reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A speaker warns that something very serious is happening in Canada related to Alberta’s push for independence. He says rumors from private conversations indicate discussions about how far the federal government will go to prevent Alberta from separating, noting that actions against protesters—bank account freezes, jailing, and emergency powers—have occurred in the past, implying they could be used against a province seeking independence. He adds that, concurrently, there is quiet military movement and exercises increasing in Alberta. Speaker 1 reports that the Canadian Forces base at Suffield, Alberta will see increased activity this summer, with larger base size and infrastructure drawing renewed interest for military use, suggesting a coincidence with Alberta’s referendum timing. He also mentions claims of a foreign security presence from China in Alberta’s oil patch with heavily armed guards, tying this to federal pressure, military movement, and foreign influence in the same region as the independence push. Speaker 2 provides an update on the Stay Free Alberta petition, noting 178,000 signatures collected—enough to trigger a referendum. An Alberta judge paused the signature validation process after three First Nations challenged it as infringing treaty rights. The pause affects what comes after collection, not the collection itself. Petitioners must submit signatures by May 2 for Elections Alberta validation. After failed mediation, the judge ordered a one-month pause while she decides whether to shut down the petition altogether. Courts have already blocked delivery of petition signatures, indicating the process is being slowed or obstructed. The speaker asks what happens if the vote cannot proceed but pressure continues, and mentions a looming court challenge and possible injunction that could restrict canvassing rights. Speaker 3 echoes concern about the campaign, urging supporters to keep collecting signatures as if the future of children and grandchildren depend on it, despite uncertainties about legal obstacles and potential injunctions. He discusses alleged internal communications from a private visit, where Mark Carney was reportedly asked what he would do if Alberta moved toward independence. He recounts an alleged message from a Stelco employee claiming Carney answered that there will be no Alberta independence because he would invoke the Emergencies Act. The claim is presented as an unreported allegation from a private source, not mainstream media. A speaker identifies the incident as a pivotal element that would move beyond politics into enforceable power, implying implications beyond Canada. Speaker 4 notes Alberta’s resource wealth and the strategic interest of the United States, suggesting Alberta could be a valuable partner for energy trade. The discussion touches on the possibility of Alberta voting on independence and the broader geopolitical attention this situation attracts. The overall message emphasizes internal pressures, legal challenges, military and foreign dimensions, and alleged statements about invoking emergency powers in response to Alberta’s independence movement, with ongoing updates and calls for continued public action.

Mister Trudeau's leadership is precarious, with significant dissent within his party. A fifth of Liberal MPs have called for his resignation, and his deputy prime minister has left, along with his housing minister and several female ministers who have expressed dissatisfaction with his treatment and dishonesty. Currently, 80% of Canadians lack confidence in Trudeau. The pressing question is why Jagmeet Singh is delaying action while awaiting his pension, despite the growing unrest in the country.

The speaker is discussing the World Economic Forum (WEF) Agile Nations Charter that the Government of Canada signed in November 2020 and how it relates to digital credentials and other technologies. The speaker notes that the prime minister did not tell Canadians that this would usher in the fourth industrial revolution by changing how policy is made in Canada. After outlining several Agile Nations projects—Coordinating National Standards Body of Agile Nations, digital credentials, preloaded air cargo targeting, consumer connecting products, experimental approaches, anticipatory regulation, digital health software devices—the focus is narrowed to digital credentials and related technologies. The Digital Credentials Project is described as being led by Canada under Agile Nations, aiming to make digital trust and digital ID technologies more seamless across borders. It involves workshops, proofs of concept, and pilots. The speaker asserts that there is a lack of transparency surrounding these initiatives and points to concerns about government abuse of centralized personal data. Canadians are presented with a request for the ability to opt out of privacy-intrusive digital IDs, artificial intelligence, and smart technologies. Examples cited to illustrate potential government overreach include the Emergencies Act usage to freeze protesters’ bank accounts and the ArriveCAN app, which the speaker claims discriminated against seniors who lacked smartphones. The central argument is that digital IDs should not be mandatory given past government actions, and that people generally use existing digital means (bank cards, online payments) without government control over all their data. The concern is that a digital ID could enable government surveillance or social-political control, especially if linked with other data such as driving records, health information, banking data, purchases, or even sensitive attributes like religion or political beliefs. The speaker connects digital IDs to central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), suggesting that a move to digital IDs could enable CBDCs, which could allow governments to track purchases and impose limits or programmable constraints on spending, travel, or item availability. This leads to questions about ethical frameworks, governance, and safeguards. The absence of transparency, public engagement, or legislation is framed as evidence that the prime minister does not prioritize protecting Canadians from digital ID abuse. Further concerns include the lack of comprehensive privacy legislation to regulate both government and private sector use of digital IDs. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) is described as focusing on businesses, with government roles under-regulated. Bill C-27, the Digital Charter Implementation Act, is noted as addressing privacy only in the private sector, with responsibility shifted to businesses. The speaker argues for a national, overarching framework to protect privacy, rather than pushing obligations onto small businesses. The speaker asserts that the Agile Nations Charter demonstrates liberal government intentions and urges ongoing democratic involvement to prevent executive overreach. Pierre Poilievre is highlighted as listening to concerns and promising that digital IDs will never be mandatory. The message concludes with a call to contact federal representatives to support a federal digital charter that protects Canadians from digital ID abuses by government and corporations.

I rise today to present e-petition 47, the highest signed e-petition in Canadian history, with 387,487 signatures. The petitioners have lost confidence in the prime minister and believe that the current government is not acting in the best interest of all citizens. They call upon the House of Commons to hold a vote of non-confidence in a federal election within 45 days.

Good morning, Justin. I want to address your connection with Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum's agenda. It seems you prioritize your own interests over the people of Canada. Many are becoming frustrated with your actions, and it's time we stand up against this. We have the power to reject mandates and decisions imposed on us. I’m out here wanting to live my life peacefully, but I can’t ignore what’s happening. It’s crucial for us to unite, regardless of our backgrounds, and assert that we’ve had enough of being controlled by a select few. I wish everyone a life filled with adventure and happiness, but we need to confront these issues first. God bless you all.

Andrea Chrysanthu speaks on National Child Day, a day meant to honor the rights of Canada's 8,000,000 children. She identifies herself as the chair of the board for Children First Canada. Chrysanthu states that today should be a day of celebration, but instead lingers as a day to sound the alarm. She asserts that across Canada, children are being exploited, extorted, bullied, manipulated, and exposed to dangers that no child should ever face, all because the digital spaces they occupy every day are not designed with their safety in mind. She highlights that action has been waited on for years, and during this time, too many kids have been hurt, too many families shattered, and too many preventable tragedies have occurred. The central message is that Canada's children are in danger, and the clock is ticking. At twelve noon, a thirty- to forty-day plan is launched: the Countdown for Kids, described as a forty day national call for parliament to act because there cannot be another year sacrificing one more child to online harms. The movement is described as being driven by parents who have tragically lost their children to online harms, and by children and youth who experience these issues every day, who have been bravely advocating with the government to ensure children's rights to safety, dignity and protection are upheld. The action requested is for the government to re-table the Online Harms Act and rename it the Online Safety Act before midnight on December 31. Chrysanthu states a call for every member of parliament and every senator across all party lines to treat this as the national emergency that it is. The call to action emphasizes accountability and cross-party consideration to address online harms and safeguard children's rights.

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.

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.

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.

This is a new report from Blacklock’s Reporter about the federal push for a national digital ID. The article states that federal regulators yesterday said they are “working to establish digital credentials for the public without parliamentary go ahead.” MPs have repeatedly rejected the introduction of any national electronic digital ID systems as expensive and risky. The notice, shared by Shared Services Canada, the Federal ID Department, says: “Any new system, and here's the kicker, any new system should allow regulators to revoke credentials,” but it did not elaborate, and it did not explain if enrollment would be mandatory. The presenter emphasizes that, despite legislators’ objections, the Liberal government is “quietly going around talking about building a digital ID” that would permit credential revocation, and there is no explanation about enrollment being mandatory. The speaker frames this as part of the Prime Minister’s hidden agenda, suggesting action happens “through the back door, through these, like, sneaky little contract things.” On the political response, the presenter says the Conservative Party will oppose the move. He cites Liberal Bill C-63, described as their “massive censorship bill,” and says he tabled an opposing bill that would “keep Canadians safe online, but quote expressly prohibit the use of a digital ID,” noting that the principle is written into his bill. He highlights Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s opposition to digital IDs, pointing to Poilievre’s 2022 Twitter posts where he said government attempts to impose digital IDs and other intrusive tracking and surveillance are “an attack on our freedom. I will end them.” The presenter notes Poilievre has continued to tweet about the issue and has a petition linked on his Twitter page, with the message that “common sense conservatives will ban mandatory digital IDs, full stop.” He asserts that conservatives are fighting this and mentions that the story is not being reported by outlets like CBC. The presenter references ongoing efforts to expose government actions beyond what mainstream media covers, alleging that Trudeau’s censorship bills suppress such stories. He urges viewers to share the video and click subscribe, and mentions a link in the video description to a full breakdown about an investigation his colleague and another MP are asking the Competition Bureau to undertake. In closing, the presenter reiterates that Liberal leadership uses back-channel methods to push agendas, and that the Conservative Party, led by Poilievre, will do everything in its power to stop a mandatory digital ID. The report ends by highlighting the headline: “Fed's proposed national digital ID.”

A recent report from Blacklocks reveals that the Canadian government is working on establishing a national digital ID without parliamentary approval, despite MPs previously rejecting such systems due to concerns over cost and risk. The proposal suggests that regulators could revoke credentials, but it remains unclear if enrollment would be mandatory. Critics, including Conservative leader Pierre Poliev, argue this initiative is an infringement on freedom and have vowed to oppose it. Poliev has consistently voiced his opposition to digital IDs and is actively promoting a petition against mandatory enrollment. The Conservative Party is committed to fighting against this initiative, urging the public to stay informed and share this information, as mainstream media coverage is lacking.

The government is using influencers and marketing money to combat the spread of false information online, which poses a threat to democracy. By reaching Canadians where they are, the government aims to share its goals and actions to counter misinformation. The rapid spread of lies can lead to increased skepticism and critical thinking among the public.

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."

The speaker discusses Canada becoming interesting in January and February due to protesters in Ottawa. The job of reporters, according to the speaker, is to go out and ask protesters why they are on the streets, why they are there with their kids, and why there is a bouncy castle in the middle of Ottawa, to discover the story. The speaker claims the Government did not want that and that the Prime Minister decided in advance that the protesters were all the modern excommunications—Nazis, white supremacists, anti-Semites, probably homophobes, misogynists, probably transphobes, etc.—and then he brings in the Emergency Powers Act. The speaker asks what the mainstream media would do at such a time, and asserts they would question it, but claims the Canadian mainstream media did not and instead acted as an Amen Chorus of the government. Several examples are provided. A CBC host described the Freedom Convoy as a feral mob. A Toronto Star columnist said, “sorry for the language, it's a homegrown hate farm that was then jet fueled by an American right funded rat fucking operation.” The speaker notes that CBC claimed two indigenous women who were scared to go outside in Ottawa because of racist violence did not bother to mention that indigenous drummers had led the truckers in an 0 Canada rendition. The National Observer allegedly stated that many black and indigenous freedom convoy supporters were, in fact, duped by the truckers. A Globe and Mail reporter claimed, “My 13 year old son told me to tell protesters I'm not a Jew” out of fear of antisemitic violence, without mentioning that one of the convoy leaders was Jewish. The speaker argues this demonstrably rancid and corrupt behavior is rooted in a system where in Canada, the media is funded by the government. It is stated that in 2018, election year, there was a coincidence with the government funding; the Canadian media allegedly received $595,000,000 over five years, and the Toronto Star estimated it was going to be getting $3,000,000 from the Government in the first half of the year. The government is described as able to tell banks to shut down people’s bank accounts, and able to tell the media what to do, with the media then doing the bidding of the government camp. The speaker concludes that this is not a free society’s media.

The recent events in Canada are shocking. A peaceful movement of truckers, workers, and families protesting for their rights has faced violent repression. Their assets have been frozen, and they have been labeled as Nazis, racists, and terrorists. Many have been arrested on false charges and accused of foreign loyalties, despite their clear love for their country. They are being treated worse than serious criminals. A critical line has been drawn: you either support the peaceful truckers or align with the oppressive forces against them. We stand with the truckers and the Canadian people in their fight for freedom. Thank you.

If enough citizens sign a petition within 60 days, Alberta must hold a referendum on forming its own country. Once independent, Alberta could negotiate joining the U.S. or remain sovereign. One speaker felt Alberta's laws made obtaining 600,000 signatures in 60 days impossible, considering the voting adult population. Another speaker stated the population is 4,200,000, with 750,000 rural voters, suggesting obtaining 500,000 rural signatures is possible, with the remainder from urban centers. One speaker believes Alberta would separate if Mark Carney wins the 2025 election. They also suggest Donald Trump may have suspected this, as Canada doesn't want to join the U.S., but Alberta might, followed by Saskatchewan within a year.

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.

Canada is facing a crime with its carbon emissions, accounting for only 1.5% of the world's total. Despite this, Justin Trudeau plans to impose a carbon tax on everything, including gas, food production, transportation, and heating. This has left Canadians financially strained, while countries like China emit significantly more carbon at 30.9%. Canadians must no longer remain silent and should repost this message to make their voices heard. It is important to note that the carbon tax has proven ineffective.

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.

The video features a confrontation between individuals and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The speakers accuse Trudeau of censoring the internet, gaslighting, and dismissing dissenting voices. They also criticize his handling of veterans and accuse him of being a weak leader. The speakers express their anger and frustration, calling Trudeau a narcissist, weakling, and a Nazi. They demand accountability and express their belief in the power of truth and Jesus Christ. The video ends with a confrontation between the speakers and law enforcement officers.

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 criticizes the Canadian government for allegedly lying to the public and assuming that Canadians are uneducated and easily manipulated. They discuss a recent article by Global News about a mortgage charter proposed by the government. The speaker dismisses the charter as a waste of taxpayer money, claiming that the information it contains is already known. They mock the government's supposed efforts to help Canadians by advocating for contract interest rates during mortgage renewals, stating that this was already established by regulatory bodies. The speaker concludes by calling the government idiots.

Pierre Pauliev announces an emergency in parliament as the Liberals shut down debate on their censorship bill. He says they are censoring debate on the online screening act and that closure is being used to ram the bill through in record time. He asserts that Liberal efforts would give Trudeau’s woke bureaucrats at the CRTC power to control what Canadians see and say online, describing it as creeping totalitarianism referenced by artist Margaret Atwood. Pauliev claims conservatives are the only party fighting back against this censorship bill and that Canadians should have the freedom to decide what they see and say online. He urges listeners to immediately sign his freedom of speech petition, providing a link, and states the goal of giving people back control of their lives to make Canada “the freest country on earth.”

We need to act collectively to remove him from power before the next Canadian federal election in October 2025. CSIS has evidence that he rigged the last two elections, but the RCMP ignores it. We can make a difference by signing the non-confidence petition E 4701, which will be sent to the House of Commons. If enough Canadians sign it, the governor general will review it and it could lead to a non-confidence vote. This is our chance to fight against the corrupt liberal government. Share this video with everyone you know, regardless of where they're from. Let's take action and make a change. Stay free.

Residents of Skeena Bulkley Valley have submitted a petition to the House of Commons, expressing their frustration that their local MP refused to present it. The speaker apologizes for speaking on behalf of the residents and attempts to address the petition, but is interrupted by other members raising points of order. Eventually, the petition is summarized as a concern about the Trudeau government's attempt to ban and seize hunting rifles and shotguns from Canadian citizens. The speaker is reminded to present the essence of the petition without reading it verbatim.