Shaun Newman Podcast - #476 - Leighton Grey

Episode Date: August 10, 2023

He is a senior partner and lawyer at Grey Wowk Spencer LL. with a Ph.D. in Philosophy & host of the Grey Matter Podcast. Let me know what you think Text me 587-217-8500 Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcast Patreon: www.patreon.com/ShaunNewmanPodcast

This is Matt Osborne. This is Pat King. My name is Martin Armstrong. This is Alex Kraner. This is Franco Tarzano, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Thursday. That's right.

We're back off holidays. I wasn't planning on putting out anything Thursday. But as it happened, I had two back-to-back interviews with things coming up this weekend, and I'm like, well, we've got to get these things out as fast as humanly possible. I want to correct myself on the divorce stats in here. Me and Layton get talking. about you know the growth in divorce and it was me who brought up because I was like this is this is shocking but it seems that I'm I'm talking cumulative over the course

of 20 years and of divorces in Canada not what was done in one year so I want to clarify that because I figure that out with the next interview that I have on Friday and I'm like oh I mean it's bad but it's not as bad as I initially had thought so anyways that's just a correction I want to make right off the hop And then a couple of things. First, Patreon, if you've been listening to me jibber jabber on about Patreon, well, essentially it's my way of, you know, I've got substack, which I've been uneventful on, and I've heard different people on that, but certainly that's the free way to sign up.

And then there's Patreon, which is behind a paywall where we've been doing bonus exclusive content. So every mashup now for four weeks has had different bonus clips coming out. that usually airs on the same day the episode comes out at noon, so then you can hop on there. It does cost you a little bit of a monthly subscription, and that's supporting the podcast, and then you get to see some bonus stuff. So for the mashup, we've done pre-post,

kind of little bonus things. We've done cutting room floor, what didn't make the actual mash-up, and then some funny things. And so we've been having a lot of fun with it. I think some people have been enjoying it on Patreon, and if you're wanting to get involved, go down in the show notes, and you can find out there how to, you know, click on the link in a way you go.

Today's podcast with Layton Gray. Layton did a bonus. It was long. It was probably an extra 40 minutes. We get talking about some of the things in Ottawa that I've been asked about. Layton was asking me about some different things. And if you're wanting to hear more about, you know, some of the things that went on Ottawa for me, certainly I gave more away, I think, in Patreon than I normally would.

So it's definitely a little bit of an insight there on, you know, some of the things that have gone on in my life. Evichipia hopped on the week before, and so did Tom Luongo and Alex Traynor. So, you know, as we go along, more and more of the guests are going to do a little bit of a bonus. Patreon-only exclusive, you know, I don't know, most of it's five, ten minutes. Just a little one question here, one question there from the Patreon listeners. and of course when I have late in Gray in Studio and we kept talking on and on and on it went a little longer than that

but anyways if you're wanting to support the podcast if you're wanting to get bonus exclusive content Patreon is where it's at currently would love to have you folks there and if you don't that's totally cool as well the other thing is August 16th and 17th I'm going to be in Colonna so a guy named Gary

is putting on a couple shows so shout out to Gary he had been hassling me and I mean that in the best possible word, a sense of the word, to come out there. I finally relented, and so I'm going to be out there. And so we're in Sam and Arm 7 p.m. at the Salimar Classic Theater. That's on August 16th. And then August 17th, we're in two different spots. We're in Vernon for 11 a.m. And on the 17th, we're in Colonna for 7 p.m. You got Tamara Leach, you got Ted Coons, you got Bliss Prima, Jamie and Kristen from Invisible Fences, and then a girl from out of Winnipeg,

Turi Johnson. You can find out all the information if you go to freedomnetwork.ca. Tickets are there as well. It's $20 a piece to come to any of the shows. And you're going to have all of us sitting out there. So I hope to see some of you folks out there if you're in the area and, you know, you're like, hey, we should maybe meet up for a coffee, anything like that. I hope I have time.

Just shoot me a text on the phone line. Either way, we're in Kelowna for a couple different shows. Once again, that's a salmon arm on August 6th. Vernon, August 17th, Colonna, August 17th. I would love to see you all there. So without jabbering on for too much longer, I think that's going to be a fun way to spend a week. And once again, I want to put it out to all the listeners.

If you're out that way, please shoot me, or shoot, shoot, hit me up via the text line. I would love to try and get together and have a cup of coffee or whatever it is. It feels like it's going to be a pretty busy week. But in saying that, I think I'll have some time. as well. Either way, let's get on that tail of the tape brought to you by Hancock Petroleum for the past eight years. They've been an industry leader in bulk fuels, lubricants, methadone, chemicals, delivering to your farm commercial oil field locations for more information. Visit them at Hancock, Petroleum.com.C.A. He's a senior partner and lawyer at Greywalk,

Spencer, L.L., with his PhD in philosophy and host of the Grey Matter podcast. I'm talking about Leighton Gray. So buckle up. Here we go. This is Leighton Gray, and you are listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Well, welcome to the Sean Newman podcast today. I'm joined by Leighton Gray. So thanks for making the trip in and making some time. We finally got it working. It only took me.

It took some time, folks. But we finally got to the bottom of restarting the computer, I guess. But hey, here we are. And I said all my good stuff while you were fixing everything. And now I'm actually. Layton's going home. Layton's going home. You know, we were talking about Daniel Smith.

Right. And your thoughts on her. And you want to know something funny? You know, one of the first guests to ever grace the Sean Newman presents stage was? Daniel Smith. In March of 2022. Right after the Freedom Convoy went, we came, we had four people on stage. We had Dr. Eric Payne, lawyer, Andrema Murray, MLAE, Shane Getson, and a Danielle Smith who had not even announced yet.

So people want to give her a rough time on a lot of different things. I got a lot of time for her because I spent a lot of time talking to her between 2021 and that March of 2020 where she showed up. She said that she dealt with the hard conversations. I've seen very few politicians. Don't get me wrong. Do I wish she said more of the things that I want to hear her say? Yeah. But I mean, she's Daniel Smith and she's had to walk a very interesting road to get where she is.

But I mean, I'll digress to what you have to say. Well, first of all, I don't normally quote Elon Musk, but he's, He said something really interesting that is worth considering. He said that if you are part of a political party where you agree with absolutely everything that your leader says, you're part of a cult. You've drunk the Kool-Aid, right? So they're- Leave it to Elon.

He's, yeah, he's, he's, he's, he's not the richest man in the world by accident. He's a thinker. And he's right. You know, we're never going to find a political leader who, who, who, who, who, who, who, who, reflects perfectly everything that we think is right and wrong. And I think that, and I agree with you, one of the things that is refreshing about Danielle is that, you know, she's very honest about what she believes in. And so you actually get to assess what you think of what her values are, what's important

to her, because she lays that out for you. And if you watch her, what she does, the way she moves around, you know, just as an example, she knew that she was going to go around this summer and spend a lot of time at rodeos. And God love her, that is one of the, you know this because you're rural Alberta, that is one of the best ways to get to know the good people of this province, to get into the communities and, you know, just shake hands and kiss babies or, you know, whatever. But just to get to know the people of the province would get connected. Before she went out and did that rodeo circuit, she went and took riding lessons because

she wanted to know how to ride a horse. And to me, that says a lot about the kind of person she is. And I don't know her very well. I had the pleasure of having dinner with her in a small setting in December. And what impressed me the most is that when you sit down with her and she looks you right in the eye and she's got this notebook, you know, she's prepared and she has questions. And she's so sincere. She really, really wants to know. And every answer, when you're talking, she's listening.

and there's no BS about her. I think the other thing I'd say about her is that although she's very competent in the media situation for reasons obvious, she had a very successful show of her own. When she's in a big room, she doesn't impress the way, let's say, Jason Kennedy does. She, you know, she's not yet a master politician.

This is one of the things I like about her. And I expect over time she's going to become more sophisticated in terms of giving speeches and things like that. But I tell you, she won me over just to, when you see her in a small setting, and, you know, she looks, everybody, everybody in the room gets a voice and she listens. So I think we're very, very fortunate to have someone of her character as our leader. No doubt we're fortunate in Alberta to have her, you know, just take away, you know,

every time I try and get away from the COVID conversation, I always come back to it because, I mean, it just doesn't. seem like, you know, I don't know how we move past what happened in the last three years and tell certain things, and you probably have your thoughts on that. But the one thing from a provincial leader's standpoint is she wasn't part of the machine that was doing it to us. And she rose up through the machine in one of the, not the only word that comes as strangest ways, you know, for a young guy staring at politics, not really knowing that that could be possible what she pulled off and everything else. You know, you look at all the other provinces and I don't know, maybe you know

of a different person that wasn't a part of what they did to us, but I don't. And right there, you have Daniel Smith who wasn't even in government at the time. I tell the story lots. You can go back and listen to this. The day Kenny says, it's a pandemic of the unvaccinated, she comes on this show maybe 15 minutes after the press conference, and we sit and have a conversation about it. And she's like, I think that was the worst thing he could have done and talks about. I mean, I literally had her on the show when she was doing that. So, you know, as far as the provinces go, oh, no, we're extremely fortunate. And, you know, I got to be careful that I don't give her too much, you know, grace and different things like that.

Because, I mean, I come back to Sheila Annette Lewis. And now, I don't know the answer to this. You're a lawyer. Maybe you can tell me what is black and white. white and what I'm in the gray zone on. But you know, I started thinking about that. It's like, Sean, you get sick in your own province. You aren't available for transplant. Right? Like, think about that. That's, that's insane. And that's exactly what's happening. Sheila, Annette Lewis. And, you know, I'd ask the premier after she became it, you know, and she kind of, you know,

it's like, well, what can she do? And I go, well, I don't know. What can she do, uh, Layton? Is there Anything a premier can be like, oh, no, she could tomorrow do snap because some people say she can't. Well, yes, but just going back, I'm going to talk about Sheila Lewis and answer your question in a second, but going back a little bit. If you go back and listen to old episodes of Danielle's show, you'll find in there one particular episode where she takes Minister Nixon to task over Section 29 of the Public Health Act. And she essentially asked the question that should be asked is, why do we have a chief medical officer of health? Why does this person have all this power? So to me, another thing that speaks in favor of our premiers, that she was asking the right question like years ago. That's going back to two, two and a half years.

Coming back to Sheila Lewis, I don't know if you if you heard this, but just recently, that problem was fortunately for Sheila. I don't know if she's had the transplant surgery yet, but a very brilliant lawyer, a friend of mine from British Columbia, and Umar Sheik, took on the case and they were actually able to negotiate a compromise with Alberta health services whereby Ms. Lewis is going to be, have her surgery. Sadly, part of that compromise is essentially a gag order, a non-disclosure agreement. and it's being treated as an exception rather than the rule, a rule that would help all Albertans, which is much more important.

But fortunately, through the grace of God, and a lot of people working very hard, and I would include the premier as part of that, trying to solve this problem to save this woman's life. It appears that she at least has the opportunity to have the surgery, which in her case is, you know, has the potential to be a life saving. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that's good.

news. I mean, the bad news is it doesn't help the rest of Albertans. I'm going to make a couple of bold predictions here about our Premier and the Public Health Act. And this ties into the real reason why I'm here, while you're tolerating my presence here, is the Ingham case. I think that this government is going to make significant changes to the Public Health Act. I think that the officer of chief, the position of chief medical officer of health will be abolished. And I think that Alberta Health Services, which was the engine, the instrument through which all of the COVID harms, most of the COVID harm was done in our province, this sort of weaponization of a health services cabal to work as a function as a health gestapo, a prosecutorial engine in this province. I believe it's going to be completely dismantled. and that we'll have a different type of health delivery system in this province.

I think those things are very high on the Premier's list, and I think that those are going to come. How soon they're going to, how soon they're going to come? I don't know. I do know that, or I do expect that two important things needed to happen before her government was prepared to go ahead and make those changes.

One of them has happened. We had the election. Well, yes, sorry, three. You're right. The election, that's a big one. the decision in the Ingram case, which we now have. And at the end of November, Mr. Manning, Preston Manning, is going to deliver his report, his commission report,

his panel report on how the Kenny government did, their report card in terms of how well they handled the COVID-19 pandemic in our province. And as part of that, knowing Mr. Manning, as we do, there will be very, very astute, pointed recommendations about what, needs to happen. Who did a good job? Who did a bad job? Who is responsible? Perhaps even, perhaps even pointing a figure towards public liability or even individual liability. Who knows? I don't know. Mr. Manning's report will state that. But I think when the needle drops on that, that's when we're going to see some significant movement on that file. But you know, she's already

done a lot of things to change the picture in terms of Alberta health. There's already a number of things that she's that she's working on. So I do have confidence that at least for Alberta, Alberta is going to be a leader in this field. The extent to which other provinces follow, who knows? But, but that's, those are my, those are my bold predictions for the day in terms of, you know, the future. I don't believe, I don't think as long as she's our premier that will ever have a, another COVID-19 lockdown type health lockdown situation in Alberta again. I don't believe that. that. When you talk about Manning and his, you know, there's been a lot of criticisms

lamb-based at that. What gives you hope that some of those are not justified or just people wanting to yell at it for, or do you kind of hold your tongue a little bit? I don't know. I think, well, first of all, Alberta is the only provinces that has done anything like that. no other province has set aside $2 million to actually study the behavior of government. And remember, although she's a new premier, I mean, she still has a lot of the people who were part of Kenny's cabinet in her government in high-ranking positions. So first of all, she deserves a lot of credit for that. And secondly, she didn't have to do it.

It's not something that she had to do. But she felt very strongly about it. As you know, during the leadership campaign, this is something that she talked about. She made some very strong public statements. And I think she meant them. Has she put them fully into effect yet? Well, no. But, I mean, she's got a big job to do a huge mess to clean up from the Kenning government.

And the whole situation of the COVID, as you know, is not resolved. And she has a very, very volatile, vicious opposition that in the NDP, which to my mind, are anti-human, you know, they're anti-prosperity, they're anti-freedom, they're anti-everything that most, fortunately, most, at least most rural Albertans think is important. And, you know, she's got the whole media against her, you know, to a large degree, and I don't want to, maybe I shouldn't say this, but, you know, there are some very striking parallels between Danielle and Donald Trump. They both come out of the media world, right? And they're outside of the of the picture and to largely come out of nowhere,

anti-establishment and come out saying a lot of things that, let's face it, the Kenny government was very against. The Kenny government was old school progressive conservative, accent on the progressive. I would say Jason Kenney was not a conservative at all, small sea conservative. I believe he's a liberal.

I think Pierre Polyev is too. I think Danielle Smith is a, I think she is a conservative. And I think, you know, she holds conservative values. But, but, you know, she has a very difficult job. It's very easy to criticize what she's doing. But, you know, compare what she's doing in Alberta to the track records of other premiers in this country.

I mean, my goodness. I mean, would you rather have Mr. Ford? Would you rather have what they have in BC? Not me, not me, brother. The answer is no. No. I mean, a quick and hard fast, no. No.

We don't want to. Let's talk about the case. One of the things, you know, I saw it go all over Twitter, and I started reading it, and I'm like, okay, is this a win? This isn't a win. Is the chartering rights freedoms? Do I just burn it now? Can one person just override it? It's because it was the wrong group of people overriding it.

That's why. So just lay this out for the listener. Sure. As far back as you want to go, but I just want to understand that. This is why law is so bloody confusing late. And I'm like, it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be.

I have to sort of be careful about this, but I'm not going to stick handle around it, especially in front of an old hockey player. But Justice Romain. I'll lead you and I'll put you over the hips. There you go. Anyways. Justice Romaine wrote a confusing decision. In my view, this should have been less than 10 pages.

Everything that she wrote about the charter is completely irrelevant to the decision. as no legally binding effect. This was not a charter case. This is the misunderstanding people have. And the backdrop is, you know, I have to laugh. I hope that this doesn't sound arrogant. But, you know, I'm on Twitter and I get a lot of traffic. And I spent myself and Jeff Rath literally spent, well, gosh, two and a half years with

this case. We're talking, folks, 20,000 pages of just the science, like hundreds. hundreds of studies. If somebody shows me another meta analysis on COVID-19, I think my eyes will fall out. And these people, they put on Twitter and they're saying, this isn't a win. You don't know what you're talking about. Folks, trust me. Nobody knows more about this case than myself and Jeffrath and the lawyers who worked on it.

So I want to explain this. The backdrop is, and I'm going to talk about the charter in a broader context, because that is important. And I know people are worried about that, but just talking about the case here. This was not a charter case. The governor of Alberta lawyers wanted it to be a charter case. They really did. And they made a tactical error, in my opinion. And the reason why they did is because there was a case in British Columbia called Boduin,

where the lawyers there, very competent lawyers who were hired by the Justice Center there, they argued that was the first case that challenged lockdowns. on the basis of the charter. And what happened is the government lawyers in BC were so confident that the lockdown provisions would be saved under Section 1 of the charter that they admitted the charter violations. You said, yeah, we'll give them to you.

Yeah, it violated all that stuff, but it doesn't matter because Section 1 says, you know, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, which means the public good, right? By the way, C.S. Lewis famously wrote, I'm but he said there's no tyranny that's so bad as one that is done by busy bodies who think that they know what's best for you. So what happened in BC, we knew, we saw what happened in BC.

And then if you go over and you'll look at what happened in Manitoba with the gateway decision, which by the way, where they lost again on the charter. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy bodies. That's C.S. Lewis. Well, what a brilliant, what a brilliant writer. I got a lot of time for C.S. Lewis. Anyways.

So I got it mostly correct, not as eloquent as C.S. Lewis, but very few are. So in Manitoua, what happened was there was a case called Gateway. And the lawyers, there again, very competent justice center lawyers made the same arguments again, and lost. And that went up to the Manitoba Court of Appeal. So folks need to understand on Ingram that we were never going to win on the charter issue. It was never going to happen. and even if we did win, it would be overturned on appeal, right? Can we pause it there for just a second?

Bring them back to who is Ingram and the story leading into it, if you wouldn't mind. Okay, so going back to this would be the latter part of 2020. If you remember, you know, the lockdowns in March of 2020, you know, 15 days to slow the spread. And then we had Jason Kennedy come along. He wanted to have Stampede. And so COVID-free forever. He actually said that. And then come September, you know, they said that the case counts went up and then we go back into lockdown mode.

Well, in December of 2020, the justice, this is before I came on, Jeff Rath was involved at this time and another lawyer named James Kitchen, who had the case for the Justice Center. They brought an application for an injunction. An injunction is a type of order, which is rarely granted by a court. But what it says is that it says to a party, you have to stop doing something because if you don't stop, it's going to cause irreparable harm. So what the lawyers were saying at that time, and Jeff Rath was representing a lady named Rebecca Ingram, who was a gym owner, and she was one of the poor people who had their business shutdown.

The Justice Center was representing a wonderful lady named Tori Tanner and some churches. We were fighting for the, to keep churches open and fighting those restrictions. But those cases, that application, they both were brought up together, this injunction application. That injunction application was denied. And it's important to understand this because it sort of set the tone for the whole thing. Our case, the case that we brought to trial, you know, a year and a half later was presented to that justice in the injunction application. She saw all of it. We had an affidavit from the really the world's most renowned.

epidemiologist, Dr. J. Badacharya, one of the three authors of the Grant-Barrington Declaration, if Ron DeSantis is elected president folks, Jay Baudichari is probably going to be the head of the CDC or the NIH. And by the way, that didn't stop Justice Romaine from throwing him under the bus and driving over him three times in her Ingram decision. That's another story. So anyway, we lost the injunction application. Why is that important? It's important because the governor of Alberta did not present a scintilla of evidence they had no expert evidence they had no science they had nothing absolutely nothing all they had was the government saying there is an unprecedented there's this thing called the

pandemic and judge you have to take judicial notice that it exists and that's an existential threat to Alberta and we don't have any evidence of this week we don't know we don't know how big the threat is but it's so important that we're that government needs to suspend the individual rights and freedoms of 4.8 million Albertans and and we knew right away we would this is a big problem from that moment we knew we weren't we weren't going to win on the Charter or at least I wasn't part of the case but when I went back and I read the injunction application that was my thought so when I came on the case I sat down with Jeff Rath we saw

what had happened in BC and we knew we expected that the Alberta government lawyers would want to convince the judge that the Alberta situation is just like BC and Manitoba. And we developed a different strategy. We said, look, we've got it, we're going to make the charter argument, but we're going to, we're going to make our secondary argument. We've got the, with a really important argument under section 29 of the Public Health Act. And that is we've got a really strong argument to say that every single

one of these health orders was illegal because it exceeded the authority of the chief medical officer of health. And we made that our primary argument. The government never, government of lawyers never acknowledged that argument. They completely downplayed it. They ignored it. And that's a big part of the reason why they lost. They focused totally on the charter. In fact, they wanted to file all the evidence in the Manitoba case, the gateway case, in the Alberta case and make that their, you know, their evidence. But people need to understand this that the charter argument in the Ingram case had to be a secondary argument. And here's why. what a charter argument does is it it asks a judge to consider the constitutionality of an otherwise valid law.

So the legislature passes the law. It violates charter freedoms. And the judge has to go and decide firstly whether or not this violated freedoms and secondly, whether it can be saved under section one. Well, if the law is illegal from the get-go, it's redundant. It's superfluous. It's totally unnecessary. In fact, a court is not supposed to consider the constitutionality of an invalid law.

And so that's why we focused on it. We knew we couldn't win on the charter. And so we focused on this other aspect of the case. Because they've got section, just speaking to the charter for one second, so I get this straight. Yeah. The reason you couldn't win on the charter is one, it's got section one. And two, it's already been proven in court that they're not going to, they're not going to, they're not going to override section one.

They're going to go, no, it's demonstrably, what's the word I'm like, demonstrably justified in a freedom. So they're just going to go, there was a pandemic, case closed, throw it out. And the rest of us are going like, are you insane? But the law states that if it, Charter 1 is invoked, the rest don't matter anyways. Right. And this lovely thing I got sitting here is pretty much toilet paper is what you're saying. Well, no, I'm not saying that.

And I'm going to speak to that in a second, but coming back to the, the hearing decision, I'm going to say why it's important. People say, well, is it a win? Is it a loss? I would say it at the start. I'm like, is this a win or a loss? No, it's a win. It's a win.

Justice Romaine goes on for 80 pages about the charter. And I believe that she did that for a couple of reasons. She spends a lot of time trying to rehabilitate the credibility of Dina Hinchaw. In fact, I have the, I have the quote here from paragraph 262 of her decision. I'll just find it here. Oh yes, here it is. This is 282. It says, as indicated previously, Dr. Hintra was a credible witness.

I respectfully disagree. She was calm, patient, well-informed, and extremely professional, even in the face of somewhat abusive cross-examination. The cross-examination did not affect her credibility in any way, any way. While she may have been mistaken with respect to her ability to allow elected officials to make final decisions under the Public Health Act, she testified. that she had, quote, done her best throughout the pandemic to monitor the health of Albertans and provide advice and recommendations to protect their health based on the best

evidence available. I find no reason to doubt this. Well, there are two really important reasons to doubt that. Number one, in the aftermath of our vivisection of Dina Hinshaw under oath, she was fired. And she was fired because she was exposed publicly during that trial. And I'm convinced, in fact, I have an ungood authority that but for the way that she testified in that trial, she would not have been fired. Second piece of evidence, which goes against with what Justice Romaine said, is that the premier of the province who turned out to be responsible for all these health orders, he was fired too. So why would Justice Remain write 80 pages?

Well, I think that she was providing cover for the government because the courts marched. in lockstep. In fact, there was no public place as locked down as the courts in this province. In fact, the whole Ingram case had to be argued, had to, all the evidence was presented via a platform called WebEx, which is like Zoom, Zoom for lawyers. In fact, we applied, we asked the court to permit us to cross-examine Dr. Hinshaw in person and we were denied because of the risk of her getting COVID. And so there's that. And then, you know, the other part of it is, is to provide cover for, you know, for, for, for the government itself. And I believe that, um, that decision did a disservice with the greatest respect to

Justice Romaine, uh, her 80 page dissertation on the charter did a disservice because it confused Albertans. This is a very important case in Alberta history. It was, it was and is the single most, uh, important civil decision, uh, that I can remember in this province because it affected every single. I can't think of another case like it. Albertans deserved a very clear, cogent, concise statement of the law that any person could read and understand.

You're a university graduate and it confused you. What do you think it's like for people who don't have the benefit of that level of education who aren't comfortable reading a university text to be reading all this legal jar? Some of the smartest people I know didn't go to school and they can probably read it more coherently. Hey, listen, there were some, some lawyers, some, some, some, really, really good lawyer. Some colleagues of mine had a had a Twitter event that, uh, that, that what was the title of it, uh, Ingram, win, lose or draw. They didn't know.

Well, they didn't know partly because they didn't bother to ask me, which is strange because I mean, they all have my phone number. It's not like I'm at this point. I'm not an obscure Alberta lawyer, uh, but, but, you know, she could have written a very clear, concise decisions. It just said these laws are legal. And you know, this is why it's a win. And, uh, it's important to note that the first news outlet, can you guess who the first news outlet was to report on Ingram? Just guess. Western Standard. Nope.

True North. Nope. I thought you would get it right away. The CBC did. I was going to say it. The CBC had a press release out, I think, in under an hour. And this is in the evening. Why would CBC be first, right?

They wanted to get their narrative out there. And what was their narrative? All they talked about was charter, charter. charter charter they almost ignored the fact the essential part of the case and this is why Ingram is a win think of this leave the charter aside what if the headline was um government government of Alberta illegally locked down locks down Albertans for two years that's a pretty solid headline isn't it yeah yeah guess what that headline's true that is actually what happened every single one of those health

orders was illegal. And all the ones that were made up until September of 21. And by the way, all of the vaccine orders by implication were also illegal, even though they were not found to be specifically illegal into this decision, because they followed the same illegal process. And we know that to be true. Okay. Dina Hinshaw gave when, when they started to in the aftermath of the freedom convoy, God bless those people because we'd still be. locked down if we didn't have that. She actually gave a PowerPoint presentation to the premier and cabinet where they were given a multiple choice. It was rip off the band-aid, right, or let a rip, keep them locked down status quo or graduated removal. Well, we all know

what they did. But that was in the aftermath of all the vaccine passports and all that stuff. So we know that the same illegal process that was declared illegal in the Ingram decision also applies to all the subsequent health orders. These were the most important laws existing in the province of Alberta at that time. They destroyed businesses. They closed churches. They imprisoned pastors. Grace Life Church was locked down and barricaded. It turned into a police barracks for months. We had kids out of school on and on and on all the subsequent economic harms that we're dealing with right now because of lockdowns all caused by these health orders. How could it possibly not be a win to expose that this government that locked down 4.8 million Albertans for two years

did it illegally? How is that not a win? And by the way, if that's not a win, all these other lawyers who are out there saying it's not a win, show me what you've won because there aren't any other cases like it thus far in Canada. And it saddens me to say that. I wish we were winning all over the place. And I wish that this was a much bigger win. I wish that we had one on the charter too, but we didn't. It's still a win. It's a foothold. And I believe this is why it's a win. In fact, I'll qualify it. This, the Ingram case might mean nothing, but it's going to mean something if something else happens that we talked about earlier. If the government of Alberta Dina, if, sorry, not Dino, Hanjo, Daniel Smith and her government, if they take up the baton,

And if they see this as an opportunity to make the necessary changes in the law to protect Albertans from this type of health tyranny, this type of government overreach, if they do that, that will make the Ingram case one of the most, if not the most important civil case in the history of our province, if they do that, because they will be given essentially a mandate from the courts, right, saying, look, this is the importance of it. And I said this on an interview that I did for a news outlet in Lethbridge, Bridge City News, which is affiliated with the Miracle Channel, which are there people, they're good enough to produce and distribute my podcast.

And Gray Matter. And I said, I said this. I said, this is why it's important. Because the court said to the Alberta government, okay, if you pass laws that grant you, extraordinary powers. And I understand, they use the democratic process to create a health dictator. Deena Henshaw was the most powerful person in the history of Alberta. What the court in Ingram said, and they said it reluctantly, they didn't want to say it, but they said, look, if you're going to pass these laws, okay, and you exceed even that authority, in other words,

if you have all the power in the world and you still exceed that authority, and it comes before us, we're going to tell you that you exceed your authority. Okay. And you're going to have to deal with that. And what we will strike down. We will strike down the law. We will declare the law invalid. If you don't follow your own laws, okay?

The court said, look, we're going to tell you that you didn't follow your own laws. That's really, really important, especially, especially when you think of the context of the rule of law, right? For so long, and I know you hear this a lot in your show, Sean, from guests and people who right in and who follow you and the many who follow you, they feel like, oh my gosh, these, these government guys, they can just do whatever they want. It's a free for all. Well, the rule of law is about, the law applies to everybody. No one, no one's above the law and everybody's equal before the law. Well, what this case says to the government is, you know what, you're not above the law. And that's the important thing about this. And it's really the only decision that I

know of, really only court decision in the COVID era that says that. And, and that's why I think That's the significance of it. Is it a huge charter case? No, but it's still very important for the reasons I've said. So when you talk about getting a foothold because of the decision there, because of the process, right? It's not saying, oh, you violated charter rights and freedoms. What it's saying is you went above and beyond with the process is for creating the rules of, et cetera, et cetera. Not just the process.

They exceeded their authority. They broke the law. I'll put it to you another way. Sure. Let's what is what does a court do in a charter analysis? A court looks at a law Determines whether or not there's a charter violation and then it determines whether or not the charter violation was so serious That they should rule that law of no force and effect

Well, how is that different from what the court did here? The court did this very same thing they said these laws are of no force and effect They just did it for different reason they said government you've exceeded your authority Well, that's exactly what the get what the what the government government is doing with these charter violations, right? And I can tell you right now, I don't think the lawyers at the government of Alberta are very happy about this decision. I don't think that they were shooting off, you know, water cannons and stuff, you know, when they got this decision. I think that they were very unhappy. I know that they're viewing this as a loss. And by the way, the other proof is they're

liable for a substantial cost award. We're going to be going back to the court and asking the court to award costs against the government of Alberta. And that's a sure sign. that you won. But I hope that clarifies it. But this is a confusing, you know, this is, this is a confusing area. I know it troubles a lot of people. Well, you, your opinion on it gives me, you know, there was a lot of days there where I just, I'm like, man, this, this, you know, and are we out of any woodworks folks? No, it feels like we're, we're in the middle of, you know, I think I've written down here, a tweet you'd had, the war has just begun. The next battle front is litigation. And, and then you go on to talk about launching two national class actions against government of Canada.

I'm not the only one, by the way. There's lots of other cases that are coming up. That's the other residual effect. Anytime lawyers see this, you know, lawyers, they're not only smart, they're opportunistic. And they see a case they go home. They see blood in the water. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

And who's to say that the process that was identified in Alberta wasn't happening everywhere else? We know what happened in the United States. We know what Trump did with Anthony Fauci. operation warp speed, right? That was the biggest, that cost Donald Trump the 2020 election. Explain. Well, when you, if you go back to, to 20, early part of 2020, if you remember what the news reports were, Fox News was saying Donald Trump is going to storm to a record win. So popular. Economy's booming. The whole time that the Trump was present, they had no, no military conflicts with, with, with anybody. Everything is just going great.

The only people are unhappy, obviously, the Democrats. The Democrats. Along comes COVID. And Donald Trump makes a fatal mistake. He turns to Anthony Fauci and he hands over the reins of power to Anthony Fauci. He does with Anthony Fauci basically the same thing, only in actuality. What the Alberta government did with Dini Hinshaw, although what Kenny did with Dini Hinshaw, although what Kenny did with Dini Hinshaw is a bit of a facade.

saw it. They didn't actually hand over their power. Yeah, yeah. She gave recommendations. She was a straw. She was a straw person. She was a dupe, a very well-paid dupe. She did it willingly, and I don't know she knew what she was going on, but she's a pretty smart lady. But with Anthony Fauci, Trump didn't know how to handle this. He handed things over to Fauci. And he made Fauci the health that masks on, mask off. And, you know, that was the beginning of the end for him. And what happened was they, they nailed him with that. And they said, look, the way that you mishandled COVID, we can't trust you. And of course, you know, now we have, you know, the Americans have a venal house plant, otherwise known as Joe Biden and the Biden

crime family running their, you know, their, you know, their country, or at least ostensibly running their country. But I think that was that that was the fatal mistake that cost Donald Trump the election was what he did, what he did there. But, you know, in the situation, you know, talking about Ingram, I don't, this is why I don't think that we have to worry about the government doing this again. So this is another thing that's criticized to say, well, they just, all you're saying is that they didn't follow the process properly and they could just follow the process properly. Next time. Yeah. But the thing is, they would never do that. Okay. First of all, and leaving aside Daniel Smith for a moment, even Jason Kenney, didn't handle, actually hand over the reins of power to Dinah Hinshaw. That was a, that was a, that was a, that was a, that was a, sleight of hand. That was a shell game, right? Jason Kenny, he's a masterful politician and he's very slick and he did a, he did quite a job of convincing people. So is the opportunity then, like, tell me if I'm wrong here, okay, what I hear is this glimmer of hope that the government

has an opportunity to put in barricades to ever let this happen again through law. I don't think it's a glimmer. I think it's a beacon. But once again, that's what I hear. You call it. You could say it's the North Star and they've just, boom, and we just fall in and bing on. But like the criticism is going to be, well, they got to go through it now and they got to put a thing, they've got to make sure this never happens again. And the cynic guy is going to go, wow, all they're going to do is follow it. And now we're getting, you know, they're just smashing our treter rights and freedoms a different way by following the process, right and everything.

But what you're saying is, is they have a real opportunity here. Daniel Smith and her government has a real opportunity to barricade this off, to get rid of a bunch of things to make sure it never happens. again. Yes. And the Ingram case gives them the foothold to use your, your words of like, listen, this process was illegal. And not only was it, I don't know if illegal is the right word. It is illegal. Okay. It's illegal. And not only is illegal, but we never want anyone to be ever, ever to do this ever again. And so we're going to put in these stop gaps or whatever it is to make sure this never happens again. Yes. And, you know, that's a great segue to the bigger

conversation, the one that we had before we came on camera about the charter. I was saying to Layton before we got on, I'm like, I got back from holidays, folks, and my Charter of Rights and Freedoms fell off the wall. Hey, is that not a sign of, hey, Layton, you want to talk about the Charter of Raidon's freedom? Maybe how it fell from, anyways. First of all, when you said off the wall, I thought of just a brilliant Michael Jackson album that I had, I don't know if you know.

I want to rock with you. No, anyway, hopefully that is not symbolic. The Charter of Rights falling off of your wall. But, you know, talking about the charter, there is... Well, I said it was no more than toilet paper. And you said, no, that's not right. No. So let's talk about it because you gave me a whole spiel before we started on Pierre Trudeau and the long game and everything.

And I'm like, okay, well, but now you're going to tell me no, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a good thing. Well, let's get to the bottom of this. Yes. Well, it depends on how you look at it. But before we get into the charter proper, it's important for people to understand. I'm going to preface it by saying this. We are a representative democracy. In Canada, we elect officials that go to the legislature and they go there with our will,

trusted with our will, to make laws that express the will, our values, our beliefs. Sure. right that's that's what that's what canada was designed to do in our legislatures and our parliaments the charter was designed to take that lawmaking power away from our elected people and give it to judges and so coming back to my point about daniel smith there is a way of a very simple way if the if if if governments have the will to do it and that's key because a lot of governments, they like this. Because if the judges are upholding government law and reinforcing the law,

if they are an arm, let's say, of what's called the administrative state, governments tend to like that because then they never have to concern, they have to be concerned about going to court and having a situation like Ingram happen where the laws get struck down. However, if you have a principal leader, if you have a government that is actually governing for the good of the people, They have the legislative power to pass laws that restrict the discretion of judges, the ability of judges to exercise discretion over the laws that are passed. We have a really serious problem in this country right now of what I call judicial activism.

I wrote a piece on this and people can read it in the Frontier Center for Public Policy, which by the way is a great website. You should check it out. It's free. Judicial activism means that judges whose traditional role is to interpret law, okay, And to apply the law, start making law. And that's what the charter was designed to do. And oh, my goodness, have judges ever done it in this country? And it's a big part of the mess that we're in right now.

It's not the only part of it, but it's a big part of the mess. So when you go back to 1982, listen, a lot of people think that our charter freedoms, that our fundamental human rights and our civil liberties didn't exist before the charter. That's nonsense. In fact, there's a wonderful film that was just made. I'm going to put in a plug here, if you don't mind, called the Essential Church.

You can't see it in Canada because theaters can't carry it, but it's on tour. We're going to get to the bottom of that. Yeah. I'm going to put it, here in Lloyd, we're going to make sure we put in a call to the main cinema and just and see if that's, if that's, please do.

Because that makes zero sense to me. It is, it is being shown in churches. Sure. My own church is going to show it. There's churches in Evanton, Calgary. What day is it showing in Cold Lake? It's showing Cold Lake on. the 13th of August at 1.30 p.m.

at the Coal Lake Community Church. Do people need to buy tickets? No. Just show up. What happens to, how big a church is it? I think we've got room for about 300 people. What happens if I, what happens if a thousand people show up?

You know what? We'll probably put on more, just put on more shows, right? We'll make it work. Make it work. God will find a way. But this movie called the Essential Church, it stars two of these wonderful pastors

who had the honor, the privilege, the blessing to represent, just really, really godly principal men, Timothy Stevens of Fairview Baptist Church in Calgary, and of course, James Coates of Grace Life Church in Stony Plain. They're the stars of this film. But this film talks about what happened in Canada and also what happened in Scotland and also what happened in California. So just by analogy, so folks understand, in Scotland, they have the common law

rights that every Canadian had and still should have prior to the charter. Scotland does not have a bill of rights, does not have a charter. But they have the small C constitutional rights, human rights, that every British person has. And when the churches were shut down in Scotland, lawyers went to court, open up the churches, and they won. They won because there's no Section 1 there. There's no public policy override. You violate that fundamental, that first right, that fundamental freedom of religion, and you're done.

Governments can't do it. So ironically, in Scotland, where they have, quote, unquote, the only rights that we had prior to the charter. One out on a charter basis. In California, what happened was because they don't have a Section 1 on their Bill of Rights, they have the First Amendment. It was struck down. You know, I feel like sometimes when I'm. sitting across from somebody, I feel like such a complete nutter moron. So right now I'm having this moment of like, I've read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a thousand times, okay?

But for folks not, I'm sure you all know this, but here we go. Okay. This is what's, what's screwing everything over. Or is it the section one. Yes, the way it's being applied. Okay. So Section 1 reads, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedom set out on it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Right, right. So as soon as there's something that affects the entire country, they go, listen, we have a problem that's going to affect all of society.

The rest of it doesn't matter anymore. That's why church, done. That's why freedom to move in and out of the country, done. That's why on and on and on it goes. Done. You've got to do what's good for the whole. Mm-hmm. Well, let's go back to the beginnings of the charter. So the charter is the life's work. It was the mission of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who's Justin Trudeau's father, as most everybody knows.

Is he? Sorry. I don't know. I think I'm not sure what's on the first certificate. He's Team Barbie, by the way, you know? Yes, I saw that. I saw a really great joke about he and his wife, but I shouldn't repeat it here because it's in bad taste. Sure.

Sure. Yep. But the... Now you're going to have all the listeners going on. What's a bad job? Anyways. Something about, you know, they both want to move on to a new relationship. I'll let your listeners finish that thought.

But unlike Justin Trudeau, Pierre Elliott Trudeau actually was a very driven, very well-educated and very principled person. He was also, frankly, an avowed communist. and essentially an atheist. And he became prime minister in 1968 in a country that was a very Christian country, more so even than the United States was at the time. In fact, you know, when I was growing up in the 70s, I went to school,

I was telling you that we used to say the Lord's Prayer before school every day, and we had an oath of allegiance to the Queen, and we sang the national anthem. And, you know, we were a pretty good country back then. No one complained about it. we had actually a law in this country called the Lord's Day Act. And it was a federal statute that prevented any business from being open on on Sunday. So you couldn't get your groceries or anything like that on a Sunday.

It was, you know, the Lord's Day, you know, the Sabbath was kept. And for a long time, for decades, you know, there were certain secular political interests in the country tried very hard to have that law set aside in parliament and they were always unsuccessful. Well, just to give you an idea of the effect of the charter in terms of changing the way society work, one of the first challenges that came after the charter was there was a drugstore, I believe it was in Calgary called Big M Drug Mart, challenged the Lord's Day Act. And would you believe the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Lord's Day Act on the basis that it violated freedom of religion? And that was the death now and that was the beginning of

the secularization of Canadian society, which is one of the major things that the charter was designed to do. There's three main things that I believe Pierre Elliott Trudeau designed the charter to do. The first one is, was to fundamentally change Canadian values from a Christian, you know, British monarchical system. Of course, he was French-Canadian and the whole British system was anathema to him. And the chart, and the chartering, and the chartering, has gone a long way towards achieving that. Secondly, what he wanted to do was he wanted to transfer power, political power, lawmaking power, from the legislatures to courts.

And that has been largely achieved. You could look at what the Supreme Court account has done in a series of decisions and you could arguably, we can make a very strong case for saying that the courts are doing more to influence our laws and this and and our society then then then our legislatures are for example the indigenous rights have been created essentially by courts all you know the the you know gay marriage was it was was created by courts legalization of abortion LGBTQ rights all all creations of courts not of legislatures legislatures the federal government is just is just picking up the

threads and and and and they're in their passing laws but it's it's the the Supreme Court of Canada and the courts that have really refashioned you know society and this is a very very crucial thing because the third thing that the Pierre Elliott Trudeau wanted to do is he wanted to concentrate political power in the federal government and specifically in the prime minister's office and we obviously we can see we can see now how that has occurred Canada is a huge country. We all know this.

A second largest land mass. And one of the wonderful things about Canada as you travel around is that there's many different languages and cultures and foods and customs. And they're all great. They're different. But Canada is the people who frame Canada, you know, people like Sir Johnny and McDonald's and we're knocking over his statues now, but actually they were very wise people. They understood this about Canada.

And so that's why Canada was made a federal, a collection of federal, of Sovereign states united under a federation. The federal government has certain powers that are set out in the Constitution. The province has certain powers that are set out in the Constitution. But what's happened under the charter and in this era of what I call judicial activism is more and more power is being taken away from provinces and is being taken up and usurped by the federal government. So now we have, for example, federal government intruding in areas of health, which is a private jurisdiction.

Which is a no-no. Yes. They're interfering in education. Let's talk about energy. And the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over environment. They have a ministry of environment that they've actually expanded that. And they've convinced the Supreme Court of Canada that in the cause of environmental protection, that the federal government has control over natural resources. That's why we lost the carbon tax challenge.

So to a large degree, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has done a very great disservice to Canadians. We're actually less free than we are, than we were prior to the charter. Our country is more, is more divided because we have a stronger central government. And, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, you know, we're, we're, we're, we're, we're, less democratic because we're not being governed and this is something that Brian Peckford talks about a lot we're not being governed by our legislatures anymore you know our legislatures are being told what to do by by the courts and that that's a very

dangerous thing in terms of you know the future of our country where it can change and this is where that sounds very dark and bad okay I'm like he walked in and going I'm very hopeful there's two I'm very hopeful of the future. There's two hopes. There's two hopes for the future. Sure. And these are really important. Actually, I'm going to give you three. Firstly, all of this law surrounding the charter is judge made law. Okay. It's still under our constitution, under section 91 and 92 of the constitution, it's the legislatures that get to make law. And so our federal and provincial legislatures have the power to restrict the authority of judge. legislatively. They can do that. And if they do that, we're going to be a better and freer and more democratic country. But it's got to happen. You've got to be principled about it. That's number one. If, if, okay, with number one, what is somehow or why immediately you'd be like, this is what I would do to restrict judges? Is it simple or is this complicated? No. Would be the simple way of one.

Well, for example, there is a, there's a, we, we could, uh, you could change, uh, provincial human rights law. And you could add to provincial human rights law, for example, which protects, for example, gender identity and things like that. You could add to that, you know, the sovereignty of the human body. So people have the right to medical choice. You could, you could, you could do, you could, for example, protect access to financial services, which I think should be a basic human right to protect against this, you know, the threat of digital. bank accounts and what the CBDC will eventually, I'm sure, do with, you know, you don't have the right political views and out the door you go and you're frozen and everything else.

Yeah. There's a statute in Alberta called the Interpretation Act. And there's also the Alberta rules of court, but over which the provincial legislature has the authority to tell judges how they are to interpret statute, including the charter. So we could under Alberta law actually pass up, make changes to the Interpretation Act that would tell judges in Alberta how to apply Section 1 and they'd have to follow it.

It hasn't been done because no legislatures had the courage to do it, but it can be done. And I think it needs to be done. But so that, there is hope, you know, in that respect. So if you were trying to tell, you know, if you had Layton's way and you created a thing saying, listen, this is how, should be interpreted. How would you have it interpreted so that they never walk all over the rest of the document then? You could simply tell them that the Alberta Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

is not to be interpreted in a way that would override a protected right or freedom. So that no matter what happens in the world, they couldn't override freedom of religion, freedom to move around, etc., etc. The charter is the, is the supreme law of the land, right? Okay, it says reasonable limits in a free and democratic society. The province, the legislature can define what a reasonable limit is in a free and democratic society. They haven't done it because they left it up to judges. That was a mistake. That was a mistake.

You think I was, you know, I'm done with believing that nothing was, you know, that nobody's that calculation. Like, obviously people are that calculated. I think we've learned that enough on this. Pierre Trudeau was that calculating. By putting in reasonable limits. It's so vague, you know, it's like, oh, it kind of sounds like, oh, yeah, reasonable limits. That makes sense. But the truth of matter is, we just lived it.

Yes. And this is the danger end. And the secularization of society has been a huge problem, as I've said. You know, Canada, when the charter came along, Canada had a long history. If you look at Section 34 of the charter, it says, this is not actually part of the charter. This is just sort of Pierre Elliott Trudeau signing off, but it tells you a lot about what,

what is mindset. He says, we must now, we must now establish the basic principles, the basic values and beliefs, which hold us together as Canadians. Well, listen, that was in 1982,

okay? We already had a long history in Canada, even pre-Confederation. Okay, a long history. Canada had basic principles. We already had basic values and beliefs. This charter should have recognized, should have recognized what those beliefs were and upheld them. But he says now.

So the charter, and this is what the Supreme Court of Canada has done. This, the, and our courts no longer look at the old British common law history that we had before. That should should still be there. that's still there in Scotland. Because this supersedes it all anyways. That's the way they interpret the charter. But guess what a legislature can do? They can actually tell judges that they are not to interpret the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

in a way that abrogates from or disregards pre-existing common law rights and freedoms. But you see what Pierre Trudeau had in mind was a renovation, a reboot of Canada, like a new software. That's what he was thinking. That was his vision. It was a bad vision. It was a terrible vision for Canada. And we're living it out right now. All the division that we're going through, all the problems that we have in Canada are because, in my respectful view, because of this document. Now, I believe that Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the worst things that happened to Canadians in terms of erosion of democratic freedoms, in terms of creating artificial, you know, divisions within society that we're living through right now.

And, and in terms of secularizing society, you know, where we don't have, we no longer have, seem to have a shared vision. And so the charter has, we're living through a period now, now it's been 41 years. And the charter has already gone through sort of different eras. Now that sounds really bad. When I come back to the sort of the, you guys, Yeah, so here's the thing. You know, I think it was Copernicus who wrote that the only constant in the universe has changed. So right now, right now is a dark era in the history of the charter.

But eras don't last, okay? Hairstiles don't last, right? Hockey, you know, we have eras in hockey. We have ears in art and everything. And we're going through a particular era right now. It's not going to last. The left is having its day. Every dog has its day.

And my dad used to tell me that. father. And but but this is not going to last. Okay. This two shall pass and my what I what I think is going to happen and again there are a couple of things that are going to have to happen in our country. They're both very key. I've talked about one one in terms of looking at the tops of the trees and that is we have to have better more principled governance in this country. We talked about Daniel Smith. She seems to be on the right track. Premier Moe shows you know some good signs that, you know, the gentleman who is in Prince Edward Island, I think, is showing some, you know, some great courage in terms of what he's doing there. There's a lot of hope

with Pierre Pahlaviour, that he's going to bring some common sense and some good government back to Canada if and when the liberals are defeated. So there's some signs of hope there, okay? And those governments are going to have to make changes that are going to restrict the power of judges in this province. We cannot have a free and democratic society in which appointed, politically appointed judges are the most powerful people in our country. And they are right now. So, so that, that's one part of it. But the other part is even more key. And you and I have talked about this before. It's not the tops of the trees where this is going to change. It's down at the roots. And, you know, Preston Manning has a great book called Do Something. And it's 365 things that you can do

in a day of the year to get involved in your community. Hey, if you ask people, I was at a TBA. I spoke at a Take Back Alberta event with Dave Parker. He's a very interesting guy. If you haven't had him on your show, you should. He's been on the show. Yeah. He's sat in that chair alongside Drew Weatherhead.

Yeah. Not that long ago. Yes. And both are great guys. I had the pleasure of meeting them. But Dave gets up in front of people. He says, hey, how many of you don't like what's going on down at your local libraries? All the hands go up.

And he said, next question. How many of you have volunteered to serve on your local libraries? library boards, no hands. That's very telling. And what Preston Manning talks about in his book, he says, when, what's happened in our country over the past, say, 25, 30 years is that people like our parents and our grandparents who used to be very involved and connected in the communities, everything from minor hockey boards to library boards to school board trustees and serving local aldermen or, you know,

town counselors. they were everywhere, okay? They were involved in the community and they were the guardians of the community. They were there to protect the values to make sure that good old fashioned Canadian values were in those institutions. Well, you know, the rest of us, and I include myself in this, we got busy getting educated and going off to university and focusing on our careers and our stuff and our cars and our houses and our RSP's and we stopped paying attention to what was going on our communities.

Universe abhors a vacuum. And when the good people left those local community organizations, the other ones come in. And so when you go after I heard that speech from Dave Parker, I went and looked who was on my local library board. And sure enough, one of the city counselors who's very NDP, very woke, there he is. He's on that, he's on that library board, making sure that those books. You know, those books that we complain about, you know, that, that, that they're there in the library. So little kids can, can read them and be sexualized.

So what we've got to do, the biggest factor in Canada, in our province and throughout Canada, is getting involved. That's where it's going to change. One of the, one of the things that Parker has been great to point out when he's been on here, you know, and I've quoted this a lot, has been, you know, politics is an inspector sport. You've got to get involved. Too many of us just think we get to sit by and the good people do what's right and whatever else. But we all know, like, when you're in a small community, you're in any community.

You want things to get done. There's a group of people that probably are looking for a break. But the truth of the matter is, it's like, yeah, it's wired in you. Get going and get involved. Otherwise, you're going to be irritated, you know, and you're going to watch things going on. You know, what the heck is going on? And, you know, my grandparents were those type of people. they were involved in absolutely everything.

And, you know, it's probably we inherited what they helped build, right? And there was a whole group of them. And Canada is an interesting place, right? When you think about it, you know, this area, 1905, it's not, it's not like it's this cre, it's not like it's 500 years ago Lloyd Minster was settled. It isn't, you know, the farmstead 1911, you know, and you go like, that's basically a lifetime and change. Yeah.

And since things, and so, like, we're still living on the shoulders of, of, uh, generations past, so to speak. And we just got to find her way and realize, and more important people are, are starting to realize that. But the next part is, is like, it's funny, but like, whether you're talking a library board, you're talking, um, uh, you know, a reeve or council or all these different things, there's statesmanship to it. And people, you know, like, we had, um, we had, uh, why am I, uh, why am I, uh, why am

for getting Tanner's last name. That's terrible. Nade. Thank you. Brilliant guy. And, man, that's terrible. O'Brien, I think it was O'Brien. We had two of them up on stage.

The meeting before you were on stage. And they got talking about statesmanship, right? Like, you think you can, you're so mad about the books, you know, what material that kids are being brought. And you want to go in and you want to yell. And you just want to get it out of your chat. And you're like, you got to create the relationship first. You got to find out maybe the teacher's on board with exactly what you're saying.

Like, yeah, I agree. But we haven't seen it here. You can just start to, like, get involved and start these, right? Or maybe you find out that, no, all the teachers, oh, man, this is interesting. Right. And, you know, and Peterson talks about it. Peterson and Rogers Place literally said, you know, like, get involved by having a conversation. Right.

Control your emotions. Just find out. You just care. I know enough teachers. They want more, they actually want more parent involvement, not less. Everybody's so busy chasing after everything. I mean, you know it as well as anyone. You've got kids.

Yes. And everyone just says I'm walking into it right now. I'm just getting ready to be at that stage where, you know, I interviewed an old farmer and his wife. And I asked him about the 70s. He's got five kids. He said, don't ask me about the 70s. I don't remember a thing. Like, I mean, we're so busy with, you know, five kids under 10 running this way, that way, every way, sports, blah, blah, blah, blah, volunteer.

It's just, it's a blur. I don't know. And so, you know, I draw it all the way back. When you come to any of these boards, then there's statesmanship to it. Daniel Smith is fantastic at it. People should take notes from what she did and how she's presented herself. Because in one of the most upheaval times, she found a way to bridge a gap. And everyone's like, ah, she lost seats and everything else.

I'm like, in six months, she saved the UCP from the brink of elimination and the NDP coming back in. Oh, it's a miracle. Right? It's a miracle. And you go in another four years, UCP, in my opinion, maybe I'm wrong. To me, UCP will win back a whole bunch of things because of what she's doing. Right. That's my thought.

So getting involved, I mean, yeah, and I think more and more people are seeing that. It's just, where can I fit in? You know, like, you know, I highly doubt the library boards this glamorous position, except it's needed. Oh, yeah. And school boards, it's needed. You know, that's one of the, the, you know, that's one of the, you know, Things that for kids' sake, you know, it wasn't the people who mastermind bringing people together that brought that idea. It was one of the people in the meeting said, you know, I think we've got a school board position coming open.

We should run for it. That's a good idea. And then they did. And then they became a voice in that school district. And then they got involved. And as they're involved, they get to know about, hey, there's these upcoming dates, you know, you should pay attention. Actually, going to the Lloyd City Council, one of the first things that I noticed, it's like, ah. they are like they got their finger to the pulse of a whole bunch of committees in Lloyd and if you go sit in those meetings then you get to hear about current elections and dates coming up and everything else it's boring as hell I'm not going to sit here and say I don't know Layton you tell me I don't know how many meetings you said like it's just it's just not something that I'm like oh I'm going to the council meeting I'm sure there's people like that right me I'm like no I want to sit across from late and gray I want to have a conversation about it right but you got to get in

You get, you know, it's not a spectator sport. You gotta get involved. You're right, you're so right about statesmanship. And that's where the censorship comes in. Because when, when, you know, Jane Doe or John Doe goes and wants to join that library board, guess what happens? You got to submit a resume and then they start going through looking at your social media and seeing what your values are.

And this happens and they try and can't. And people don't want to stick their necks out. Most people don't, do not want to be in a situation where, you know, they're confronted. and go into battle. Some of us are, you know, are, are, are, are silly. We have some sort of, well, well, there was a, there was a great movie called American sniper where he, he says, you know, why do I do this? Why have something called the protective gene?

And, and it's not, it's, it's, it's almost like a birth defect. Some of us just will run into, or the type of people will, will, will chase the bear away, or will run into a Bernie building. We're not brave. Uh, we're just built different. And, uh, and we gravitate to. towards sports like hockey or, you know, you know, conservative podcasting or, you know, being a litigation lawyer in high profile cases.

But you don't have to be that. You just have to be somebody who's willing to get involved and get engaged, but it's getting harder and harder. Persuasion is really important. This is what the left fears. This is why they want to silence to Jordan Peterson. Because if you listen to someone like Jordan Peterson for a few minutes, what starts to happen is he starts to persuade you.

And that's a talent. You're so right, statesmanship. It's a talent of persuasion, but it requires the other person to listen and it requires an understanding between the people participating in the conversation that there's a risk that someone's going to be offended. And I remember reading something in school.

You might have read this. It was an essay by Jonathan Swift called a modest proposal. And anyone who's read this will never forget it. He was an 18th century. He was famous for writing something called Gulliver's Travels. But anyway, this essay was a modest proposal. And what it did is it actually proposed that they could solve the overpopulation problem, which by the way, folks, they were talking about back in the 18th century by eating children.

But he put it forth in such a way that it made so much economic, so much philosophical, so much social sense. right, but it was an exercise in the way that you can persuasively argue almost any position. There's a classic book, and I'm forgetting its name. It's the art of rhetoric, maybe? Yeah. Oh, yes. Is it art of rhetoric? Yeah, well, there's a lot of really, really great books along that line.

That's one of them, the art of rhetoric. But to me, that one stands out. Am I pronouncing it wrong? It's Aristotle. I thought it was, but I wasn't. Is it rhetoric? Rhetoric. Rhetoric.

rhetoric arose by any other name. I feel like my wife, you know, me and her getting the American in her. She'd be like, it's rhetoric. It's rhetoric. Well, what do I know? I'm just a dumb Alberta. But once again, it's actually sitting in,

I've never, I bought it because it was in the classic, you know, you go to, I don't know, Barnes & Noble or whatever, and they got the classic, it's like $6 books. I'm like, this is amazing. He was a really smart guy for an atheist. And you grab all these books, and one of them is the art of rhetoric. Yeah. And it's funny.

I put it in the book stand because I'm like, I want to get there. Like, you know, these are some of the greatest minds the world's ever seen. And he talks about, you know, rhetoric and speech and different things like that. And, you know, it's one of the things that I love the most about watching a guy like True Weatherhead, who's, you know, five podcasts week. And I forget how many of them he does by himself. If it's, you know, if it's five.

I had the pleasure being on the show was a lot of fun. And I've seen him develop in my mind, right? Like the ability of him working. on the way he thinks and everything else. It's been amazing to just sit back and watch. I can imagine going and listen to myself 500 podcasts ago. I'm sure I've improved a little bit as well when it comes to interviewing and carrying a conversation.

Certainly just hearing different thoughts that really spur on your own brain and be like, hmm, that is, that is, that's interesting. But I come all the way back to this statesmanship. And one of the things that, one of the things that really bothers me, you know, when you talk about censorship, certainly you're pointing out to, you know, you've got to submit an application and they're look at the application and they go, well, he believes in all this. Do we really want that?

Maybe we don't. And I, I go one. That happened to me. I go one, it's, it's partially happened to me. Anyways, I go one step further. I go back to Trudeau and Pierre, not the current one, but certainly the current one we get thrown there too. And I look at it and I go, you know, long term, if we control the media, then we can control the narrative that goes to the population. They start thinking one way and I don't know if it's dumbing down,

but it's like your brain can't get over this hump. Like I keep getting, you know, like even today I find it. there'll be an argument where it's pretty brash like case in point Donald Trump let's go back to Donald Trump and Twitter when they're like he's got to be removed I was in the argument with my brothers at the time and I'm like man this president is saying some wacky tobacco stuff he's just got to come off there that's a Sean thought and what I didn't understand is what that led to if you can remove the most powerful man on the planet roughly in Donald Trump the president at the time You can remove anyone. And what happens is, is they did remove everyone. Everyone who didn't speak the language that Twitter wanted, off they went. And that spread like a plague across all social medias. It was now licensed to be like, you don't speak the way we want you to.

You're done. You're done. You're done. You're done. And it's funny, what I'm trying to tie this too late in, is like, in our country, we've lost debate. We've lost hearing two sides of the coin. That's why a podcast and this. everybody's like, wow, this is interesting, right? Why do we not hear anything?

And my brain has grown almost foggy to understanding the debate of two sides. Like, well, this is the problem with removing Trump, Sean. Because I feel like if you could put two people up on a stage and debated the merits of removing Trump from Twitter, eventually it'd be like, oh, that guy makes some really good points. That's why you don't want to do that. Except we didn't get that. We got one side, just like you said with your court case, CBC was out getting the narrative vote. This is what the narrative is.

And one of the reasons I wanted to have you on is because I really wanted to hear from your point of like why this is a win in your mind because it helps the rest of us go, well, yeah, I can see that. Okay, fair enough, right? And start to wrestle with it. Because if all you ever hear is one frame of mind, the narrative being pounded through your brain, eventually you're like mass work, the vaccine makes sense. No matter how much other stuff I kind of hear, just on and on and on and yes, yes, yes. And I wonder, you know, with a guy like Pierre Elliott Trudeau, you know, I'm trying. to tie this all the way back, the forethought that went into, like, once we control media and we put in these bills like they're trying to do right now, they make it so that a, a documentary

on Canadians can't be shown in Canada. Right. If you don't have the information, we're doomed. Like, we're going to walk into these pitfalls over and over and over and over and over and over again. And it feels like it is, you know, I used to argue that nobody's that smart. Nobody's that strategic. And I keep eating my words over and over and over again. I'm like, no, I'm done with that.

To me, it feels like they're very strategic. They know what they're doing. And what they didn't, they didn't realize, you know, some of the pitfalls that they did was, one, the rise of, you know, the internet. Like, who could have known that the internet would come along and then have this ability to connect people such as us to? Because I don't know how we would have found each other before this. And the only one is probably,

by the force, by the use of force, it raised a lot of people's heads out of places they never would have been like, well, this doesn't seem wrong, right? Like as soon as they did that, I don't know. That's a long ramble for me. No, that's a, that's a good, but you know, I want to inject a little bit of optimism into here.

Sure. So let's realize I was being that down and a trotter. Well, you know, just talking about the media and how they have this, you know, the government has an agenda. I tell you what, look at all the media across. I take a step back from it. Look at the hope. Sean Newman's just one one person.

Look at all the ones that have been popping up all across Canada. And look at how your audience is just growing and growing. You know, in spite of, you know, the terrible guests like me you have on. That's a lie. You said you just had maybe the most important case in Alberta history. How is that a bad case? Well, I was bragging. I was bragging, though.

It's one of the faults of a litigation. Sure. But I mean, it might have been herpourly. It's, it's important. It's important to have different voices. is from not only Alberta, but Canada on, to let Canadians know what's going on. And sometimes it's a fault of mine not to have more local guests. Heck, to even, you know, you're wearing a Thunder shirt on it.

And I'm like, to just... I own the team. I got to support the car. To not just have, like, an everyday athlete back on, you know? I got to be on stage with Daryl Sutter and Bob Stauffer and Jerry Johansson in Irma. You know, this is now a little over a month ago. And that felt so normal. Like, you know, it was just like...

we can just talk hockey. I haven't done that in a long time. Listeners will know. I haven't done, you know, anyways, I'll let you finish. Well, let's talk a little bit of optimism. And coming back to Pierre Trudeau, comparing him to his son, the politicians that we have today that are unlike the ones of that era is they're not ideologues. Justin Trudeau is not an ideologue.

Joe Biden is not an ideologue. There are ideologues in the world. Um, Xi Jinping probably is Vladimir Putin probably is, but we, we don't tend to have them in the West. But we have are people who, um, want to hold on to power, are mostly concerned with holding onto power, holding on to their position, their prestige, because it's also very, very lucrative. Um, and that sounds really bad, but it exposes a fatal, not a fatal, but, but an Achilles heel. And that is that they are very, very vulnerable to polling. During the lockdowns, and this is proven, you're smiling because I know you know what I'm going to say.

The reason why we got lockdowns is they were polling us like crazy. We were asking for lockdown. They spent $20 million. Right. And why did the lockdowns go away? Well, after the Freedom Con, white people said, we don't want lockdowns anymore. So what is the media? The media is an arm.

I think that I finish your thought because I'm going to choke on the polling thing really hurts me. Well and it should because you know we we actually it shows that we have the power literally the power to to impact what these politicians do. They're very very vulnerable to to our will, the political will. What the media does is is the governments do do the polling and then the government looks at the polling and then expresses that. and they feed that to the media, and then we get the messages that are coming through the polling. So actually what we're getting is we're getting in our major media in Canada is we're getting actually a pretty clear expression of what most people in Montreal and Toronto and Vancouver and even Edmonton think. But that's not every Canadian. That's not what most Canadians thinks.

So that is something that we really need to stop and ponder from. moment. What if we change that narrative? What and as podcasters, uh, isn't that what we're doing? Okay. So that's number one. One reason for opportunity, we can, we can change that. Is it going to happen overnight? No, but, but, but, and it ties into what we talked about, about personal engagement in society. And, you know, Pierre Trudeau didn't calculate that. The other thing that he was a great, great proponent of was something called multiculturalism. And multi-culturalism. And multiculturalism from his point of view was he was again designed to take Canada away from being a basically British based, you know, Christian sort of democracy. And he saw multiculturalism as a means

of sort of, you know, diluting that culture and taking us away from our traditional culture. What he didn't envision, but what is happening right now in Canada. And it's a good example of the Lord, you know, taking something for evil and using it for good is multiculturalism has brought a lot of really, really wonderful and brave and principal people into this country. They have enriched this country in every way, culturally, politically, socially, culinary. We have so many great people in our country now because of multiculturalism. And guess what? They share a lot of the same. same values that we do as Christians. The Muslims, they value family just like Christians do.

So did Jews, okay? I was chuckling about this. I'm like, this has got to be God's humor here working out. Because it's like, you know, for thousands of years, Muslims and Christians went to war, right? Over the Holy Land and a bunch of them. And Jews. Let's not forget the Jews. And it took, it took this gender thing.

This monster against. Who? The children. You know, you boil it down and LGBT 2SL plus, I think there's a P in there now, community. Even, you know, I've even had gay men on the show now. Everybody's on the same point. As soon as you start going after the kids, everybody puts down their barbs and their spears and whatever else. And they all come together.

Now you got the million person march. A million person march. And it's the Muslims leading it. It's the Muslims leading it. And they're inviting every religion to come and support it. And what do you see him from the Christians? That sounds like a pretty damn good idea. And you know what?

I think I'll go marching that too. And you go, isn't that wild? Because I mean, only Justin Trudeau and his glory could try and divide the country so much that they actually are coming back together. I mean, that's. And this is tying a bow on my optimistic story. If there are people out there listening to my voice who are, let's say, my age and older, they're in their 50s and 60s, the Canada of our youth isn't coming back.

But, but I believe that the Canada of the future is going to be better. Canada's best days are ahead. We're going to be better, stronger, freer, more prosperous because, because, we have, we were brought a lot of really, really great people into the country. And we still have the, we still have, of course, indigenous people who are very, very important part of the mix. Of course, the federal government has done nothing but set, you know, indigenous people against everyone else. And, and frankly, they've, they've, they've actually driven a lot of public opinion against indigenous people. And I believe that's been done by design. My, you know,

my father was a treaty Indian. I'm a status Indian myself. My great grandfather was an Indian chief. I know lots of indigenous people. And what I know is that they want the same things than every other Canadian. We want safe streets. We want good schools for our kids.

We want health. We want good jobs. They want all the same things other Canadians do. They're not different. They're not weird. They're Canadians too. They've been here a long time. And they want to be, they want to see at the table.

They want to be part. part of this new Canadian experience. And I'm optimistic that if we get our heads right and we restore some good common sense values, putting family first, family God, family God and country, those three things. That's the key. That's the key. Listen, the Muslims and the Jews and the Christians can all worship God, right? People don't want to worship God. They don't have to, right? But we don't have to fight about that. We can put What about family? Well, you know, listen, you know, who's against the family?

Well, we know who's against the family. There's only two prime ministers in our history who have been divorced while they were in office. And they're both named Trudeau. So we know who's against family. We know that, you know, Pierre or Justin Trudeau has said recently he regards family values as quote unquote right wing extremist. Well, the people who are going in that million person March, they don't think that. Okay.

So, you know, God, family, country. Those are values that we can share. That's a banner we can get under. One flag. We don't need multiple flags. We don't need trans flags. The trans people are welcome under that banner too, because they're Canadians too. And we don't have to, we don't have to fight about that, right?

We are going to have to talk about whether or not, you know, the rest of us are prepared. to accept trans people's values which are being imposed on us, you know, by by governments and institutionally, we're going to have to talk about that. We're going to work that one out because, you know, most of us have made it pretty clear we're not going to do that. But we don't need to do that to live under, to live peacefully, to live in prosperity, to live in freedom. Canada is about, you know, ruled by the majority with respect for minority rights. We can't be ruled by a minority, right? You know, actually, Winston Churchill, one of his famous quotations is, you know, in a society

where, you know, where the, where, where, where there's no respect for minority rights, or when there's too much respect for minority rights, what happens is the people who complain about minority rights, when they get power, there's no such thing as minority rights. And if you want to see what that looks like, take a look at what's going on in South Africa right now. They're having, they're filling stadiums and they're chanting. for the murder of white people in that country. White people in South Africa who are largely responsible for, for building that country was once of not so long ago was a first world nation.

They're seeking refugee status. They're afraid they're going to be killed there. That's, that's what can happen when you divide people. And, uh, you know, Canada, if we, you know, it's, it's a dangerous time because we're, we're sitting on a powder cake here, you know, um, but, you know, those are the, those are the values. you know, Ms. Maloney, the new president of Italy, that was her platform.

God, family country. Get back to the basis. That's it. And that is the future. That is the bright future for Canada. That's where we can be, that's where we can be aligned. And we won't need to talk about the charter because we won't have to worry, worry about a government that's violating our rights.

Who was talking about the charter five years ago? Not right. Nobody. No. It was a nice piece of paper. Some of us had it on the wall in our rights. office. No one was talking. It was a lawyer thing, right? And it was an immigrants thing. I've talked to enough immigrants who moved here specifically for that document. Right. Well, they, they wanted

to be free and they were told that that's what they were getting. And you know, Canada can be that country. We still have, this is why I have a lot of faith in it. We still have a lot of really, really great people in this country. And we are so rich. I mean, we're so rich in land and and resources and water and I mean God just so blessed this country I just can't believe that it's all going to go to ruin I just I just believe that God has a greater purpose for this country and I believe that you know Canada is going to be more prosperous more free and more united than it's it's ever been and I actually see Alberta as being the as being the leader in that as being the example that's going to that's going to lead that's going to lead the way well I appreciate you giving me some time tonight and uh um well you say you're not a great guest but i always think every time we sit down and talk one of the things i like about latin is how uh freely you speak because i either you put on a very good show or you're not good enough to put on a show but since you brought it up we got to talk about one more thing before i go sure sure we've got to talk about lowest cardinal

lowest you know what lowest cardinal is cardinal okay this is a person who's a person who all over TikTok. This is a person who, unfortunately, is a transgender male who has applied for euthanasia in Canada, saying that death would be the only escape for the constant pain the experience after going through vaginoplasty

complications. And this is very, very interesting. The MAD program in Canada, which is basically, it's murder. It allows people to self-murder, which is what the British call. suicide. I think it's a much better term. This person who meets all the criteria, the criteria are that you're suffering from some kind of chronic situation that is not remediable,

okay, that there's no, and there are no, that there's nothing that can be done to end your suffering. And it's important to note the legislation, the legislation is from the point of view of the sufferer, okay? So it's all up to you. If you believe that, that your life is not worth living. That's, that's it. That's it. So what, but what do they say to this person who is first nations and transgender? They say, no, you can't do it.

You can't do it. You don't meet our criteria. Well, what does that say about our government, okay? That and say about the ideology of our government. I just want to leave people to just to think about this, the hypocrisy of this government. They, they're pushing this made all over the place. But if you are one of their. sort of chosen victim groups, you can't have it. And the reason why they won't allow this poor

individual to, and, you know, I thank God they won't allow them to do it because I think that this is wrong. But the reason why they won't allow them to do is because it would be, it would permit people like you and I to say, oh, you mean transgender people, these mutilating surgeries are causing irremediable suffering that these people, this is what he says. It's taking this psychological burden on me. If I'm not able to access proper medical care, I don't want to continue to do this. He's in constant discomfort and pain. But he can't have me. The government now has said, you're suffering because you're transgender or because your first, nation or because you're both,

we are going to decide whether or not you're eligible for me. But if you're one of these other people, no, go ahead. Fill your boots, you know, or fill your coffin. But how very interesting. So I just want to mention that since you brought it up, Sean.

You can edit this part out of you. No, no, definitely won't. It's funny. I read that story. And I'm like, what it, what is like a set you know young kids got young kids and I'm like how do you protect them from you know well you protect the family union that's the only thing that the amount of time I've spent thinking about

this is like a healthy family environment where you talk through the difficulties that are going to certainly come and you try and you know steer them away from the rocks and cliffs of of the rough waters you know as you know navigate some of this stuff and I read that story and I'm like man I forget what the number is, uh, latent and maybe you know the stats, but it, you know,

it's through, you, when you talk about COVID and all the things that went on bad, one of the big, you know, another big one was divorce. Oh,

yes. Something like, you know, when you do the numbers, it's like a million, more than that. Couples got divorce. And then,

you know, if you follow the stats on that, it's like, well, where do troubles with kids come from? Well, not healthy families. And I'm not saying that all those

million were healthy families. Obviously, some of them definitely were not. But I mean, like let's let's be clear like the lockdowns and everything pushed us all to the brink could have the strongest relationship under the sun it pushed you to the brink and then some and you go okay so now you got more divorce you got more unhealthy family units formed not all of them because i get it some were anyways but you know and so what is that going to do well it's

going to it's going to expose more kids to and what is that breeding and somewhere along the lines you get to this story and you go like fuck me so society, we have really messed some kids up and we're messing more and more every single day. And, you know, and then legislature and everything comes back and tries to like, we didn't do anything wrong. You consented, right? No, it's, uh, it's very sad. I mean, I get criticized for, uh, allegedly hitting down on transgender.

I have nothing against transgender people. In fact, um, I feel very sad about the suffering because I see the suffering. I see the, I see the, the suicide rates, you know, over 87% suicidal ideation for, for transgender people. Nearly 40% of them actually attempt suicide. By far the highest rate in our, in our society. And of course, concordant with that are things like drug abuse, alcoholism, you know, other other problems. And we're not doing a very good job. In fact, we're doing a terrible job.

of helping people like poor, you know, Lois or Lewis Cardinal. However, they, they, they, they self-identify. And, and I think that, not to blame the government, but, you know, they're a huge, huge part of the problem by, by allowing this. For example, setting aside for federal government workers, $75,000 of taxpayer money to help them with, you know, gender affirming care, you know, that didn't help, that didn't help poor Ms. Cardinal or Mr. Cardinal, however they identify. So I think this is, you know.

Here's the thing. I don't think either of, it's not like I'm marched around going death to these people. No. I go leave the kids along. It makes zero sense to me. You know, it just, it makes zero sense. These are complex ideas. Oh, yeah.

Nefarious ideas that I just, I can't wrap my head around. But simple, but also simple. Sure. A man, is a man a woman. Can a man be a woman? Can a woman be a man? No. No.

You can think it. Sure. Yeah. You can dress it. You can do all these different surgeries to become it. You'll never be. No. It's impossible.

No. That's both as simple as it gets. Yeah. But regardless, after you're 18, after you're of legal age, you want to go do what you want to do, and you're not hurting anybody? It's like, okay. Well, here's the problem. problem with that though what's the problem with that is that it's not true right there's a societal

cost to allowing to having people engage in things that are untrue that are untrue right right and so yes I understand the sort of live and let be you know the right of your fist ends where my nose begins I understand that however we're living out the cost of that we're actually living out the death of liberalism liberalism is an is a failed ideology in the West and we're learning that that that what that is and always was a failed ideology that that that that taken to its end degree which is what we're experiencing right now so I would I would put transgender in a different context I would say either it's true or it's not if it's true then it's true for all people it's true

for children it's true for young adults it's true for middle-aged people it's true for old people or it's false and if it is false it can't be taught in school it can't be countenanced in in the public sphere it can't be publicly funded it can't be promoted uh you know ideologically because it's a lie right it would be it would be but i agree but i agree let's take cigarettes let's take cigarettes but i agree with all that yeah yeah and all i'm saying is is but at 18 if you want to go off and live in the woods or you want to go and do those things Sure. Yes.

But I'm not saying fund it. I'm certainly not saying teach it. Right. Right? Like to me, that's why I point to kids. I see what you're saying. Kids in my mind is high school and younger. I mean, you're still a teenager.

Very impressionable. And don't get me wrong. There's impressionable ages after that too. Yeah. But at the same time, at some point, you come out from underneath the wing. I mean, you know, I don't want to be bubble wrapping kids until they're 42. I hope my sons are listening.

You know? Like at some point, you have to spread your wings. You have to fly. But it is on parents to be like, no, no, no, we don't want this taught. Like this makes zero sense. You cannot be a man cannot be a woman. You can think it. You can think it.

Sure. You got the body parts. Yeah. I mean, you can think that, you know, gravity doesn't real either. But, you know, go, go try stepping off of the building. You'll find out how real gravity is. Can I tell you a staggering stat? Sure.

Just to switch. Just to go back to what I was talking about. I wanted to make sure my number's right, okay? Here's now, once again, Google, take it or leave it, okay? By their count, Canadian courts granted 42,933 divorces in 2020, okay? 49,000. In 2022, there were about 2.78 million people, so that's one point, well, just under 1.5 million people who obtained a legal divorce and not remarried in Canada. I want you to think about those numbers for a second.

And think about how few people are getting married, especially men. So that's two years later. We went from under 50,000 to 1.4 million for, well, actually, yeah, about 2.78, Sean, do your math better. 1.4 million, just under 1.4 million. That's a pretty severe. That's staggering. And if there's no marriages, there aren't families, right? Or if there are families, now they're broken.

Now they're broken. And listen, I got lots of friends who come from DeForest families that are perfectly healthy. I'm not trying to draw say that yeah one point four million all of a sudden there are all the kids are are bad human beings or I just go but if you listen to people who come from abuse and and a lot of those a lot of I'm not saying all of it a lot of it stems from broken families yeah there's no kids who are better off in I mean the stats are all there there's no kids who are better off in a broken family kids do better when they come from a healthy family from attack marriages yes that's just that's just totally proven it's in the rocks

Yeah. That's a staggering. Yeah. Yeah. But you know, this is the last thing I'm going to say because I know, you got to go. My good friend, Sean Buckley. I got to go nowhere. Sean Buckley?

Yeah. Sean Buckley of the NCI. You were going to help me get in contact with Sean Buckley. Is that fair? You mean you have not had money on your show? I have not. And I've been getting his, his name has been sent to me two or three times today. Consider it.

Because people want me to talk about this. Maybe you can even bring on this, the, the, the natural supplement, natural... Yeah, he's a very, very... I would not... I would not be the person to talk to that. Sean is the guy. Perfect.

But he's also... You hear that, folks? Yeah. Layton's going to get me in contact with Sean Buckley. And he's also, you know, the key lawyer who is involved, as you know, in the National Citizens Inquiries. But Sean gives a, has given a great, a great speech in the context of the Citizens inquiry on the Second Commandment, right?

the second commandment, which is, you know, love your neighbor as yourself. And, you know, what a thought that is. Just stop and think about that. I'm not talking about the golden rule. Okay. I'm talking about actually loving your neighbor, right? Treating your neighbor as you would, uh, yourself. In other words, someone whom you love, right?

This means that you're, you're a friend. You're a confident. You're someone who provides support. what kind of society would we be if we just live by that second commandment? You know what? We wouldn't need this big thing on your wall. That second commandment actually is all we need to live in peace and harmony and freedom and prosperity and faith and trust and beauty and love.

That's all we need. And, you know, Sean says it so beautifully and he's right. So that's the thought that I'd like to end off with today unless you have some more questions for Well, I appreciate you coming and doing this. For the listener, I've been talking lots about Patreon. I've had a few different guests hop onto the Patreon side to answer a couple questions. That's exactly where I'm going to steer latent. So if you're not signed up for Patreon, I hope you do.

But by all means, I'm not pressuring anyone to do anything because I know it costs money and all that good stuff. But if you want to support the podcast, you want to hear a little bit more latent, that's going to be exclusive content. We're going to be over on Patreon for a quick 10 minutes, 12 minutes. We've got a couple questions coming in from the Patreon side. So thanks again for joining me here late. And coming to the studio, first time you've been in the studio, thanks for the gifts. It's so great.

I feel like, you know, I'm ladies and gentlemen, I'm feeling, you know, I'm a little about. I have to give credit to my wife for that. My wife, Jennifer, it's her store, pure athletics. All these things are from her store. He walks in with gifts. The last time I met him, he gave me a Drayton Valley Thunder jersey that's sitting at the house. I'm like, oh, man, I'm going to have to return. Love thy neighbor.

Love thy neighbor, man. Well, thank you again for coming in and doing this. Yeah, it's been my great pleasure. Always enjoy. our conversations and hopefully everybody else has enjoyed it too. Hey, thanks for tuning in today, guys. I hope you enjoyed it. Today's episode has been brought to by Calrock Industries

with new used and refurbished oil and gas equipment in stock. Calrock is your best bet when it comes to finding equipment that fits your needs is within your budget and is ready as soon as you need it. They can even custom manufacture tanks and other equipment for your specific application. They're located here in Lloydminster, but I'm sure they can serve you wherever you are at.

All you've got to do is go to calrock. for more information. I also want to remind people that Patreon just started posting back on it. We're going to give her a go here for the next six months. So if you want to go down in the show notes, you can click on that. Feel free to support.

Don't support. It's behind a paywall. So the money is coming back to the podcast. And we've got a little behind the scenes action happening there. So I love to see and hear you guys' comments on that. Either way, we'll catch up to you on the next episode.