Sheila Gunn-Reid highlights Charlottetown’s unanimous 10-0 rejection of the federal Assault Cell Firearms Compensation Program, citing advocacy from Tracy Wilson (CCFR) and Conservative pressure. Councillors like Julie McCabe and Terry Bernard opposed it as a misplaced federal burden, while Alberta’s UCP defied enforcement, and Saskatchewan offered safe storage alternatives. Wilson argues the program is unworkable—only two municipalities participated despite promises—and criticizes Liberal appeasement of Quebec, led by figures like Natalie Provost. Meanwhile, Gunn-Reid exposes deleted Freedom Convoy records, revealing federal coordination with Meta, Twitter, Microsoft, and Reddit to suppress posts, amid lawsuits over civil liberties violations. The episode underscores systemic evasion of accountability and the erosion of public trust in government transparency. [Automatically generated summary]
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
I don't know if you saw the live streams from my friend Tracy Wilson from the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights, the CCFR, but on Tuesday, Charlottetown, PEI, City Council, all
all 10 members of the City Council rejected the Liberal plan to use their city as a testing ground for their nationwide rollout of their gun grab.
And I think City Council would have went the other way if not for activists on the ground, the CCFR, and their advocacy, and the presence of the Conservative Party of Canada.
The City Council had only heard from, well, the Liberal gun grabbers, and they hadn't heard the other side of the story.
But when they were presented with all the facts and a little bit of pressure, well, guess what?
Things went our way.
And when I say our way, I mean the way of people who believe in firearms rights and responsible crime policy that doesn't target the law-abiding.
So, of course, I'm having Tracy on today to discuss what happened.
She'll explain it in better detail than I did.
I just finished an interview with her from her hotel room in Charlottetown.
She has to get off to the airport, so the show is a little shorter than normal, but it's a huge win.
It's great news.
So let's take a listen.
Thank you, Your Worship.
Protective and Emergency Services Resolution Number One, moved by Councillor Julie McCabe and seconded by Councillor Kevin Ramsey.
Let it be resolved that the city enters into an agreement with the Federal Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in relation to the Assault Cell Firearms Compensation Program and that the Mayor and the CEO are hereby authorized to execute the standard contracts and agreements to implement this resolution.
So as chair of the Protective and Emergency Services Committee, I do want to note that this item was first brought to our committee for consideration in closed session, again, because of the contractual potential agreements.
However, at that time, the committee felt that the federal gun buyback program warranted a full council discussion.
It was more than what we felt we were willing to do as a committee.
So hence we brought it directly to council without an actual recommendation from our committee.
After reviewing the details personally, I'm not prepared to support what staff's recommending, which is to participate in this program.
For me, it's a federally mandated initiative that falls within the established responsibilities of already existing RCMP.
And taking this on at the municipal level would duplicate existing services.
It would also place additional strain, in my opinion, on our administrative and operational staff at a time when our resources are already limited.
And I think if we have opportunity for extra work, again, to duplicate services doesn't make sense.
I'd rather see them be used in a preventative way.
I have lots of ideas if there's extra staff resource time.
I also believe that our municipality needs to focus on the priorities that clearly fall within our own jurisdictions.
Our municipal police services continue to fulfill its mandate consistently with existing legislation and operational protocols.
They remain committed to safeguarding our community and carry out this responsibility every day with professionalism and dedication.
So for this reason, I'm going to not support the recommendation to participate in this federal program.
Thank you.
Council Deputy Mayor Alana Yanka.
Thank you, Chair.
And I just made a few notes myself.
I just want to be very clear this evening that I will not be supporting the request for the City of Charlottetown to enter into an agreement with the federal government regarding the assault style firearm compensation program.
This is, in my view, a download of federal responsibilities onto municipal government.
And I do not believe Charlottetown taxpayers or municipal staff should be absorbing the administrative, operational, or reputational burden of executing a federal firearms initiative.
Our municipality is already stretched, responding to core local priorities, planning, infrastructure, housing, transit, protective services.
And I firmly believe that we should not be taking on responsibilities that fall squarely within the federal jurisdiction.
So, again, like Council McCabe, I will not be supporting the resolution this evening.
Thank you.
Councillor Terry Bernard, Ward 10.
Ward what?
10.
Oh boy.
Thank you.
Yeah, just a couple of comments.
I know when we had our closed door meeting, and usually when you have a closed door session, the item is discussed, and there's a reason why it's in closed doors, as we've read out in the MTA.
Normally, it would go back to the committee for a recommendation.
And I think Councillor McCabe has stood up and said she didn't want it to go back, but it was in council, and council had a full discussion about it.
So to me, the proper process would be it comes to council for a vote.
I'm glad we had the information shared that we did from the police services.
Definitely not something that I'm interested in.
If they want to take their rifles back to RCMP Barracks and University Avenue, they can so do that.
I don't know why we would get involved as a municipality.
So to me, it's a federal program.
There's no need for the municipality to get involved in it.
If people wanted to volunteer their rifles, they can take it up in University Avenue and do that.
So I don't think we need to involve our police services.
They're busy enough.
They got a lot on their plate.
So I think, like you say, it's a federal program.
We'll keep it with the federal government.
Thank you.
Council McTurk, Ward 2.
Thank you, Your Worship.
I'd also like to just add some comments to the discussion this evening.
So my research indicates that this program has been fraught with controversy across the country.
There appears to be considerable misinformation in the media and on social platforms regarding the program, specifically around terminology defining an assault-style firearm and whether participation is voluntary or mandatory.
To date, I believe there are only two jurisdictions that have participated, Cape Breton and Winnipeg.
This suggests to me that other jurisdictions either do not support the federal legislation, believe the program targets law-abiding owners rather than criminals, and questions the nature of assault-style ban, or are concerned about the financial costs to taxpayers, which is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
So these factors highlight the controversy and complexity surrounding gun control and lawful firearm owners or lawful firearm owners' rights and provincial municipal jurisdictions.
So it's to my understanding, some provinces are not permitting provincially contracted and funded RCMP to administer the program as it's an administrative compensation program rather than a primary policing issue.
The OPP have refused to participate in the collection and confiscation aspects of the program and outside of Cape Breton and Winnipeg.
I have not found any evidence to support other municipal police services participating.
So in my view, our police services face many municipal level crime and safety concerns that require their immediate attention.
Diverting time and resources from these priorities to participate in the program is not an efficient use of municipal resources.
In my view, the program does not constitute a primary policing issue for the city of Charlottetown.
Therefore, I'm not willing to support the program.
I'm not going to support the resolution this evening.
And as many indicated, it is a federal mandate.
And I sure, you know, I believe that it should follow through the federal processes that are occurring at a municipal level.
Thank you.
I had the opportunity yesterday, along with two or three other elected officials, to attend the meeting at the Rods Royalty Inn, which was hosted by the gun owners.
It was a very informative session.
It's unfortunate the rest of council didn't have the opportunity to hear the meeting.
I thought the meeting was very cordial, very respectful, and it certainly brought a lot of information and put the proper context as to what's behind this particular initiative.
An initiative by the federal government that was never discussed in the House of Commons.
No legislation ever passed.
But nonetheless, it was done in order in council.
So we talk about openness and transparency, null and void, null and void.
Such a good program should be able to stand on its own.
But we've heard about municipalities across Canada.
We've heard from provincial governments that have said no to this particular program.
It seems to me that the emphasis put on law-abiding legal gun owners that go through proper training on a consistent basis report to the authorities, such as in this particular case, the RCMP, accounted for, responsible, and consistent in their due diligence to make sure that all firearms are safe, but there doesn't seem to be any emphasis put on illegal gun owners and illegal guns that are on the streets in this country.
That's where, to my mind, the federal government, I think, has missed the boat.
I think the priorities are misplaced.
Instead of targeting or going after legal gun owners, the emphasis should be on illegal gun owners that are being smuggled in across the border in from the United States into Canada, particularly in provinces like Quebec and Ontario, along with drugs.
Some are manufactured in this country, but a lot of it's being smuggled into the country.
So I think that, to my mind, Safety Canada and the minister responsible need to change the priorities.
And let's respect the legal gun owners and the accountability mechanism that they must adhere to.
And let's start going after the real culprits in our society.
Thank you.
Councilor McKay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And thank you, Councillor Tweo.
And, you know, maybe we can write a letter or something.
But for tonight, I'd like to get back to the resolution at hand is whether or not we as the city of Charlottetown want to participate in this program and keep it kind of focused on what we are responsible to do tonight.
Saskatchewan's Gun Ownership Concerns00:14:43
I would like to call the question.
All those in favor of it.
All those against?
10-0.
Joining me now fresh off what I think she's dubbed the showdown in Charlottetown is Tracy Wilson from the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights.
And I cannot believe what she pulled off yesterday, but I also can believe it because if anyone was going to do it, it was going to be Tracy and the CCFR.
So Tracy, explain to us what happened and why Charlottetown is so important.
Well, I don't know if I can live up to all of that.
There was a lot of other people involved.
So I don't want to take all the credit.
Yeah, this was amazing.
We're here in Charlottetown.
I'm just getting ready for a flight back to Ottawa.
And we kind of intervened on a city council meeting where they were going to be voting on a motion to help the liberals, you know, perpetrate this gun grab against their citizens.
And you and I were talking about this.
We were actually here a day early because there was a meeting that was facilitated by Angie McDonald from the Big Boot Gun Club.
So shout out to her.
She does a great job.
And there was a variety of different stakeholders there.
There were some gun shops and different gun owners and, you know, different stakeholders, but there was also law enforcement.
There was RCMP.
There was some city councilors.
Most of them did not join us, but there was a few.
The mayor showed up and this was his idea entirely.
Local law enforcement, the CFO was there.
There was a whole crew of people there.
And so we went in and we did it like a QA because you have to remember the only information that these city councils or town councils receive is what they're getting from Gary Ananda Sangeri.
And he has been a very busy little beaver running around lobbying all these municipalities and their police forces to help him.
And so they thought they were doing this great thing.
They're, excuse me, going to help their constituents get paid for their banned guns.
And this is for public safety.
And they had it all wrong.
So we were able to intervene with a bunch of stats and information and literally flip that vote because we were 100% going to lose that vote.
Not only did we win the vote and the motion was defeated to help the liberals, but it was unanimous.
10 out of 10 city councilors voted against it.
And they even had little speeches and spoke against the actions by the liberal government.
So huge win out here in the little island of PEI.
And, you know, it appears to me that the liberals are going to these, as you said before we started rolling, these economically disadvantaged but liberal voting places, reliably liberal voting places, to try to claim that their gun grab program is a success.
But as you know, it totally isn't because in Cape Breton, they only got 22 firearms turned in at a cost of about $7,000 apiece.
But yet they persist.
In fact, they are planning to launch this in Winnipeg, which is really important that people understand that they can make a difference if they start organizing out and focusing their attention at Winnipeg.
Yeah, absolutely.
So unfortunately, it's already a done deal in Winnipeg.
Like the municipality there has signed a deal with the federal government.
Now, I got some information yesterday that they are sort of, you know, having some buyer's remorse.
I think they thought everybody was going to sign on to this.
Let's go ahead and make our deal.
And you have to remember, there's a great big check that comes with signing these deals.
With Winnipeg, I believe it was a $2 million deal that our taxpayers' dollars are going to these municipalities.
And of course, everybody needs some money for infrastructure, for their police budgets, for everything.
So they're desperate.
And Gary knows this.
And he's, you know, he's very skilled at, you know, also attaching future infrastructure promises and funding to these things.
So yes, we will absolutely be dealing with, excuse me, with Winnipeg.
Sorry, I'm hoarse from cheering last night.
Yeah, and all the cheering.
We will absolutely be going to Winnipeg and doing something there.
I, you know, I don't know that there's any way they can turn back the clock.
But of course, in every other municipality in the country, the important thing is to get out in front of it and find out if your council's talking about it.
And if they are, put some real valid information in front of them because at the end of the day, these people can't be experts on everything.
I mean, they should be worried about picking up your garbage and worrying about roads and things that municipalities do really well.
They shouldn't be worrying about federal liberal gun control attacks on law-abiding citizens.
So they don't have the information they need.
And it's your job as a gun owner.
We don't have the luxury of sitting back and doing nothing.
So, you know, my motto is be everywhere, do everything, just keep fighting.
And we see that it is failing everywhere.
It's a mess.
It can't be done in Alberta.
Again, we were talking about this before we started rolling for a couple of different reasons.
The magical policy resolutions that passed at the UCP AGM, which enforced our right to firearms ownership, but also our right to self-defense.
But also, about a year ago, the feds tried to strike these weird deals with the progressive big city mayors on infrastructure stuff.
And it basically tied infrastructure spending to green targets.
And Calgary tried to do it.
I think Edmonton sort of got a wild hare and thought that they might do it.
And the province stepped in and said, you exist as a municipality only at the pleasure of the province.
And we will dissolve you if you go around us and strike deals with the feds.
So we're lucky here that we're a little bit more insulated from the craziness.
But I wanted to talk to you about, because I haven't talked to you since, the UCP AGM.
What a victory that is for firearms owners to have somebody like Danielle Smith reinforcing our rights.
Well, and not just firearms owners, but all Albertans.
Like imagine a premier who loves her people so much that she would implement things to protect you from violent repeat offenders who want to kick in your door, steal your stuff, hurt you, worse, hurt your kids, do God knows what to you.
Like imagine having some, well, I guess you can imagine, but here in Ontario, I can't imagine having a leader, a premier, who loves me so much that she would stick her neck out like that.
I just, you know, it's the rest of us sitting across Canada are looking at that with envy.
I mean, nobody should be made to be a victim in their castle, right?
So yeah, I just, Alberta understands freedom at a whole different level than the rest of the country for sure.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, I was in the room when she announced that.
And the, I think that was really just the loudest cheer that came out of the crowd.
And there are a lot of cheers in that speech that she gave.
It was a very red meat conservative speech.
She was hitting like all the things that, you know, conservatives care about.
But when she talked about firearms rights and our ability to defend our own lives and the lives of our families inside of our own homes without having to worry about whether or not you're going to jail for it, just enormous, enormous cheers.
I'm announcing today that next week, our UCP government will be introducing a new motion under the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act that will, if passed in the legislature, instruct all provincial entities, including our municipalities and law enforcement agencies, to refuse to enforce or prosecute under the federal gun seizure program.
Now, the Sovereignty Act motion will also make it clear that these agencies will not enforce or prosecute Albertans defending their homes and families from intruders.
This shouldn't even be a controversial topic.
Right.
The fact that it is kind of shows how far weird we've gone as a country.
I mean, your most basic human right is to protect your life and the life of your family and your children.
Like it should not be a controversial issue at all.
I want to talk about what's happening in Saskatchewan because while we were making those announcements in Alberta, Saskatchewan was making announcements of their own.
And I love Saskatchewan's approach to what they're doing.
You know, if the feds think they're going to grab your guns, well, we're going to license the people who are going to grab them.
But also, we're not going to fund the agency that does the licensing, which is kind of cheeky and perfectly Scott Moe.
But they're doing something else.
So tell us about that.
Yeah, that's right.
So, you know, eventually, like, this is the problem with the, well, there's not a problem, but this is the difficulty with the Alberta and Saskatchewan models is not allowing any confiscations there, which is great and protects you in the meantime because we have that protection of the amnesty.
But of course, that's at the pleasure of the liberal government, which is terrifying.
So someday that will either run out or they'll cancel it or whatnot.
And unfortunately, the protections that Alberta and Saskatchewan have in place don't actually protect you from being criminally charged.
So Saskatchewan has done a couple of things.
Number one, they've also indicated to their law enforcement that they would be recommending not to charge gun owners for possession of those firearms.
But if you're worried about that, you know, people with previously restricted firearms like AR-15s, they know you've got them.
They know they're in your house.
And if they come there, you will be charged with possession, illegal possession of a prohibited device, which comes with a very lengthy jail term.
So what Saskatchewan is saying is, look, we don't want you to get arrested for what's in your house that you've owned legally and without issue for decades or generations.
So we'll store them for you.
Safe, temporary, legal storage.
And I know some people are like, wait, does this mean to prevent the feds from stealing my guns, Saskatchewan will?
No, no.
It's temporary, safe storage so that you are not in possession of those firearms.
And that's, it's a stopgap measure.
It can't last forever.
But I think, you know, we've been between the leaked audio, the return strikes from Alberta and Saskatchewan, these municipal councils going this way, we are blowing 50 cal size holes in the side of this gun ban.
And it is eventually, it has to fail.
They promised they would be rolling it out nationwide by the end of the year.
That's in three weeks.
So I don't know about you, but I know a little bit about logistics and picking up about 2 million guns across the country the size of Canada in the next three weeks is not going to happen.
So yeah.
And yet they seem hell-bent on proceeding.
Like they're missing all their targets.
They don't even know how many firearms are out there.
They're musing about adding more firearms to the list.
And yet they just keep talking about how this needs to be done five and a half years out.
So dangerous that we've had them in our possession for five and a half years.
Why are they so hell-bent on doing this?
Well, the minister was pretty clear in that leaked audio that I leaked out on behalf of his constituent that why they're doing this is to appease Quebec.
And, you know, I'm not trying to throw shade at our friends in Quebec.
There's lots of gun owners and hunters and friends over there in Quebec, but it's their government.
And most importantly, you have to remember the last election, they added somebody very important to their cabinet.
And that is Natalie Provost, who, of course, is the leader of the anti-gun lobby.
So it is, she's made it her life work and her mission out of the horror of the tragedy that she survived to attack millions of good people who had nothing to do with it.
I had a guy reach out to me the other day, 23-year-old gun owner, and he said, I don't understand why they're going to take my things for what happened then.
I wasn't even alive yet.
And I'm like, that's, you know, he's right.
Why are millions of people being punished for the crimes of one madman?
So, yeah, I eventually think the prime minister is going to have to take a look at when you've got provinces, all these councils, everybody stacking up against you, and the only person running around lobbying for it and cheering for it is one caucus member.
I think eventually he's going to have to weigh the pros and the cons and just abandon the program entirely.
I think so too.
I think outside of the property rights issue, the scapegoating, the innocent issue, the allocation of resources directed at the innocent versus criminals issue, I think it's just going to become just a price tag issue, really.
Like, I don't, we can't afford this.
The money's not there, although I shouldn't give them ideas because they just seem to always invent money and debt.
But, you know, in a time where they're supposed to be exercising fiscal restraint, we've got a banker at the head of the government.
This is an, it feels like just a fiscal impossibility to pull this thing off, too.
Yeah.
Well, it's fiscally impossible as well as logistically.
I mean, you know, I think about just what's in my own personal home that's been banned and what that looks like physically, and then magnify that by millions, right?
It's just, it is logistically impossible.
And it's really hard when you don't have anyone to help you.
And when you've got the provinces and the municipalities stacking up saying, forget it.
We want nothing to do with your program.
If you want to do it, you figure it out.
I mean, what are they going to do?
Send liberal MPs to knock on our doors?
It's impossible.
It's not going to happen.
Fiscal Impossibility00:02:51
I've said that since the beginning.
And I think the political capital that they were getting out of this, I think they've wrung that sponge dry.
You know, when I'm in Facebook mommy groups and, you know, places that normies hang out and see what the average Canadian who doesn't own guns, what they're saying about this.
Five years ago, they were cheering for it.
And now they are totally against it.
In fact, they're asking where they can get a firearms course.
So, you know, I think the well is dry for the liberals on this.
And it's just a matter of time before the prime minister is going to have to give in and admit the defeat on this and focus his time, resources, and efforts on crime violence, gun smuggling, and repeat violent offenders.
Yeah, you know, I hope you're right.
Although we see before us all the things the liberals are willing to do to appease Quebec, including the restrictions on religious freedom in Bill C9 and then the MOU that isn't really an MOU with regard to Alberta pipelines.
Like they voted down a pipeline motion taken directly from the language of the MOU last night.
Like they'll do anything to not lose a single vote in Quebec.
But my concern is that, and I don't know if it's so much a concern anymore or a fantasy, but this is this sort of stuff really drives a fracture in confederation.
And as much as, you know, there are people like me who are like dream of being free, I'm not sure Prime Minister Mark Carney wants to be the prime minister that oversees the end of confederation.
No, and I mean, he promised to kind of, you know, you think back to when he won the election by a slim margin, but he won nonetheless.
And he talked about how it was time to end the division, you know, kind of these Trudeau era policies and how divided we had become as a country.
And that regardless of whether you voted for him or not, he was going to be a leader for everyone.
And, you know, everyone had a voice at the table so far that hasn't materialized.
But I think he's going to be forced into these situations because they, you know, Trudeau made a lot of hefty promises and pretty much failed on every one of them.
So I don't envy Carney being in the position to try and clean it up.
I just hope that he comes to his senses sooner rather than later before it's too late.
I know that you have to sort of skedaddle very soon, but I want to talk about UConn.
Now, the election of Curry Dixon was very exciting.
It was very exciting because I knew, like, I've been paying attention to Curry Dixon since before the Liberals were in power when he was in the previous premier's cabinet up there.
And when he won, I was like, this is, he's joining Alberta.
Yeah.
This is it.
He's joining Alberta.
Need Support and Help00:06:43
And it makes perfect sense.
You know, it's a very, very strong gun culture up there.
People are subsistence hunters, lots of hunting guides up there.
And so it just seemed unfathomable to me that the liberal government up there, in collusion with the NDP, because they had a coalition government up there, that they were supportive of the liberals' plans to snatch guns from law-abiding Yukoners.
But that block of provinces and now territories supporting, you know, fighting back against the gun grab, it just keeps growing.
Yeah, it just keeps growing.
And I mean, it's the right thing to do.
To think that any government would look at targeting the innocent people within their population while being soft on the violent and the criminals, it's insane to me.
So I know a lot of work went into, you know, making sure that these policies were front and center.
You're right, Curry Dixon is a total champion of freedom.
Our friends, Yukon Strong and Donovan Dewis at CATF, those guys put in a lot of work and they're right there beside him, making sure that they get this right.
And that's really important.
And that's what I mean.
This, you know, citizen politics is, you know, it's vital.
It's important and it works and it's being proven over and over again.
So wherever you are in Canada listening to this, whatever your jurisdiction, you know, you don't have the luxury of just sitting at home and hoping someone else is doing that work for you.
And the people, those of us running around all over the place, you know, trying to spread ourselves out, trying to get everything done, we need your help, right?
So it's really important and really valuable that people are taking interest in politics and standing up for what they think is right.
We have to remind these people.
They're not kings.
You know, there are no kings in this.
These people work for us.
They are servants of the public.
They work for us.
And it's time they're reminded of that.
Yeah.
You know, we can't necessarily vote our way out of this.
We tried.
Not all that long ago.
We have to get involved.
It's not just, look, you guys are doing great work, but the gun lobby is bigger than Tracy and Rod.
Oh, yeah.
It's all of us, right?
Like it's all of us.
We have to show up at these things because it's happening to us.
You guys are the tip of the spear.
You guys have the connections.
But it doesn't happen without the rest of us putting some work into.
Yeah.
And every single win we've had along the way is because of boots on the ground.
You know, it's not me initiating contact with these city councils or with the premiers.
It's people reaching out and saying, hey, these are the things I want.
These are the things that are important to me.
This is not fair, what's going on, and you need to stand up for me.
And a politician's number one priority is always to stay in power.
So they'll sway with whatever looks like it'll keep them in power.
So that's why it's really important for our voices to be way louder.
And the key to winning any of this is overwhelming everything.
Overwhelm every city council meeting where they're talking about it.
Overwhelm AGMs for your provincial governments.
Just show up to these things in huge numbers, organize and overwhelm them and send lots of letters.
I know people think it doesn't work.
It does.
Because the anti-gunners, they've just got the ear of the liberals.
There has never been a single protester at any of this stuff that is in favor of it.
It's only us opposing it.
So we just have to be louder than they are and just keep going.
And that brings me to my next question before I let you go.
How do people get involved in the CCFR?
Because, I mean, frankly, you are like, you're a lobby group, but you're an advocacy group and you are up against people who have the ear of the government every step of the way.
And so, so you need the support, you need the help, you need the war chest, and you need people to sort of wear their advocacy on their sleeves, on their chest, wherever.
Because you want to show the liberals that it's not a small statistical rounding error of people who care about these things.
Yeah.
Well, the number one thing you can do to help us is become a member because what that does is not just it's 40 bucks for an entire year.
It's not the 40 bucks.
It's the ability to add to the size of our group.
And we are by far the biggest group in the country, the biggest stakeholder on this issue.
So the bigger we get, the more influential we are.
But at the same time, we also need help.
We need help at events.
We need help at gun shows.
We need help on letter writing campaigns.
Reach out to us at volunteer at ccfr.ca and help us out.
There's no minimum requirement or any, you know, there's no chains around your neck.
It's whatever you can do, however much or little of your time you can give, we need all the help we can get.
Get involved in your local politics at every single level.
And of course, there's always good deals on the CCFR stores.
You can find us at ccfr.ca.
Some of the best merch in the country.
I wish our merch store was as nice as yours sometimes.
I appreciate that.
Yeah.
Thanks, Tracy.
I'll let you skedaddle.
I know that you've just had a whirlwind trip in Charlottetown and you're flying high on a big victory, but I know you have a flight to catch.
Thank you so much for jumping on the show with me today and just bringing us up to speed and letting us know what we can do to help you fight for us.
Thanks, Sheila.
always appreciate the opportunity the third segment of the show always belongs to you because without you there is no rebel news so
So if I don't stop and ask you what you think about our work, then I mean, we just don't exist.
So I give out my email address right now.
If you've got viewer feedback on the show or anything that I do around here, it's sheila at rebelnews.com.
Put gun show letters in the subject line so I know why you're emailing me and let me have it.
Government Deleting Convoy Records00:07:34
Good, bad, or indifferent.
Now, that's not the only way to get in touch with me.
I also go looking at the comment sections on YouTube or on Rumble.
If you leave comments there, it's a great way for our content to be higher in the algorithm because it's more engaged with and the algorithms like that.
So the more you interact with our work, the more the platforms serve it up in front of other people.
And I wanted to know what you guys were saying about my story the other day on the liberal government admitting that they have been deleting convoy records.
Now, we found this out because we were appealing the redactions in publicly available evidence presented to the Public Order Emergency Commission.
It was a briefing note to security officials, including Brenda Lucky, the RCMP commissioner at the time.
And the reason it piqued my interest is the only thing they left unredacted was their admission that they were censoring Canadians.
So they said unredacted, everything else is black, but unredacted, it said, you know, we've been in contact with Facebook, Meta, Twitter, Microsoft, and I think Reddit of all places to have convoy-related posts pulled down.
And obviously big tech complied because we know during that time, a lot of people had their social media accounts just nuked and they never quite knew why, but I think we all kind of knew why.
And so I was appealing those redactions and they said, we don't even have those records anymore.
Like we don't have what it used to say because the either it'll be too much work or the staff have moved on.
Well, who cares?
They still retain their records.
They are government employees or because it was transitory, as in just like post-it notes, unimportant.
And they really leaned on this transitory excuse.
And I'm like, well, if it was transitory, why did you redact it?
It was obviously important enough to redact, like you considered it sensitive and important.
So now you can't say that it's transitory.
But this is like a catch-all excuse that they use to delete things.
So that's what I caught them doing.
And, you know, crazy that they're doing this while there are lawsuits about the treatment of people during the Freedom Convoy still before the courts.
Like, that's crazy that the government can just delete evidence that is relevant to a court case against the government.
You know, there's active litigation before the courts related to the fact that they arrested people, violated their civil liberties based on the use of the Emergencies Act that another court found to be unconstitutional.
And they admitted it to us, which, I mean, I guess is good for the lawyers involved, for sure.
At least they know that when they go asking for disclosure, they're not going to get it.
And here's why the government is deleting things.
So anyways, I wanted to know what you thought about that now that I've sort of brought you back up to speed.
Jordan Willham 4774 says, wait, what?
The global cabal that's trying to enslave every man, woman, and child is deleting incriminating evidence about themselves?
You don't say.
Yeah, you know what?
I am not naive.
Okay.
I know that governments do this all the time.
This is why if I'm filing for access to information, I often file a couple of different ways.
So I'll hit one ministry and then I'll hit another ministry that I know the two are communicating with.
So if they don't have the documents on one side, I might catch it on the other because frequently I know the documents are there.
Somebody has tipped them off to me or leaked them to me.
And so, but I need the full context of the documents.
I need my own copy and I can sort of catch them.
Like, if I know two ministries are communicating with each other or one ministry is communicating with the Privy Council, I'll hit the Privy Council for a copy of the documents and I'll hit the ministry with a copy of the documents.
And so sometimes one doesn't produce the records, but the other one does.
Because I guess they're lazy, too lazy to cover their tracks.
But yeah, it's just funny to have them admit it.
Like, it's we think that's an interesting development is that they admitted it to us.
It's wild.
Dave Octo says Canadian authorities view themselves as rulers who don't have to listen to citizens.
That is true.
Colin McClellan 1361 says, I believe that the Canadian government under the liberals are at war with the Canadian people, except that the Canadian people aren't aware of that.
It's an interesting take, but it's probably true.
Robert E2N74, the shredders have been running 24-7 in Ottawa since 2015.
Well, E-shredders, right?
Just delete and then clear the inbox.
And, you know, these records are supposed to be preserved at the very least because what happened was historic.
I think the single largest human rights demonstration in modern Canadian history, the use of a law that had never been used before, the fact that the law then was ruled illegal, that people were jailed, incarcerated, their bank accounts frozen, like just for the preservation of history, the archival preservation of this time in Canadian history, those records should have been held on to,
regardless of the act of litigation.
But anyway, Lawrence Halpin, 6611, says, it is very dangerous when you are right and the government is wrong.
Yeah, you'll end up in jail.
Just ask Tamara Leach.
Jack Jones, X3S, the liberal government are allowed to break laws with no repercussions or consequences for their actions or crimes.
Also true.
We'll do one more.
So the government commits an illegal act and nothing happens.
Yeah, exactly.
Those records are to be preserved.
And they are relevant in current court cases.
Imagine if you just deleted evidence.
Would you be held in contempt of court?
At the very least.
But it's the feds.
So they can make up excuses for not retaining records relevant to current court cases.
When the CRA comes for you and tries to audit you, just say your records are transitory.
See how that works out.
But it's not an excuse that regular people can use.
Okay, you guys, that's the show for today.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time in the same place next week.