TruthArchive.ai - 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.

To reduce the federal bureaucracy, we must recognize that many regulations are illegitimate. The executive branch has created numerous rules unlawfully, and acknowledging this is key to shrinking its size. This approach could effectively curb the bureaucracy's illegal actions and ultimately save the country. The growth of the federal government is relentless, as institutions inherently aim to protect and expand themselves. It's rare to hear suggestions about significantly reducing its size, but even a modest cut could transform foreign policy, the economy, and culture. There is potential for meaningful change.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.