vitamin m

[vitamin m @vitaminm8]

@Oscarrjavier95 33 or the floor

[vitamin m @vitaminm8]

@elonmusk SOS Canada 🇵🇫

[vitamin m @vitaminm8]

@BoswellDoug Blackmailed? Bribed? Threatened?

[Melanie In Saskatchewan @saskatchewan_in]

Cross the Floor. End Your Career.

Dear Members of Parliament Allegedly Considering Crossing the Floor...

Recently it was revealed that there are up to another ten MPs thinking about crossing the floor to @MarkJCarney's Liberals.

If floor crossing is so principled, why are you afraid to ask the people who elected you first?

There is a moment before a decision like this where everything slows down. Not publicly. Out there, it’s noise, talking points, strategic leaks, careful denials. “Rumours.” Up to ten of you, apparently. Unconfirmed. Unproven.

And yet, specific enough that it feels less like speculation and more like a test balloon.

But internally, it’s different. Quiet. Focused. Because before you act, you already know what this is, and more importantly, you know how it will be seen.

Strip Away the Language...

You were not elected as a free agent drifting between ideologies. You were elected under a banner, a platform, a set of commitments that voters used to make a decision. They did not vote for you in theory. They voted for you in context.

Remove that context and you are not evolving. You are overriding.

You are taking tens of thousands of votes and retroactively rewriting them without consent. You can call it pragmatism. You can call it stability. You can call it doing what’s necessary.

Your constituents will not use any of those words. They will use one, maybe two…

Betrayal. Traitor.

The Voice You’re Trying Not to Hear...

That hesitation you feel right now is not indecision. It’s recognition. Because somewhere beneath the strategy, beneath the conversations and the pressure, there is a very simple understanding pressing in on you.

This crosses a line.

You can rationalize it. You can bury it under language about national interest. You can tell yourself this is bigger than your riding. But if that were true, you wouldn’t be avoiding the one step that would make it legitimate.

Asking them.

The Question You Refuse to Put to Your Voters...

If this is so defensible, so necessary, so clearly the right move, why won’t you ask your constituents first? Why not resign, sit as an independent, and run again under the banner you now claim reflects your beliefs?

Is it because you already know the answer?
Is it because the people who elected you would not follow you?
Or is it because the idea of hearing “no” is so corrosive to your sense of self that you’d rather rewrite their vote than risk your ego?

If this is leadership, why does it require this much avoidance to function?

What You Think You’re Securing...

You may believe this is a move toward relevance, toward influence, toward a longer career orbiting power. It isn’t.

It is a branding decision.

You will become known, permanently, as the one who crossed. The one who asked for trust and then treated it like something they stepped in and couldn’t scrape off their shoe fast enough. The one who decided that proximity to power mattered more than fidelity to the people who put you there.

That reputation does not fade. It hardens.

It follows you into nomination meetings where hands don’t go up. Into interviews where questions linger a second longer than they should. Into rooms where your name is met with a pause instead of support.

And you’ll feel it.

Not loudly.
Quietly.
Consistently.

And Here Is the Part You’re Ignoring...

Your new allies will never fully trust you. They will welcome you, yes. They will use your vote. They will count you, quote you, parade you as proof of momentum.

But they will always know what you did.

You crossed once.
Which means you can cross again.

So what exactly are you to them? A trusted colleague, or a convenient number that comes with an expiry date?

Because you don’t become indispensable this way. You become temporary.

Not a partner.
A placeholder.

What You Are Actually Participating In...

Let’s remove the last layer of insulation.

This is not about thoughtful realignment. It is not about evolving political identity. This is about manufacturing a majority that voters did not grant, using individual ambition as the mechanism to bypass collective consent.

You are not stabilizing governance.

You are short-circuiting it.

If this is democracy, why does it need to be done around the voters instead of through them?

There Is an Honest Path. You’re Avoiding It...

If you truly believe your position has changed, there is a clean, defensible, democratic way to proceed. Resign. Sit as an independent. Run again under your new banner. Let your constituents decide whether they endorse your shift.

Anything less is not courage.
It is convenience, wearing a borrowed moral argument.

The Ending You Haven’t Considered...

You are likely telling yourself this will settle, that voters will move on, that memory is short and cycles reset. That this becomes a footnote.

It won’t.

Because this is not a policy disagreement. This is a character decision made in full view. And voters do not forget those.

So ask yourself one final question before you take the step you are clearly being encouraged to take. And do it with a semblance os self respect for who you were when you were elected, instead of settling to be "that guy."

If you cannot defend this decision directly to the people who elected you, what exactly are you defending it for?

And when this moment is over, when the noise fades and the next election arrives, do you really believe they will forget what you showed them about who you are?

Or are you betting your entire career that they won’t care enough to remember?

Final Word...

You knew what you were asking for when you ran. You knew what that vote meant, and you accepted it anyway. So don’t stand there now and pretend the rules changed or the stakes shifted. They didn’t. You did.

And if you follow through on this, don’t dress it up as anything noble. It’s not complicated. It’s the same logic as an unfaithful spouse who thinks they’ve found something better and convinces themselves the original commitment no longer matters.

You made a promise, and you’re breaking it because something else caught your eye. That’s not politics. That’s character. And once people see that clearly, they don’t forget it, they don’t forgive it, and they certainly don’t reward it.

Melanie in Saskatchewan

👇🏻
https://t.co/dWBTCcpSA7
👇🏻
https://t.co/ApiK4nzuxp
#cdnpoli #ThinkTwice

[vitamin m @vitaminm8]

@ThrillaRilla369 Heard it from a friend. Who heard if from a friend

[vitamin m @vitaminm8]

@sisuvanhell @TyShewchuk @tsktsktsk99 @TransSplendor A farmer doesn't gather over 300 of their animals in an enclosure to shoot and kill them in front of each other for a few hours. A slaughter house doesn't even do that

[vitamin m @vitaminm8]

@ThrillaRilla369 Still do 😅

[vitamin m @vitaminm8]

@VoteCanadaCom Would the RCMP think this method of killing animals was humane if it was 400 of their K9"s and horses put in a killpen and shot at under bright lights for hours?

[Hello Chicken @badbirb]

So sorry for you had to go through.

I believe that animals are close to the heart of God as children are and they live on in His paradise. Someday you will walk with them again and all the pain of this world will be past.

Today, we all grieve. Tomorrow, we get back up and start the hard work of fixing things and bringing justice.

[Shareaware Canada @ShareawareCdn]

🔥BREAKING: OSTRICHES ARE NOT POULTRY!
Publicly announced - A Tort Claim will be filed for legal accountability for each government official and every Ostrich death of at least 1M for each Misclassification of Ostriches as Poultry.

The CFIA’s directive to cull ostriches under poultry regulations is unlawful, as ostriches are ratites, not poultry, and therefore outside the scope of poultry-specific rules.
Under the Health of Animals Act, the agency’s authority to manage animal diseases must be exercised within its statutory jurisdiction, and misapplying regulations constitutes ultra vires action.

Additionally, sections 444–447 of the Criminal Code of Canada protect animals from unnecessary suffering, and culling ostriches without proper legal justification subjects them to harm without adequate authority. This misclassification represents both a regulatory overreach and a violation of Canadian animal protection laws, requiring immediate reassessment to comply with legal and welfare standards.

#ostrichfarm #CFIA #AvianFlu #WHOA #ExittheWHO

[vitamin m @vitaminm8]

@ShareawareCdn Can't these government agencies just let nature be? Mother Nature will take care of this naturally. It balances itself out in cycles. The government should just step away from anything animal related right now 😡

[Shareaware Canada @ShareawareCdn]

#FarmerProtest2025 Nov 22 - Help move people

[vitamin m @vitaminm8]

@NotaliaMateo My guess would be shooting them wasn't as easy as they thought it would be (as indicated by the number of shots reported to be heard vs the number of ostriches). They were desperate to find other ways in this chaos

[vitamin m @vitaminm8]

@ezralevant I hope they are haunted with visions of the chaos and pain they saw in the ostriches who they tormented for hours.

[vitamin m @vitaminm8]

@chrisdacey That was powerful. I hope at least some of them felt that in their soul

[vitamin m @vitaminm8]

@chrisdacey @RebelNewsOnline Thank you all for being our eyes and ears on the battle front.

[Shaun Rickard @ShaunRickard67]

For those viewing this post on a phone, here is the text from the e-mail:

"Good afternoon, Shaun,

It has taken me some time to write this message, as I am deeply disturbed by what has taken place during the recent ostrich cull.

With over twenty-five years of experience in the slaughterhouse industry and extensive involvement with the CFIA, I must be cautious in how I express my views. However, in all my years in this field and through visits to numerous facilities worldwide, I have never witnessed anything as inhumane or distressing as what occurred in this incident.

The claim that a veterinarian was present raises serious questions. The role of an on-site veterinarian is to ensure that animals are slaughtered correctly and with minimal stress - a standard clearly not met in this case. If a veterinarian was indeed present, it would appear their involvement was limited to confirming death rather than overseeing humane slaughter practices.

A far more appropriate and humane approach would have been as follows: placing a sack over each bird’s head to calm it, allowing a trained handler to gently lead and control the animal by the neck. Once calm, the ostrich could then be moved into a confined area and euthanized quickly and humanely using a captive bolt gun - a single, well-placed shot to the top of the head resulting in an immediate loss of consciousness. Instead, what appears to have occurred were random gunshots under high stress conditions, which would have caused extreme distress and unnecessary suffering.

These animals could and should have been handled professionally, away from the public eye and particularly away from the family and witnesses who were subjected to this traumatic event. That this was not the case reflects a serious lapse in judgment and procedure.

There is no doubt in my mind that these animals endured significant suffering, and it is entirely appropriate that the public express outrage over how this situation was handled.

Kind regards,"

[Vote Canada @VoteCanadaCom]

Legal Duty to Disclose @CFIAPresACIA @InspectionCan @rcmpgrcpolice @DreaHumphrey @Universal_Farms @ezralevant

Under the Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, and the applicable provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, all federal and provincial public bodies are legally obliged to disclose requested records under sections 4(1) and 12(1) of the Acts, subject only to the limited and specific exemptions set out in sections 13–26. Any refusal to disclose must therefore identify, for each redaction or withheld document, the exact statutory subsection relied upon and a factual justification for its application. These Acts impose a positive duty on heads of institutions to assist requesters openly and completely, and failure to comply constitutes a breach of statutory obligation. In the absence of a properly cited and justified exemption, disclosure is mandatory. Please treat this as a formal notice that I will refer any non-compliance or delay to the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada and, if necessary, seek judicial enforcement under section 41 of the Access to Information Act.

To: Access to Information and Privacy Coordinator, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Pursuant to the Access to Information Act, we the public request copies of the following records related to the depopulation of ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farms:

1.All Standard Operating Procedures, protocols, written guidance or checklists used to plan or execute the depopulation operation.

2.All authorizations, memos, legal orders, and decision documents authorizing the depopulation and specifying the method(s) used.

3.Names, job titles, licence numbers and qualifications of all veterinarians, contractors, marksmen, and personnel involved.

4.Full operation timeline and logs (including timestamps) showing start and finish times and monitoring notes for each animal or group.

5.Monitoring and welfare records: time to loss of consciousness, methods used to confirm death, records of animals requiring secondary intervention and the details of those interventions.

https://t.co/ygaIzsQZCY and photographic footage taken during the operation, including metadata and chain of custody.

7.All communications (emails, text messages, instant messages, memos) between CFIA, provincial agencies, contractors and private parties relating to the decision, planning and execution of this depopulation for the entire period.

8.Incident reports, complaints, internal investigations, audit reports or external veterinary assessments pertaining to this operation.

9.Records of disposal of carcasses, laboratory test submissions, and necropsy/pathology reports.

It is time for full transparency and accountability. The public has the right to know who made the decisions, who executed them, and under what authority. No more nameless “experts” or faceless contractors operating in secrecy with public funds and under public mandate. Every individual and agency involved must stand behind their actions in the clear light of day. The public expects complete disclosure of all requested information, unredacted where the law allows, and a clear record of responsibility for this operation. Canada’s system of oversight depends on openness, not silence, and the people involved must now answer for their conduct.