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.

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."

I find it frustrating that you are not providing answers to the American people. Many in Congress feel unsafe with you in charge, making us vulnerable to our adversaries. I believe you should step down, as do my Democrat colleagues. Your 60-day investigation timeline is unacceptable, and I will use my legislative tools to expedite the process.

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.

The speaker questions why the government conducted a public consultation on hate speech laws if they were going to ignore the results. The government responds by stating that public consultations are a way to gather people's thoughts and highlight issues. However, they acknowledge that the majority of the population does not participate in these consultations, so it may not be reflective of public opinion. They also mention that submissions are often organized by campaign groups. The speaker then asks why hold the consultation if the results will be disregarded. The government explains that decisions are made by the elected parliament, not based solely on public consultations or opinion polls. They clarify that consultations are meant to test the temperature and are not just for show.

Our incitement hatred legislation needs to be updated for the social media age. It's not just the platforms that are responsible, but also the individuals who post messages and images online that incite hatred and violence. We need new laws to hold them accountable.

Bill C-63 in the speaker's country may allow individuals to be reported to a magistrate based on someone's fear of a potential hate speech event in the coming year, potentially leading to a year of house arrest with electronic monitoring. A similar bill was recently defeated in Ireland, and people in the UK are allegedly being persecuted for expressing offensive opinions. The speaker asserts that free speech that offends no one is pointless and requires no defense. According to the speaker, the United States has the most thoroughly enshrined and deeply entrenched protections for free speech on Earth, and they believe this right should not be taken for granted.

We demanded specific bills, set deadlines for their consideration, and insisted on sticking to a budget resolution. Our goal was to avoid voting on massive omnibus bills. It's absurd to think that legislating involves rushing through bills that are thousands of pages long, costing trillions of dollars, with only 48 hours to review. This approach undermines the value of each member and insults our constituents. We needed a better way to govern.

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 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 will not entertain Mr. Poliyev's temper tantrums. We were supposed to debate Bill C50, which focuses on sustainable jobs and Canada's future. Canada ranks 3rd in the world for foreign direct investment because we understand the importance of fighting climate change. However, Mr. Poliyev and his conservative members added 198 amendments to an 11-page bill, causing more voting chaos. He wants to bring American-style extreme right-wing politics to Canada. Instead, I suggest they take a break, reflect on their obstructionist politics, and talk to real Canadians. Their actions have been irresponsible.

The speaker states they haven't seen or been briefed on the legislation, but will review it carefully upon its introduction to parliament. If it resembles the first draft of misinformation laws, they will oppose it. The speaker expresses extreme skepticism, noting the first draft was opposed by numerous groups, including the Human Rights Commission and social media companies. The ACMA chair also distanced herself from it. The speaker is concerned that media reports suggest the bill requires social media companies to determine truth and falsehood, and to decide what is censored. They believe this is disturbing, as social media companies have often been wrong. The speaker asserts that Australians' political beliefs should not be censored by foreign social media platforms or other governments.

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.

We will update our laws in the next few weeks to allow the Garde to use evidence and identify those involved in these actions. It is clear that our incitement and hatred legislation is outdated for the social media age. We need this legislation within weeks because it's not just the platforms that have responsibility, but also individuals who post messages and images online that incite hatred and violence. We must be able to use laws to hold them accountable.

Our incitement hatred legislation needs to be updated for the social media age. It's not just the platforms that are responsible, but also the individuals who post messages and images online that incite hatred and violence. We need new laws to go after them individually.

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.

Speaker asserts that large American online platforms have become seas of racism, misogyny, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and hate in all forms, and are used by criminals to harm children. The government promises to act and announces a plan to fight crime, protect Canadians, and build communities that are safe, secure, and strong.

The member for Oshawa raised concerns about outside interference in democracy by the World Economic Forum. They questioned which Canadian cabinet ministers support the WEF's agenda. The discussion was interrupted due to technical issues. Another member criticized spreading disinformation. A member from Lambton Kent Middlesex thanked a colleague for their speech and asked for more details on the legislation.

The prime minister has not firmly supported the bill, citing a difficult balance regarding limits on speech. Despite inquiries, no clear stance has been provided by key ministers, raising concerns about the lack of decision from the Liberals since the bill's introduction a month ago. It's emphasized that inciting hate, such as residential school denialism, is not free speech and poses a threat to survivors who deserve protection from violence. For true reconciliation, the prime minister and relevant ministers must prioritize the safety of survivors and their communities. Urging them to read and support the bill quickly is essential for progress.

Could you define the far right? It's a political ideology, but a clear definition is elusive. You mentioned that only fringe commentators oppose your government's hate speech laws, yet 73% of public consultation replies were negative, and 65% oppose these laws according to the last poll. Isn't it your government that holds the fringe position? Public consultations over the past four years show a minority group in the country is targeted and victimized by hate speech and hate crimes. In Ireland, about 17,000 undocumented migrants, including 3,000 children, now have a pathway to regularization announced by Justice Minister Helen MacEntee. This means these individuals, who contribute to society and the economy, can now work towards citizenship.

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.

The speaker questions why the government conducted a public consultation on hate speech laws if they were going to ignore the results. The government explains that public consultations are done to gather people's thoughts and highlight issues. However, they acknowledge that the majority of people do not participate in these consultations, so it may not reflect public opinion accurately. They also mention that organized campaign groups often submit responses. The speaker asks why hold the consultation if the results are disregarded. The government responds that decisions are made by the elected parliament, not based solely on public consultations or opinion polls. They clarify that consultations are meant to test the temperature and are not just for show.

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.

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.

Christian hate was not even mentioned in the bill. Just last week, a century old Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Edmonton was burned to the ground. The government's press release mentions anti Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia, yet it makes no mention of the rise of hate crimes towards Christians. This bill does not add new protections for worshippers. Instead, it expands state powers by removing the legal safeguards and watering down the definition of hate speech. It even risks criminalizing dissent to what some would call thought crimes. Once such powers are granted to the government, they can be weaponized by any government against its critics. Bill c nine attempts to redefine hatred so vaguely that it risks capturing legitimate debate.