Carney Government Considering Legal Action Against Canadians Over Social Media Posts

We don't need politicians to get in the way.Politicians don't build pipelines.They block pipelines.

the Liberals, 18 % for the PCs and 3 % for the NDP.Careful who you vote for.We also got some polling data coming from Liaison Strategies.Canadians, how proud are you to be Canadian?Very proud 51%, somewhat proud 29%, not very proud 9%, not proud at all 6 % and 5 % unsure.We got Mark Carney advertising his big grocery rebate, which is happening today.

12 million Canadians will get more money straight into their bank accounts and all the rest of Canadians who also have to buy food get nothing.This guy increased inflation by pushing his policies through Justin Trudeau for five years, and now he's further increasing inflation and the cost of living by continuing to push his net zero agenda on us.Moving ahead in our headlines story, coming from BlackLock's reporter, Wood Sue over social media posts.35 page memo did not explain what action federal lawyers would take.Now the question is who deems what is false and misleading information because these liberals lie in the House of Commons all the time.They lie outside of the House of Commons all the time.

So would they be getting sued as well?We know the answer is no, because the rule of law does not apply to the government.This strategy seeks to uphold the integrity of the public trust in government information, said the March 31st memo disclosed yesterday.The new measures will be used to transition from a reactive stance to one that is focused on and early detection.Yeah, what does that mean?That's like minority report kind of stuff.

Oh, you're going to commit a crime.Oh, you're going to post misinformation before it happens.So we're going to arrest you beforehand.That's what it sounds like to me.This will enable the department to proactively address false and misleading information, said the document.Social media platforms were considered channels where misinformation related to the department's mandate is most likely to appear or spread.

And to answer my very own question, the department itself would determine whether social media posts were factually incorrect, misleading or out of context.So they're going to decide what is right and what is wrong.Punitive measures against individuals will be proportionate and subject to senior level approval.The memo acknowledged a risk of further backlash, noting that targeting individuals could generate unwanted publicity.Responding to misinformation can unintentionally amplify it by increasing visible or leading legitimacy to fringe sources.This is funny.

So it goes on to show here how much of this stuff is redacted.I mean, come on.Blacking out entire sections.This is slipping into the realm of minority report style policing and we've already seen this in the UK.Listen to this.So this guy gets stopped here for filming.

I don't know what he's filming.You can see he's got gloves on.The police car is pulled up right next to him.So I'm not sure if he's filming on a motorcycle or if he's walking around.But listen to this.

Breaking no laws.I'm not approaching people.People are approaching me.

All I'm saying is if you carry on, then there will be issues.All right.

With the people?

With the police.

Why?How is that possible when I'mbreaking any laws?

We've explained it many times.We can arrest someone to prevent a breach of the peace.

We can arrest someone to prevent the breach of the peace.Prevent these are future crimes minority report if you haven't seen that movie Tom Cruise definitely go watch that they calculate that people will commit a crime And then they arrest them beforehand obviously these guys don't have technology that can read people's brains and know what's gonna happen They're just anticipating.

This is some draconian stuff They has to be doing something wrong yeah We're arresting you to prevent it from you doing something wrong.We're not going to leave you to carry on whining people off.

What is this, like, a minority report, like, a crime that might happen in the future?You're going to prevent it?

We're going to prevent the breach of peace.Have you heard about that?

Why don't you just tell people to mind their own heffin' business?

Well, I wouldn't recommend it to you, do I?Why?

because you're gonna cause issues we are here to stop anyone attacking anyone or anyone getting angry because your behavior if you carry on with some of these people someone might be with their temper yeah and then this is crazy this guy didn't do any crime i don't know what he's filming they can arrest people for preventing a crime And while we're talking about misinformation and disinformation, which is what they say they would potentially be suing Canadians for for posting on social media, how about the media?Are they going to be sued for putting out misinformation?Will CBC or CTV, if they put out stuff, will they be getting sued?What we're looking at here is the old justice laws website before and after Justin Trudeau got in.This is hard to read.It's kind of blurry.

But what Justin Trudeau did is removed this one here, 181.Now, here's the website today.You can see it's been repealed in 2019 by Justin Trudeau.You can look at previous version this is what it says 181 spreading false news everyone who willfully publishes a statement tale or news that knows is false and that causes or is likelycause injury, mischief to a public interest, is guilty of an indictable offense, and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.You could be put in jail for two years for putting out misinformation like they did.

They hacked up that piece on Pierre Poliev to make him look bad.CTV did back, what was it, two years ago.That could put someone in jail for two years and then Justin Trudeau comes in and repeals it.It's gone.And now they might be suing Canadians for misinformation.If they want to really want to be taken serious, then they need to bring this back.

Of course, they're not going to do that because the media has paid off.Now to lighten things up here, we've got Pierre Pauliev at Stampede.while you have having a good time.Now jumping over to the pipeline situation, I thought Marty broke this down real well.And I believe Marty up north here used to be a senior executive at an oil company or an engineering company work with oil companies.He knows this stuff, and he's breaking down the numbers here.

He says, Congratulations, Alberta, you bought yourself a Trans Mountain like pipeline.If all goes well, it'll be operational by 2035.It only costs 50 billion in taxpayer money, money we don't have now.So he breaks this down.It'll transport one million barrels per day at a fee of $10 per barrel.That means it'll generate $10 million a day in revenue, which is $3 .65 billion a year.

It'll cost $1 billion a year to operate the power, labor, chemicals, maintenance, interest on the borrowed money, carbon tax, et cetera.So the initial payout is $50 billion divided by $2 .65 billion, which is 18 .8 years.Who wants to wait 20 years before you get a return on their investment?I mean, the math is you can't really argue with it.If they get rid of the industrial carbon tax and all this stuff and just let the private sector come in and build at a much cheaper rate, not have allthis red tape and regulations.

As he says here, you know, private sector would have built this 15 years ago for 10 billion.They get their money back in a couple of years and then they're making great money.Well, that's why they do.It's a great business investment.And that's why they're doing it down in America, because Donald Trump makes it very easy for them to build big projects, get rid of the red tape.Unfortunately, that's not the case in Canada.

Meanwhile, we've got guys like David Eby here going on national television saying this.

But I'll be blunt.British Columbia is punching way above our weight in terms of building the kind of Canadian economy that all Canadians want, one less dependent on the United States, one that is building relationships with other countries.If we're seeking to double our international exports, British Columbia facing the Asia -Pacific is the province through which this work is going to happen.BC ports, BC resources.We have approved seven mines in the last 18 months, major expansions or new mines.There is so much happening in this province.

This agreement is about BC projects that are happening, that are rolling.Now, I know Alberta's pipeline has been controversial and of interest, but at the end of the day, they're going to make their announcement at five o 'clock.This agreement with the federal government is a massive generational recognition, finally, of British Columbia, our contribution, and frankly, support that Eastern provinces take for granted.They just expect this level of support from the federal government.We don't get that in BC.This is a recognition of fairness for British Columbia.

The Prime Minister deserves credit for recognizing that BC, with the same kind of support that other provinces see, will punch way above our weight and will help to...

Okay, so this whole punching above our weight, this guy ran a $6 billion surplus from John Horgan into a, what are we up to now, $13 billion deficit?We're not punching above our weight when this guy's running the province into poverty.Now, talking about funding from the government, yes, the Liberals in Ottawa have always favoured Quebec and Ontario, but if you want to talk aboutmajor projects, because that is what he's talking about, BC has, I believe, 40 % of all of the major projects that Carney has announced.So I don't know what he's complaining about regarding major projects.And I live in BC.

This is good for my province.But you got to call a spade a spade.There's no major projects in PEI in Newfoundland.Here's a map right off the government's own website of their major projects.You can see where they are.And you can see British Columbia has a bunch of them.

And what's ridiculous about this, there's thousands of people.money being dumped into these by the government.I mean, Mark Carney is spending $500 million on the Red Cross mine because he's invested in it.That breaks conflict of interest law.Right on the Government of Canada's own website here, Conflicts of Interest Act SC 2006, we see down here, section 4, right here.of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person's private interests.

Section 6 .1 shows no public officeholder shall make a decision or participate in making a decision related to the exercise of an official power, duty, or function if the public officeholder knows or reasonably should know that in making the decision he or she would be in a conflict of interest.Mark Carney can't argue this because sure he'll say oh I put it in a blind trust and I don't know if it's in the blind trust or not.Well, he knows that he put it in a blind trust, so then he reasonably should know that there's a good chance it's still in the blind trust.He's breaking the law.Both of these.And then also section 9 here, under influence, no public office holder shall use his or her position as a public office holder to seek influence, a decision of another person so as to further the public office holder's private interest or the

of the public office holder's relatives, family, or to improperly further another person's private interests.This would directly apply to Francois -Philippe Champagne coming out on June 23rd, announcing this First Nations, seven First Nations signed nuclear reactor deal, because Mark Carney directly profits off this.Would he not be influencing someone to make a decision for him thus benefits him?Regardless of this though, like him making a decision on where to put our money and in him being invested in it, this breaks the law.Meanwhile, we've got David Eby celebrating the tanker bans not going anywhere.So this was just before Daniel Smith announced her route.

I guess Mark Carney told him like, hey, chill out.We're going to work this out and it won't involve the tanker ban.Meanwhile, what's happening on the west coast of North America?These are all the ships.This is a maritime map.All these ships are color coded.

He's complaining about a tanker ban.I mean, there's a tanker right now.This is going to be an LNG ship, I'm guessing.LNG tanker right there.So this one is going over to Asia.So they go in and pick up their LNG here, but they don't want any to go up the hectic straight.

It's like most of these tankers aren't even going to go up there anyways.There's another tanker right here in Kitimat picking up some more LNG.Now, they would argue, well, LNG is not the same as oil.Oil is harder to clean up.But then You got all these American tankers out here.I mean, there's red ships all over.

Sea tanker, tanker, tanker, tanker, tanker, tanker.They all go up the coast here on the outside of the hectic straight up to Alaska.If an oil tanker breaks down right here and oil comes in, well, what's the difference?The only difference is, is they're banning the oil tankers from going in to collect the oil and then come out.But if an American one breaks down here and the hull ruptures and there has to be an oil cleanup, that tanker ban doesn't help us.All they're doing here is making it so Canadians can't get oil out of this tiny section of the ocean.

And really, if you look at the marine cleanups and therecord of that, the numbers of oil spills have plummeted in the last 20 years.You got to remember, these oil companies don't want to lose their product.That's how they make money.It's in their best interest to not lose the oil.And we can see here on this website, canadianenergycenter .

ca, it says, in Labrador.The reward outweighs the risks here.We have knowledge of how to prevent these spills.They haven't happened in decades.The Americans are sending their oil up and down the coast here.I mean, look how many tankers are out here right now.

But we're going to block our own prosperity because an activist like David Eby got into power in British Columbia.Now, on the flip side, we've got Pierre Poliev commenting on this.

Get the government out of the way.Repeal the anti -development laws C -69.Get the government out of the way and allow shipping of oil off the northwest coast of B .C., get the government out of the way, and permit a pipeline immediately upon receiving the path and the proposal from Premier Danielle Smith.By getting out of the way, we can allow builders to build, investors to invest, and workers to work.

We've got to get away from Mark Carney's approach, which is what Ronald Reagan described, is that if a liberal sees something that moves, they tax it.If it keeps moving, They regulate it.And when it stops moving, they subsidize it.Why not just get out of the way?Let it move.We don't need politicians to get in the way.

Politicians don't build pipelines.They block pipelines.And our approach is we want an economy based on low taxes, fast permits and free enterprise, not an economy based on handouts, bailouts and carve outs for the liberal club.We want a meritocracy, not an aristocracy.We want a country where hard work gets you a great life, in a beautiful home, on a safe street, with affordable, delicious food on your table every night.That's something to be excited about.

That's the hope we're fighting for.Thank you very much.and keep the fight alive.

That's interesting.That comment there, politicians don't build pipelines, they block them.That's so on point.Now, to end this episode off on a lighter note, we've got Abby Lewis sharing this video of NDP supporters protesting against data centers in Vancouver.Yeah, OK, guys, we know which members of society are not contributing to Canada's GDP.