need a freaking honorary degree after going through this for four hours yesterday saying, what? Don't a roomful of lawyers understand? Ludicrous. Oh my goodness.” What does that mean for us as taxpayers? I did see in New Jersey Spotlight News they reported that New Jersey's attorney general's office had spent over $53,000,000 in one year on outside private lawyers alone, on top of their in-house staff costs. Now for my question that came next, maybe somebody else would have a better source for this, but I just asked Rock about how much something like this would cost as a lawsuit. The initial response in motion practice is somewhere between $50,000 and $150,000 because that's mostly in-house attorneys. The discovery and hearings is $100,000 to $300,000 if it gets contentious. It says the common range for litigation is another $250,000 to $800,000. And then appeals, if New Jersey loses appeals, could range anywhere from $150,000 to $400,000. So that brings us in a range from $300,000 to $1,200,000 over this case. No matter where we stand on the issue, we should know how much it's going to cost us.

Yesterday's premiers meeting concluded with a proposal to pass legislation nationwide, preventing the federal government from directly funding municipalities. This raises questions about how we reached this point. If the legislation is enacted, the federal government may consider dealing with provinces individually instead of municipalities, including initiatives like the National Housing Accelerator Fund. It would be beneficial for provinces to support municipalities in this scenario.

Gas is incredibly volatile, and we don't even produce it locally. The Jones Act and other regulations make it difficult to obtain gas here. It's worth remembering that I blocked two gas pipelines from entering the state.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of the constitution and clarifies that provinces are equal to the federal government, not subordinate. They express the need for collaboration in areas of overlap and mention their efforts to work together. The speaker criticizes the federal government for viewing their legislation as automatically legal and disregarding the court's perspective. They assert their intention to protect their jurisdiction and if necessary, take the federal government to court. The speaker highlights the economic uncertainty caused by these legal battles and vows not to let it happen again. They conclude by stating their determination to turn the tables on the federal government.

We are facing a constitutional crisis. This is a genuine constitutional crisis.

It's unacceptable that payments are being made to New York and other states because it's unconstitutional, biased, and an overreach of authority. Attorneys general across the nation need to uphold the rule of law. No one is above the law, not Elon Musk, treasury officials, or even the President. As attorneys general, we've been preparing for this situation. While this isn't the outcome we desired, we are ready to act.

The discussion focuses on what “Todd” and others want from cold fusion–related units: a device that can be set on a desk and run to generate heat, along with questions about feasibility and distance to that capability. One participant recalls a prior meeting at Google headquarters/grounds where a unit was operating, with photographs taken and “no press” present. They say many top science people were there, but no one else seemed to know anything, and the demonstration may have involved a turn-the-wheel type mechanism by Robert Goddard designed for that event. The point was that investors need to see something directly; simply looking at a static unit does not convey useful information because “you can’t see heat.” The group also notes difficulties with press access during COVID, describing scenarios where press people bypassed procedures but were still not allowed in because others could not get through. The speaker emphasizes they are discussing units available outside the company and want to be “the first to buy a unit.” The conversation then shifts to plans for showcasing technology for an audience: robots walking around, cold fusion devices being used, drones delivering smoothies, and experimenting with an old used EV battery as home storage after hacking it for storage. A participant says they could have sent updates by email or text but came in person to thank them because an event “changed things for the country.” They add that targets should not be put into emails. Regarding the technical and investment direction, the speaker refers to earlier expectations that the system would be “a hybrid boiler” generating electricity, contrasting that with investors wanting electricity “now.” They then cite Jensen Huang of Nvidia, who said the world needs “a thousand times more electricity than we have in the entire world to run AI,” and connect this to scale requirements: they say some data centers run at “one gigawatt of continuous,” while producing “one gigawatt of output from cold fusion requires some scale, a lot of scale, massive scale,” and would not be near that yet. They also note cold fusion would not match the energy density output of a gas turbine, and they describe a belief that it will not aim in that direction initially. Finally, they argue that the plans to power large data centers won’t work for a long time, specifically mentioning the “grid approach.” The speaker says the grid is already stressed and suggests the plans themselves are not harmonious with broader needs, implying that powering all these data centers is not expected to be feasible.

Alberta has had enough of Ottawa trampling over provincial jurisdiction and ignoring the Canadian constitution. The province is tired of meaningless virtue signaling climate policies that impoverish Canadians and threaten energy security, as well as Ottawa's "screw the West, we'll take the rest" mentality. Alberta is also fed up with soft-on-crime policies that allow repeat offenders to roam the streets on bail. The province is also against unsafe supply, open border policies, and censorship laws.

In 2019, the Canadian government removed the crime of spreading false news from the Criminal Code. This raises concerns about trusting a government that takes our money, restricts effective treatments, and fails to investigate the safety of promoted vaccines. Additionally, the parliament we elect allows mainstream media to freely lie without consequences.

It is unacceptable that payments are being made to New York and other states across the nation. This action is unconstitutional and ultra biased, exceeding the intended authority. Attorneys general from various states must uphold the rule of law, as no one, including Elon Musk, treasury officials, or the President, is above it. We, as attorneys general, are prepared to act. This was not the desired outcome.

Gas is incredibly volatile, and the fact that we don't produce it domestically creates challenges. Regulations like the Jones Act further complicate getting gas here. It's worth remembering that I made the decision to halt the construction of two gas pipelines that were intended to enter our state.

The speaker asks about penalties for not paying the carbon tax on home heating and wonders if the federal government can prevent Premier Scott Moe from stopping the collection of these fees. They question whether there will be penalties, fees, or even jail time for non-compliance. The speaker emphasizes that the federal government expects everyone in Canada to obey the law and highlights Canada's reputation for peace, order, and good government.

According to the speaker, Canada has an electric vehicle mandate, implemented without parliamentary debate, requiring all vehicles sold in Canada to be electric by 2035. This was enacted by the environmental minister through changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). The speaker believes this mandate is an example of government overreach, citing challenges posed by Canada's cold climate, the needs of rural Canadians, and power outages that would render electric vehicles unusable. The speaker contrasts this approach with the conservative viewpoint, which emphasizes individual choice and ensuring the infrastructure is in place to support those who choose electric vehicles. The speaker states conservatives prioritize equal opportunity in areas like education, employment, healthcare, and family raising.

No taxation without representation is a fundamental principle in Canada, outlined in Section 53 of the Constitution Act 1867. Only elected representatives in the House of Commons can vote on tax increases, not unelected officials from the CRA. Currently, the CRA is attempting to enforce a capital gains tax hike that has not been legislated. The Canadian Tax Credits Federation is preparing a constitutional challenge against this action. This tax increase could lead to the loss of over 400,000 jobs and remove $1 billion from the Canadian economy. The Federation is committed to opposing this undemocratic tax hike.

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.

EDF produces 80% of the electricity in France, and their winter production is almost sufficient. There is no need to buy electricity from intermediaries or the market. The government's decision to maintain these laws is creating a major energy crisis in France. We could have been one of the few European countries to withstand sanctions, but now we might sink like the others. The solution is to reestablish EDF's monopoly so that everyone buys electricity directly from them. This should have been done years ago, especially when sanctions were imposed on Russia. The government's failure to anticipate the price surge proves their incompetence in managing our interests. They cannot blame Putin; it is their fault.

Alberta is facing potential changes to its Bill of Rights that could undermine 52 years of established freedoms. A proposal to introduce "reasonable limits" raises concerns, as the term is vague and subjective. This could restrict freedoms like speech and assembly, depending on what the government deems reasonable. The Bill of Rights, created in 1972, protects essential rights such as freedom of speech and property ownership. The proposed amendments could weaken these protections, allowing for broad government discretion. While some aspects of the proposal may seem appealing, the fine print could render the document ineffective. It's crucial to maintain a Bill of Rights that safeguards Albertans' freedoms without compromise. Raising public awareness about these changes is essential to protect our rights.

AHS is overreaching and causing harm to a small business. The premier should eliminate the legislation enabling this behavior and hold AHS accountable. Small businesses are at risk, and the government must protect citizens' rights.

An independent Alberta would eliminate federal income tax, GST, excise tax, carbon tax, and equalization payments. Alberta sends over $70 billion annually to Ottawa but receives less than $35 billion back. Independence would allow Alberta to control immigration, addressing infrastructure strains. Alberta would no longer be subject to arbitrary federal regulations. Take-home pay would more than double, and diesel prices would be halved. The speaker is going to Washington to seek US support for Alberta independence, hoping President Trump will support self-determination for Alberta, similar to his stance on Greenland. Independence would secure a US energy supply, free from federal regulations and emission caps. Alberta would no longer be subject to the "idiotic whims" of Ottawa politicians influenced by the World Economic Forum. The current Alberta government recognizes strong support for independence, potentially leading to a referendum this year with clear conditions for remaining in Canada. The goal is a free and independent Alberta.

The speaker claims that law C-69 guarantees there will not be a one-stop shop because it requires the Canadian government to duplicate regulations. They argue that there should be strong rules enforced once, rather than multiple levels of regulation. The speaker states that it currently takes seventeen years to get a major project approved in Canada. They assert that in the last ten years, Canada has had the worst economic growth and cannot afford a fourth Liberal term.

The speaker discusses the impact of the ARENNE, a policy that allows private suppliers to receive a portion of EDF's electricity production. This means that EDF's share of the electricity production becomes smaller, while private suppliers still receive a significant portion. With an increasing number of customers leaving for private suppliers, EDF is left with fewer resources to meet demand. If the law is not changed, EDF will have to buy electricity from the market at a high cost to supply its customers, resulting in significant financial losses. This situation will lead to a loss of customers for private suppliers, who may go bankrupt. EDF will then have to buy back its own electricity from the market at a much higher price, causing substantial financial losses.