reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I apologize to everyone here. However, our apology is not accepted by the speaker. They are tired of liberal apologies and believe they hold no value. They mention an ethics violation in February and another one now. They criticize our pride on the first day and claim that Justin Trudeau's actions prove we cannot be nonpartisan. They suggest that if we have any integrity, we should step down.

Speaker 0 accuses the person of being a liar and corrupt, demanding their resignation. Speaker 1 adds that nobody trusts them and many Canadians have suffered due to their lies and corruption. They call for justice for the dead and blame the person for policies that perpetuate war. Speaker 0 labels them a war criminal and demands they be jailed. They accuse the person of having blood on their hands and being immoral. They emphasize the need to stop the corruption, war machine, and lies. Speaker 0 concludes by calling the person a failure, disgrace, and a terror who cannot show their face in public.

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 accuses the government of covering up corruption and obstructing a criminal investigation into the prime minister's conduct. They highlight the prime minister's involvement in the SNC Lavalin scandal and his firing of the attorney general. The speaker criticizes the prime minister's ethical violations and claims that he thwarted a criminal investigation. The meeting is abruptly adjourned, angering the speaker who believes the government is trying to protect the prime minister. They mention the use of cabinet confidence to hide information from the RCMP. The speaker concludes that after 8 years, the prime minister is not worth the cost and promises to speak further on the matter.

The exchange centers on content posted online to the Department of State of Canada and the implications of that content. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about what she posted and asks for a screenshot to verify the online statements. Speaker 1 asserts that she referred to someone as “a Zionist scumbag” and says “he's not my prime minister,” adding, “But really, you're gonna come to my door and you're worried that I'm going to do something.” Speaker 0 notes that there were “threats” and explains the purpose of the visit: to address such threats, which could lead to consequences if continued. Speaker 1 responds that the focus should be on “actual real crime” rather than harassing her over online remarks, and argues that the visit is a waste of tax dollars. Speaker 0 warns that if the behavior continues, there could be an arrest and charge, stating, “if you made some threats that are concerning… you could be arrested and charged.” Speaker 1 demands to see what she allegedly said, asking, “Show me what I said,” and accuses the interaction of harassment and harassment for expressing dissent about the prime minister. The dialogue touches on the nature of the statements. Speaker 1 repeats hostility toward the prime minister and labels the act as “harassing people for what they say online because I don't like our stupid prime minister, and he's a Zionist sunbag,” while Speaker 0 reiterates the right to express opinion but cautions against threats. The conversation escalates with Speaker 1 calling the environment “Communist Canada” and questioning the officers’ pride in their work, challenging, “How do you like working for that?… Do you go back home and look at your family in the mirror and say, this is what you do for a living?” Speaker 0 emphasizes the possibility of documenting the behavior and filing a report if the conduct continues, with a vague reference to “the Trump Blah blah blah blah blah.” Speaker 1 maintains, “I will say whatever the fuck I want about our prime minister. You can't stop my speech. Sorry. Opinion. Yeah. Exactly.” The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 stating, “Okay. Have a nice day. Goodbye now,” and Speaker 0 reiterating the threat assessment: “Be threatening. That's all I'm asking you.”

Speaker 0 accuses Mr. Trudeau of selling out Canada to globalism and working for his globalist partners instead of the country. The speaker questions how much Mr. Trudeau is being paid to betray Canada and suggests that traitors used to be hanged for treason. The speaker mentions that they know what Mr. Trudeau is doing and brings up the topic of oil.

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.

Friday's events were unacceptable and embarrassing to the House and Canadians. The speaker should listen to members and step down.

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 came here to speak to this man, not your security. You have failed me. I've been a labor voter my entire life, and you have not held the government accountable. Thousands have died because you haven't asked the real questions. You have allowed children to wear masks in school despite a lack of evidence supporting it. You have failed this country. Get out of my pub; that man is not allowed in here. Thank you.

Speaker 0 told Speaker 1 they need to read a book because they have no understanding. Speaker 0 then called Speaker 1 an incompetent journalist and said CBC has sunk. Speaker 1 responded that the accusations and shouting were not helpful to the case. Speaker 0 denied shouting and said they were just telling Speaker 1 something as someone doing an interview on the case. Speaker 1 then ended the interview.

Speaker 0 interrupts and is asked to sit down. Speaker 1 tells Speaker 0 to leave the auditorium. Speaker 2 comments on the situation. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 a sick person for turning it into a political issue.

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.

Speaker 0: Apology tour due to online criticism and advertisers leaving. Speaker 1: Bob Ives was interviewed today. Stop. Speaker 2: I don't want advertisers who try to blackmail me with money. Go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: I understand. Bob, if you're here, let me ask you. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. No advertising. Speaker 1: What are your thoughts?

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."

A privileged status exists for farms, and I believe we should take action against them, similar to what Margaret Thatcher did to the miners. You mean close them down? Yes, there’s an industry we could do without. If people are upset enough to protest and spray slurry, then we don’t need small farmers. So, you would use heavy-handed tactics to push them out of business? If the public is that angry, it indicates a need for change in the farming industry. Just to clarify, you were a former labor special adviser, right?

An individual questions a reporter about third-party advertising spending in the election, specifically referencing Rebel News and Ford Canada, both allegedly owned by Ezra Levant. The reporter denies any spending and accuses the individual of lying and not doing their homework. The individual insists that Rebel News Network Limited is registered with Elections Canada under Ezra Levant's name and accuses the reporter of using third-party advertising trucks. The reporter claims the truck is for Canada, a separate entity. Accusations of lying and emotional outbursts are exchanged, with the reporter telling the individual to control their emotions and calling them "tantrum boy." The individual defends their facts and questions the reporter's journalistic integrity.

I'm being called a fascist for wanting to stop the war in Ukraine today. I'm against the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and I'm looking for peace, not war. I didn't come here to be aggressive, but a member of parliament started screaming at me for asking a question, which is all on video. I'm just showing what's happening and exposing Charlie Angus for who he is: a member of parliament who screams and swears at Canadian citizens. He slanders people and wants to revoke citizenship of those he disagrees with, yet he calls me a fascist. This group surrounded and shouted me down for simply asking a question. Who are the real fascists here? I have it all on video.

Speaker 0: Hello Mr. Trudeau, Alexandre from Rebel News. I want to quickly address what happened yesterday. You demonized one of the few media outlets that doesn't receive government funding. You expressed your opinion that we spread misinformation. If that were true, the Supreme Court wouldn't have allowed us to be here today. Will you kindly answer my question as the Prime Minister, or will you continue to demonize my profession? I shared my perspective on your organization last night, and I have nothing more to say. It makes one wonder who you really are. Thank you.

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.

I am here to ask Justin Trudeau basic questions about the carbon tax. Seven premiers oppose the tax hike, including Danielle Smith. The police are behaving strangely, following me and not allowing me to approach the prime minister. We just want answers to questions that Canadians care about. This behavior is outrageous and unnecessary.

Speaker 0 says, "Don't represent us. They betray us, and now we are forcibly evicting them from the people's house. No. No."

Speaker 0 questions Nicole about online posts to the Prime Minister of Canada, asking if she has anything to say about that. Speaker 1 asks for specifics: what post, what she specifically said, and whether there is a screenshot. Speaker 0 cites that she online said something specific and asks for clarification. Speaker 1 replies that she said, "he's a Zionist scumbag, and he's not my prime minister," adding that she believes she is not spoken to properly and questions whether she looks like a threat. Speaker 0 explains that they came to talk because those threats were made. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying that the officers should be busy addressing real crime rather than harassing her over things she says online, and questions whether she seriously looks like a threat. Speaker 0 acknowledges and continues. Speaker 1 accuses the officers of wasting tax dollars and asserts that they should not be harassing her for what she says online because she dislikes the prime minister. Speaker 0 states Nicole should be aware that if such behavior continues, there will be consequences, implying potential arrest for threats. Speaker 1 asks what kind of threats they are referring to and demands to see what she said, noting that she still has not been shown. Speaker 0 attempts to explain what she said and what constitutes threats, warning that if those threats continue, she could be arrested and charged. Speaker 1 complains about being interrupted, asking to show what she said, and then launches into a hostile remark, calling the situation Communist Canada and asking how the officers can take pride in their work. Speaker 0 reiterates that she may have her opinion, but she insists she cannot say what she says. Speaker 1 refuses to discuss further, telling them not to touch her door. Speaker 0 says a report will be filed, stating that the search behavior continues, and mentions Trump in a dismissive way ("the Trump blah blah blah blah blah"). Speaker 1 asserts she will say whatever she wants about the prime minister and that they cannot control her speech, calling it just words. Speaker 0 responds that they are asking for non-threatening language. Speaker 1 concludes by stating they will continue to speak freely and that the conversation is over, wishing them a nice day and goodbye.

Speaker 0 accuses the prime minister of bullying senators and lying about the independence of the senate. Speaker 1 interrupts, asking Speaker 0 to retract a word. Speaker 0 refuses and Speaker 1 asks them to apologize. Speaker 0 again refuses. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 to leave, and they eventually comply.

An individual questions a reporter about third-party advertising spending in the election, specifically by Rebel News and Ford Canada, alleging both are owned by Ezra Levant. The reporter denies any spending and accuses the individual of lying and not doing their homework. The individual insists that Rebel News Network Limited is registered with Elections Canada under Ezra Levant's name and accuses the reporter of being a disgrace to journalism. The reporter counters that the individual is out of control emotionally and that their facts are wrong. The exchange escalates, with accusations of lying and being an embarrassment. The individual defends their ability to do the work of multiple reporters, while the reporter suggests they don't understand what they're looking at.