Shaun Newman Podcast - #547 - Shawna Sundal

Episode Date: December 23, 2023

Shawna Sundal has been successfully advocating on behalf of families to the government, organizations and the public since 2018. She is known for her defense of parents, families and freedom. She founded The Irreplaceable Parent Project (TIPP) which works to guarantee that the natural, necessary and active role parents play in the lives of their children is recognized and respected by government organizations and the public through critical advocacy, attention and education, affirming parents.  Please watch the TIPP Talk – In The Line Of Fire – that was referred to during the podcast. The Irreplaceable Parent Project (TIPP) was created to inform and educate parents about the state of their rights, empower them to respond effectively in their daily lives, and to advocate for their right to do so. www.TheIrreplaceableParentProject.ca. Let me know what you think. Text me 587-217-8500 Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcastE-transfer here: [e-mail] Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/Email: [e-mail] [phone] – general sales line, ask for Grahame and be sure to let us know you’re an SNP listener.

This is Tanner Nadee. I'm Trish Wood. This is Tammy Peterson. This is Curtis Stone. This is Quick Dick McDick. This is Akira the Don, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Let's start here.

Chris Sky is coming to Calgary, January 13th. That's Canadians for Truth who are bringing him in. He'll be on stage with Jamie and Theo. And so if you're looking to see an interesting night, that would be Chris Sky in Calgary, January 13th. Of course, they just brought in Peter McCullough, and I heard nothing but great reviews from that. I mean, how could it go bad with Peter McCullough on stage, honestly? And then you got Chris Sky coming here in January.

So January 13th in Calgary, Chris Sky with Theo and Jamie on stage. If you want tickets, go to Canadians for Truth.ca. Profit River, Clay smiling the team over there. Of course, Christmas is like just around the corner. Man, has it come up fast or what? and the team over at Prophet River wants to remind you, you know, when you're looking for something for that hunter, that sportsman in your life, maybe you're looking for a stocking stuffer.

I seem to talk a lot about stockings right now. Well, they got gift cards. That'd be a nice, easy way. You know, you wake up, you check your stocking, and all of a sudden you get a gift card to Prophet River. And you might be listening to this and going, well, I live on the other side of Canada. Well, I can't do anything.

Come on now. They ship Canada. anywhere, it don't matter, anywhere in Canada, up north, northwest territories, none of it, you got it, they ship there too. They are the major retailers of firearms, optics, and accessories serving all of Canada. All you got to do is go to profitriver.com and they can use you all situated. If you're looking for Christmas ideas, just saying there is a good one for all those hunters out there and sportsmen, a nice easy way where you just grab a gift card and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, you know, it's Prophet River.

And if you're in Lloydminster, maybe just stop over and take a look at their showroom and everything else. Maybe you can find something in there. Just throwing out some ideas. Tyson and Tracy Mitchell, Michico Environmental, they're looking for equipment operators farming experience as a bonus. They want to wish everybody a Merry Christmas. They're also looking for labors, season on full time.

And for you, college students as you are finishing up your exams and everything, you're getting your nice Christmas break. and you're not really thinking about much, I'm sure. I'm probably happy to be home and around some friends you haven't seen in a while. But if you are thinking a little further out into the summer of 2024, which, man, 2024 is just right around the corner. Summer jobs, summer positions, May through August, you can earn as little as $20,000.

Yeah, as little as $20,000. And upwards, you know, sky's the limit as hard as you want to push it. All you got to do is give them a call, $780, $214,000, $4,000, or go to Mitch, Corp.C.C.a. And they can get you situated. Silver Gold Bolt, North America's premier precious metal dealers with state-of-the-art distribution centers in Calgary, Alberta, and Las Vegas.

Nevada, they insure fast fully insured discrete shipping right to your doorstep. And for the podcast, we have our own rep. And Mr. Graham, you can email them at SMP. Well, actually, this is all in the show notes. You can email them, it's in the show notes. You can call them, it's in the show notes. And I would say if you haven't yet, I've been pushing on it.

I would really like to show that silver gold, you know, like they were wondering if anyone's listening. And I'm like, well, I know I'm listening. I know all of you have been talking to me about it. So if you haven't sent an email or give them a call, please do. If you're looking once again for another stocking stuffer, I'm like, man, can you imagine waking up and having a gift card to Profit River? And then, you know, whether it's a silver coin, a gold coin, whatever you want, there is different pricing on that. But regardless, wouldn't that be.

something. I'd be pretty happy with that. You can go in the show notes, email them, call them. Either way, let them know that you found them through the Sean Newman podcast. It would appreciate that. And just know their last day of shipping before Christmas is December 19th. So if you're thinking about it, just give them a call or an email. They'll answer your questions and they've got a wonderful staff. And I've been hearing rave reviews of Graham as well. So, hey, what, more can I say. Windsor plywood. Yes, the builders of the podcast studio and today's guest, Shauna walked in and the first thing she did when she's like, ooh, this is the, this is a table. And I don't know if she'd ever heard about the table. So it was pretty cool to watch her interact

with the table and be like, and you know, tell a little bit of the story and everything else. Now, whether we're talking mantles, decks, windows, doors, or sheds, these are the guys. Stop in today at Windsor Plywood and talk to Carly, they'll get you situated. They got character pieces of wood that you ain't going to find anywhere else. Now, let's get on that tale of tape brought to you by Hancock Petroleum for the past 80 years. They've been an industry leader in bulk fuels, lubricants, methadone chemicals, delivering to your farm, commercial, or oil field locations for more information. Visit them at Hancockpetroleum.com. She's a wife and mother of two.

She's also been a successful advocate on behalf of families to the government, organizations, and the public since 2018. She's known for her defense of parents, families, and freedom. She is the founder of the Irreplaceable Parent Project. I'm talking about Shauna Sundell. So buckle up, here we go. Welcome to the Sean Numa podcast. Today I'm joined by Shauna Sundal. So first off, ma'am, I apologized.

I pictured your name last night on stage. That was an oops. That's totally fine. You know, normally I ask before I go on. I'm like, okay, how do you pronounce your name, you know, and on and on and on? Cooper, I'm sorry, Cooper. I'm going to do it again. Tripos, I think it is.

Anyways, he's got this name that I stare at. And for some reason, my tongue won't, everybody laughs at me because I tried it like 16 times. And I was on stage. I put on a Christmas show for six different companies, seven different companies. And I introduced them, and then he came on and said that, you know, I pronounced my name, X. And I'm like, I still can't get it, you know. So I should have done that last night. Whoops of me.

Either way, thanks for sticking around and hopping in the studio with me. Happy to be here. Yeah, we've been talking a long time about having you come sit. So tell the audience, who is Shawna? And lead us in this story of how you get to the irreplaceable. parent project? Well, the irreplaceable parent project was born because parental rights are the fundamental issue of our day. There's a lot of people that are looking for attention on a ton of issues, and I believe in a lot of them too. But if we win them and we lose our families, we're all going to be

crying. And so focusing in on parental rights was something that I saw as necessary in order to underscore or really what gives authority to arguing for parental rights in the areas of education and health. And so the Airplaceable Parent Project was born last year. Where are you from? Edmonton. What's your background? My background is business. And then I got into advocacy in 2018.

And my interests were Awe's law and counseling. And I'm like advocacy turns out to be this amazing combination of having to read. legal things or political things without falling asleep. So you're one of those, and I mean this in the best possible way, one of those weird people that I was just saying this, Prestamannig. So Preston Manning was on Friday. And I said to him, he's written a hundred and, forgive me, is it 14 page? I think it's a 114 page discussion on COVID in Alberta.

And I got into page like 20 and my eyes were rolling over like this is dry. And you're one of the few folks, or maybe. be there's lots of us because I'm running into a lot of them. You just you you can get through it and it actually makes sense and you start to see trends and you start to be like oh this is and it's actually for lack of a better word maybe exciting to do that. Well I think the the important thing is to take that information and communicate it to the public. Yes. And then take the problems or the trends that you see and communicate with our political people or body things that we need to see changed or addressed. And so it's marrying those two sides is where the work is. And that's what advocacy is or

being an intercessor, right? I'm not a politician. I wouldn't even say I'm an activist. What I am is somebody who's trying to take the information to the people so that they understand where we actually are at because then they know the work that has to happen and why things are bigger than what they see sometimes, right? We can see those trends. And so that's what the president is. presentation in the line of fire really covers is what has happened to parental rights in education, law, and health, and then talking about made for adults. And that's relevant to parental rights because now we have tabled made for minors. And parents are not going to have the right to say no to what happens to their children if they're deemed capable of deciding for themselves. I want to talk about all that. I just want to take a back as you know um for myself for the audience i just uh i'm i'm always interested in like what was the first thing because you said i think 2018 is when when you first start to get into advocacy

what was the what was it like was it something to do with your family your kids was it something you saw at work that all of a sudden you're just like wait a wait a second that doesn't add up what's going on here yeah well actually i was um had started home educating my children, and I was approached to get involved in home education and advocacy, and I thought, oh, that sounds fun, different than what I do, you know, every day, and a combination of, you know, faith, family, and freedom. It sounds like a great thing to do. And so I've been advocating for home education for a number of years, and I resigned from doing that and started the Your Placable Parent Project, because I realized that parental rights is why we can advocate for

things like home education or choice in education or all of the medical things that we see happening. And without having parental rights, we can't advocate for those things. So it's basically downshifting to the more fundamental issue, which also gives me the ability to address broader, the broader scope of things because parental rights is not limited to education. And so it's a journey. I never thought I would be here doing these things, but this is kind of where I've ended up. Yeah, it's, uh, we all wonder how we got to where we are. You know, I'm like, on earth, am I, you know, I think that from time and time.

And then I think, I'm having a lot of fun. So, you know, it's, it's just, you start pulling on a thread and then this is where you get. It's funny. Um, you know, the largest viral video I've ever had on the podcast with Shelby Boyd. So shout out to Shelby Boyd. She's a home schooling mom. She's a friend of mine. Well, there you go.

Yeah. Well, she's the one who suggests you, right? There's been a few. And I look at the clip and I'm like, it's the most harmless clip I think out there, but like it's garnered just on Facebook alone, a million plus views. And you're like, how did that make any sense? And yet so many people are turning to it. And it must be like unplugging from the system and then you must look back.

And I don't know, you could probably talk to this and start to see like, that doesn't make sense. That doesn't make sense. Why would they do that? Is that how it is? Absolutely. I was just telling someone last night, I'm like, it's like pulling your head out of a bucket and there's a suction sound. You realize there's a bunch of options that you didn't even consider in life. And so, yeah, it is definitely a journey where as our horizons expand, we realize that we have choice.

And sometimes actually realizing that we've been convinced we don't have a choice is part of the problem. Right? And so giving people information, and this is why last night was my 50-second presentation in nine months. Like, it's been crazy. You see this as like every person in Canada. And I mean, you've been touring, your 52 have been all in Alberta, correct? All in Alberta. I've turned down invitations in other provinces and the territories because I think if we can set an example in Alberta and there's potential, you know, to buck some. of the trends that have been happening in parental rights in the right way, and that's an important thing to consider. And also with Maid, we can set a good precedent because good ideas can be contagious just like bad ideas.

And everybody's all about contagion. You know, so let's try to be the good, the good that can be shared instead of the bad trends. Well, let's talk about parental rights. You know the history better, I think, than most people. Certainly I sat and was, I don't know, not regaled. I don't know, is that, it was an interesting presentation last night. And for the audience member, you know, we released this on Monday.

And certainly I don't know if we'll have the video from it, but the video is coming. So we'll make sure that we put that in the show notes. So if people are interested, they should check back in the show notes because eventually I'll have the link there. And I would think it'd be sometime while you're listening to it, folks. this week. I just don't know if it'll be out Monday and we want to, you know, pre-warn people if you look in there and it isn't there. That's why it's not because Sean forgot, because Sean can forget from time to time. And you lovely folks always remind me. So there will be time to

go back and watch the full thing if that's something that the audience wants to do. When it comes to parental rights, walk us, walk us through where we're at and why you've done 52 shows in nine months. Well, I think that the reason that the shows have, happened and it's just word of mouth. Everybody that has hosted me has promoted it to their own communities and it's just continued to spread. Everybody sees a little bit of what's happened to parental rights and it concerns them. But by putting together what's happened in education, law, and health, I think that people see the trend. And one of the most disturbing trends is this Pandora's box that's been opened by anyone that has a significant relationship with the child.

has authority that puts parents in an uncomfortable position because you know parents used to be really happy when their children had good relationships right in the community at school at church and now if those people have an equal voice to parents it's a it's a hard thing right and so we're seeing a trend where the word parent doesn't even equal what it used to be it's been degraded The Family Law Act of Alberta says a parent is a guardian. Every child in the province is subject to guardianship. And let me just tell you what the exact quote is.

It says that, I'll just flip to my notes. So I can quote it correctly. It says, when a court considers the interests of a child, it will consider the nature, strength, and stability of the relationship with each person resists. in the household, it doesn't even say parent, and then any other significant person in the child's life. And that phrase is repeated in a number of places. Could you read that one more time?

It says in the Family Law Act that the court will consider the nature, strength, and stability of the relationship with each person residing in the household and any other significant person in the child's life. So being a significant person. So who do they deem significant person in a child's life? Well, that's up to the court to decide. That's open-ended. It is open-ended, yeah. So parent doesn't mean parent.

Parent means guardian. Why does that matter? Well, it matters because the authority of the parent has been undermined. So one of the reasons that I start in education is because parents think that they have open choice to make whatever decisions they want. But there's groups like the Alberta Teachers Association that has been trying to undermine that. And parents don't understand how they see the role of a teacher. So here's a quote from the ATA, which explains how they see the changing role. ATA is Alberta Teachers Association, correct?

That's right. They said, and this is quoting from one of their documents, traditionally the teacher was considered to be acting in local parenthesis. And that means that in relation to the student, the teacher stands in the position of a character. responsible parent and unofficial guardian. And I'm like, let's stop and think about that for a minute. It doesn't just straight up say the teacher stands in the place of a parent. They start to add qualifying terms like warm, sorry, caring and responsible.

Well, who gets to decide if you're caring and responsible, right? Those are subjective things that they're now going to assess you on. And then they say, in some instances the duty of care owed by the teacher may exceed that of the parent if, knowledge makes the teacher aware of dangers that the parent might not appreciate. Then they go on to say in parents patria. More recently, the teacher has been judged to be acting as an agent of the state or in parents patria. Thus, the actions of teachers are often compared to those of law enforcement personnel, social workers, and other public employees. The duty of care to individual

students and the need to serve the best interests of the state have further complicated the already demanding role of a teacher. Now, I think as parents, we would say, well, that's not the role of the teacher that I see. And we'd say, why are they doing that? Well, Barron's Dictionary of legal terms says that by exercising this authority, the state emphasizes that a child is not the absolute property of a parent, but is a trust reposed in a parent by the state as parents' patria. So the implications of these things are very serious, and we see that through throughout education, law, and health. Who actually is responsible for the child and who gets to decide?

That's the fundamental question I repeat in my talk. Who gets to decide? And you're seeing, you know, when I hear that, you're just seeing the slow creep. And I mean, in fairness, you might see it as a real fast creep. But like, it's just quietly being put into law that a teacher specifically has as much authority as law enforcement, correct? They're saying the teacher's role is like law enforcement because they represent the interest of the state. Especially if they have special knowledge.

Well, and that's the shift is do they stand in place of a parent, in which case the parent has delegated this authority for a short term while the child's at school to be acting in their best interest? And they'll report back to the parent, right? It's like getting a babysitter. We don't want to equate education to babysitting, but we've left our children in the trust of someone. that we believe we'll take care of them while we're away, right? That's much different than parents thinking, when I leave my child at school, it's like leaving them with a social worker all day

who's going to inquire and make judgments about our family or what we think or what my child is, you know, opining, right? And we've seen that. That is where we are. Do you say, I don't know, like, do you look at parents then, right? irreplaceable parent project and you go parents we need to do better parents we need to get active because i don't think the answer is to go yell at the teacher no it's it's to it's to stand up for uh our rights and to like push on the system to get it right not to uh just slowly erode at

all and i think like am i am i getting that right absolutely i think that uh parents just need to be encouraged to reassert their authority without seeing themselves as being the bad guy for doing so, right? There's many, many great teachers out there. They definitely don't need you to be mean to them or disrespectful. We don't want our children to be disrespectful. But I give an example in my talk. You know, the child is the person who you're putting under the authority of the teacher, not you.

Right. So, while you want your child to go in and say, good morning, Mr. or Mrs. So-and-so teacher, right? They're not my teacher, right? I would go in and say, good morning, Sean. How are you doing today? Right? And if you want to be called Mr. Newman, great, you can call me Mrs. Sundel. The important thing is to establish a relationship where you're not under the authority of the teacher, but you're at least equal, if not more. Such a subtle change in perspective, correct? It's subtle but important.

And important, and kids are, well, they're sponges. They soak up, Absolutely everything. I see what you're doing. And just that little change you're pointing out can, oh, the teacher is not above in the authority ranking of the parent. Absolutely. And teachers, parents and children all need to understand the pecking order, right?

And that is the question that's put before us is, where do you as the parent rank? And we need to assert our position. You used to play hockey, right? Correct. It's like elbows up, people. You're not being mean. You're just protecting your space.

And your kids are supposed to be in your space. Kids are supposed to be in your space, right? And so you need to protect them. And protecting them isn't you need to be mean to others, but you need to be their parent. You have a unique and important role to play in their life, whether you believe that it's natural or God-given. It is not something that comes from the government. And we can't ask the government.

to define that role for us, what we want the government to do is defend that, which means when there's overstepping, we want to push back as nicely as possible, but as firmly as needed. You can still be a Canadian

and be nice but firm. Absolutely. We need to wrap our heads around that. Yeah. You had a slide last thing. I don't know I can spit that out. And it showed how the relationship around a child was and you showed the first four and then you showed what it's changed to be.

Could you talk about that for a quick second? Yeah. You know what I'm talking about with the child? Yeah. Yeah, I just said that the family has traditionally been supported, especially in times of crisis or need by their extended family, the church, the community, and some government, right? That's how the world used to work. So if you go back 50, 60 years, that probably makes sense to most people.

And probably somebody's, because this is what I did last night. I'm like, is that true? Right? Like I'm like, okay. And where are we at today? So before you'd show on the slide, I'd push on people, you know, maybe even pause it right now, to be like, so what supports me now? And then carry on. And then I just point out that now the first responders to a family that is struggling are generally not the extended family, the church and the community.

but it is arms of the government, right? Child and Social Services, the education, law, and health. So we shifted how we interact with each other, and we've taken the responsibility away from our local communities and families, and we've allocated that or resigned ourselves to government intervention. That has a cost. If we realize the cost, we're going to start to reassess how we function, and what our own obligations are.

If you have a family that you know in need, do you say, well, you better call social services or do you say, how can I help you? Right? By asserting our authority and our responsibility without the government telling us, we go back to government having its role and family having its role,

and the two are not the same. Is this why I wrote, like this, when you said it, I was trying to draw it down as fast I could, You said home education is the canary and the coal mine. I don't know what the rest of the quote was because I couldn't get it out. But is this why you look at it? Because like when I think you're like, this is what supports the family now. When I, at the start by, I guess this is how my brain works.

If you remove yourself from the education system and now you have to rely, your kids have to rely strictly on the parents, right? Or of your choosing because now it's not drop them off, pick them up. It's like, nope, it's a little different than that. now you remove yourself from the system, so to speak. Is that why it's the canary in the coal mine? Because you can see everything that's going on. I'm just curious on that. Yeah.

Because the canary in the coal mine just brings such a vivid picture to my mind. I'm like, ooh, that's an interest. Okay, so why is home education the canary in the coal mine? Yeah, I'll go back and explain the context for that. when we were talking about the ATA's position on teachers' authority and their role, parents need to understand, of course, education and this public school system shouldn't be seen as a daycare, right? There's supposed to be learning happening there, and it should be under the auspices of

does a parent agree or approve with what is going on, and how is a parent treated in that system is actually quite important to assess. So we're very thankful to have choice in education because parents can to some degree decide on which model best reflects their beliefs or the lifestyle that they want to have. Home education is the end of the spectrum that gives you the most freedom. And in the last few years when I was advocating, one of the things that we were able to obtain was called notification only no funding. So if you're familiar with home education, prior to that, you would have been always notifying through a supervising authority who would then put the notification into the government. The government would then provide the home education grant to the supervising authority.

They keep half of it, and the other half they will dole out to you as you submit receipts that match the education plan that you must provide to them. They will then come and visit you twice a year to assess that learning is happening. The notification only no funding option is where you as the parent, accept that this is your responsibility, and remember that public education is only about 150 years old. You accept the responsibility. You notify the government that you're home educating, and that's all. You forego money, and you should still have your own education plan because you need to be knowing where you're going throughout the year,

and you're the teacher. You pick the curriculum, right? You pick the timing of testing. You pick how fast you move through the material for each child. In the public system, you know, they have an education plan for the classroom and special students might have an individual plan. Every home education has an individual plan for each child and a family, right? And so it's much different. And people go, how can you possibly do notification only?

That sounds crazy. We need the government. No, I don't even think that. I just think the money's sitting there. Wouldn't that help? Actually, I'm not. Money always comes with strings. With strength.

With strength. Right. If you think of universal, the offer to have universal basic income, free money every month. Doesn't that sound great? Do you really think it's going to be free? And I actually think a close Schwab, you'll own nothing and be happy. It's like, what do you think that comes right? Right. So for $900, you give people access to your children and your home, right? And I'm like, is that worth it? Now, if people go, how can you possibly live without the government checking on you?

And I'm like, let me tell you in Ontario, you don't even have to. to notify the government. Their law is very succinct, as long as the child's being educated elsewhere. And as parents, I mean, home education or private education was actually how most of the world has been educated. I've given so many talks. It's like the list of amazing people that were home educated is crazy. Now, why is that? Because you have freedom to teach whatever. Home education students are the people who are still learning handwriting, logic, history, even Latin,

you know, they go above and beyond a lot of times because they have the capacity and the ability to do that. We don't have to focus on classroom management as much as a teacher does. Now we're totally going off track, but the public system... But I find it fascinating. It's okay to go off track

because I find it very fascinating. You know, my brain, this is where I come back to the Shelby conversation. I'm like, I just, I don't know how people, you know, I hear my own brain twerking along and I'm, you know, or ticking along, twirling along. I don't know how that. Anyway, I'm like, the things that pop to mind is like financially, how do you do it? Because on certain sides, I'm like, it makes complete sense because, you know, like certain kids learn certain ways. Once you figure that out, it's like, oh man, you could really have some fun with it.

One-on-one versus I just look at hockey, the more coaches you have on the ice, chance are the quicker your kids are going to develop because they're getting closer to one-on-one compared to a school teacher. You know, I was talking to a teacher at, I think is the comp here in town, and they have 34 students in one class, and I'm like, is that what I was when I was?

And they're like, no, back when you were going, it was probably closer to like 20-24. So you've added 10 more students to one teacher. I'm like, just think of how many kids are falling through the cracks. That's no fault of the teacher. It's like we're asking them to teach 34. So when you go to homeschooling, it's like that actually is starting to make more and more sense to me you're going to have closer to

one-on-one and that allows to you know develop and and go on different things and change gears you know you're this little organism if you would that can be like oh they want to go over here we can go over there oh they want to do this we can do that and you don't have to worry about all the craziness that can come with so many kids and families and everything else right and so I'm like going some of the thoughts that are popping into my mind Sean are when yes you're you have flexibility for how you teach. It doesn't mean that we don't have a certain amount of structure. A lot of people, even using the word unschooling, right, when you're trying to defend home

education, which was my job, it gives the wrong impression to people outside the system. Like, you're not really educating your kids. And I'm like, that's not true. And sometimes people can take that as permission to not educate their children. And that's also not true of home education. The majority of people, also, you know, it's the law. You need to have your education plan and you know how you're moving through it. You don't have to operate by grade level.

That's actually a structure that's put in place for the functioning of a public school because they need to have that kind of structure in order to manage it. You don't need that kind of structure in your own home, right? If you do math, for example, you can do mastery-based learning, right? You learn addition until you know it. And then you move on to subtraction. You don't do it. This grade we're doing this.

This grade we're doing that. When you stop to think about the last few years, you know, a lot of people have the wrong impression about home education. They're like, well, I tried it. It sucked. And I'm like, you actually tried distance learning. The teacher was still in charge. The curriculum was still their choice.

It was on their timeline. Hummed education does not look like that. Home education means you can educate whenever works in your day, you know. You can shift it. Some people do six weeks on, one week off, six weeks on, one week off. Some people work around the dad's schedule if they're out of town, right? They can do a lot of work while he's gone and then they have more family time when he's home. Same with farming families, right?

If it's harvest time, it's all hands on deck. Don't tell me that kids aren't learning things just because it's not book learning, but it takes a lot less time. So you're thinking about taking a trip across the country, right? And I'm like going, the time that it takes to educate your children or things that you can do while you're doing other things. It's incredible when you can shift your mind away from this reliance on public education. And it's not my job anymore to advocate for home education, but I have a soft spot for it, obviously. And I think that people understanding, using the right definitions and having the proper understanding allows us to interact with government.

and others in a way that accurately communicates the effectiveness of home education. $900 is not a lot of money. It really isn't. The thing we have to ask ourselves is, the people who go into home education, in spite of the fact that it's not funded, has kept it a pure type of thing, where you know that people are doing it for the right reasons. And there's a lot of research that says it doesn't matter what the education level of the parent is. What matters is the investment of the parent and their kids, which is true in other educational models as well, but is the most revealing in home education, right?

It's the consistency of the parent through those years instead of having changing teachers. And it's not that home education students are not supported. It's great to have community, but the buck stops with the parent. And so understanding that is really important. So during the last few years when COVID was climbing, the home education numbers were increasing, and they've stayed up. They've come down a little bit as people returned back to, you know, quote unquote, normal life. But the number stayed high, and we got this notification-only option. And so there was actually a report written by the Public School Board Association of Alberta.

And so this is what you were talking about. in it they noted that the Home Education Act affirms that parents have the primary right to choose the education their children receive, which was great. Minister Lagrange, as the Education Minister had done that. And then Premier Kenny, at the time, had declared parents, not politicians, know what's best for their kids. And I always laugh and say politicians should report that or repeat that in the mirror every day. And then they said, in the case of unsupervised homeschooling, this refutes the principal. of parents patria governmental protection over children in society and reaffirms parental authority above state authority that is the huge underlying question

whose authority matters the most with your children government or parent and this notification only option is what they say is the only one that asserts parental authority above government authority Then they went on to say home education has been championed since the early or mid-1980s, but the unifying theme is the issue of parental freedom and individual rights to choose the type of education a child receives, which has been central to the social and legal foundations of the homeschooling movement. He went on in the report to say it is clearly not in the best interest of students to allow parents to fully control all aspects of their child's learning without. and I'm just going to summarize, pre-qualification to the satisfaction of a schooling authority.

Well, you need to know that's a conflict of interest because there's a competition there, right? And them wanting to screen or decide if you're allowed to home educate your children is not up for negotiation. Second, supervision. They want all children to be supervised. And their reasoning was what I just read in the quote. And then the last thing is what is the most. alarming. They said home safety checks for maltreatment. And I'm like, we need to stop and understand the implications of that. If they believe that they need to come and check every home to see if there

is maltreatment, that is based on a premise that you're guilty until proven innocent. And that is not something that is going to stay in the home education movement, right? If they actually believe that, that means that why wouldn't they say it's justifiable to come and check your children until they get into a supervised environment. This is why home education is the canary in the coal mine and freedom is the oxygen. You do not have to have government oversight in every area of your life or else. We have got to check that. And education, this is not the only example we've seen where the presumption of guilt

before innocent is starting to take over our culture and our society. And we've been based on a Judeo-Christian principle. in law of innocent until proving guilty. If we don't understand the threat that's being put to that right now, we're in trouble. I'm repeating it in my head so that I don't forget it. I was going to stop you. You said, notification only is like really important or something. And I was like, I should have just jumped in and asked.

Why is notification only so important? Well, if I'm quoting from the Public School Board Association of Alberta, they said the case of unsupervised homeschooling refutes the principle of parents patriae, which we just discussed, which is government protection over our children in society, and it reaffirms parental authority above state authority. So we all care about educational choice, but the underlying issue that's being discussed or debated here is, parental authority or governmental authority. This is what the ATA has saying, we're changing from a local parentis to parents' patriots. Am I dense or is this like immensely confusing with wordplay that I'm just like at the end of it,

I'm still like, I'm not confused. I get what you're saying, but I'm like, you read it and I'm like, what is going, like why can't they just spell it out in black and white terms? I know that's not what happens in this because if they did that, then we'd all go,

that doesn't make sense. But you read it to me like three times. And I'm like, I'm like going to have to go back and listen to that. I'm like, what do I do, folks? Do I just have Shauna say it six times so it starts to like sink in? Let me tell, let me say it a different way. The left has for decades been trying to make the argument that children belong to society, not parents. That's the basic argument.

Do children belong to the family that they're born into? Yes. And this is where we're going to get into, right? if you're born into a family, does biology matter? They will say no, and that's the trend. Well, let's talk about that. Because the answer is, I think most parents are going to be like, yes, my son or daughter belongs to us, not to the state.

That is a wild thought. I remember what minister was it, folks, or politician, was it in Quebec? It was in Ottawa that said something under his breath, and I thought it was a fake video. The first time I saw it, I'm like, that makes zero sense. And he was saying your sons and daughters belong to us. Does everybody remember that video? Do you remember that video? Does anyone know what I'm talking about here?

There's been a number of videos. And I'm like, that's such a strange thought. Why would you ever think kids belong to the state? Now you're going to tell me why that is. Well, the language around children, they're not shy about saying it. We're just not paying attention and believing it, right? Yeah, because it seems like such an insane thought that the state would be like, know your children are ours.

Well, that goes back to the Barron's Dictionary of Legal definitions, right? It's like a trust reposed in parents by the state, which means if you do things that we don't approve of, we will revoke it. So when we now don't have in the Family Law Act parents, but we're all guardians, right? That is a designation given by the state. And just so I can think on that for a second, the reason they're using guardian is because in today's world, the family unit has gotten changed from a man, a woman, and child to, it can be a man and a man, it can be a woman and a woman, it can be a man who identifies

as a woman, it can be a woman who identifies as a man. And so they're just like, let's just change it and go, it's a guardian. It's who's ever looking after the child. That's why they're using the guardian term because I'm just assuming that they're looking at this going like, no longer is it the family, traditional family of, let's just go 100 years ago, let alone 20 years ago. Am I wrong on that? Well, what the law says is that every child, every subject is subject to guardianship.

Okay, so whether you like it or not, they all are. And then the family law says in section 20, subsection 2, it says subject to this section, the parent of the child is the guardian of a child if the parent has A, acknowledged that he or she is the parent of the child. and B, has demonstrated an intention, and listened to the language, to assume the responsibilities of a guardian in respect to the child. So parents need an upgrade. We have to assume the responsibilities of guardianship. That has implications. This is where we start to see that the nature strength and stability of the relationship with each person residing in the household and anyone with a significant relationship with a child.

is going to be evaluated. Now, we're going to be old school, probably most of us. A lot of people quote from the Supreme Court decision in 1995, which is what we like to remember, right? It says the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is heir to and has been interpreted to incorporate centuries of common law jurisprudence deferential to the family unit. As the Supreme Court of Canada has stated,

the common law has long recognized that parents are in the state, the best position to take care of their children and make all the decisions necessary to ensure their well-being. And one of the judges went on to say, I would have thought it plain that the right to nurture a child to care for its development and to make decisions for it in the fundamental matters such as medical care are part of the liberty interest of a parent. That was what the Supreme Court said. But in 2022, the Supreme Court decided that biology was an empty formula. And the reasons that they gave were biological ties often lead the court to consider parental preferences rather than the child's interest. Obviously, parents have to consider the whole family, not just a single individual.

So that's difficult. Two, a child's bond with their caregivers, parent or otherwise, is higher than biology, and there is no magic, quote unquote, in a biological tie. The only thing that matters is a close psychological bond. and that's where we go back to the Pandora's box of any significant relationship. And then they say, three, biological ties are difficult to articulate because family institutions have undergone a profound revolution. They really don't know what to do with family anymore. So family is not actually defined in the Family Law Act of Alberta.

Because of, well, I don't know, because I don't know if we know the answer to that, but is it because of what I, because they, like, things have changed. so rapidly it is no longer a man woman and child it is like it's it can it's just like but in the insane open yeah oh man this is I feel like last night all over again where I'm sitting there and I'm trying like I haven't closed my eyes folks and tried listening to what you're saying I'm trying so hard and I just can't like at times I'm just so caught by the wordplay of like everything danced around we'll leave it vague but by leaving it vague you pull out like now it's down to interpretation.

An interpretation, as we've seen over the last, what, three years, somebody's going to say 10, another is going to say 20, it doesn't matter. What we've seen wherever you're at on that spectrum, his interpretation is a scary, scary, scary thing. A family law lawyer that I know, I love it. And I quote him, he said, it's weaponized ambiguity. And I think we need to remember that. So when you're reading legislation or legal,

documents, watch for those terms, just like I was pointing out when they talk about parents warm, you know, or caring and responsible. How do you define that? And this is actually the challenge when we talk about, you know, parents' rights is like, let's be careful not to box ourselves, right? Because we can't anticipate every situation that a parent is going to have to address. 20 years ago, we wouldn't have been having the same discussions we are today. So we have to be careful to ask the government to acknowledge that parents have the rights to make decisions on behalf of their family. Children are entitled to the protection of their parents' rights, and they slowly grow out of them. But that's why we have the legal age of 18. You know,

brain development says 25 is when our brains are fully developed. So 18 is when the training wheels come off, right, legally, 16 in some cases. But those, those are, you know, who push for lower and lower age limits or no age limits on decision making for children, forget that we are dealing with children or young teens, adults. We've really been seeing this push to eliminate age, and I think we need to ask ourselves, who's pushing that and why. And, you know, there's going to be a lot of answers to that question. The fact is we need to to address how to check that. And one of the ways is to ask the government just to acknowledge that parental rights exist for the benefit of the family and then to move on to the actual work,

which is pushing people back out of the sphere that they don't belong in. Let's stop having opinion drive the conversation. So, for example, if we go to a teacher, there's so many great teachers. Most teachers that are great don't know that they can do all these kinds of things on behalf of a child behind their parents back. And probably feel uncomfortable with it. Absolutely. As you should. Right. But if we look at legislation that's been deemed a parent's bill of rights and really it's not what it is is pushing back on saying a teacher should advise a parent in whatever situation. If that's still subjective after that's happened, right, we need to actually do the work. of saying when does that objectively get to come into play? Not subjectively, I feel like something

might be wrong. Well, that's going to be based on your worldview and is very open to interpretation. Meanwhile, you can put the family through hell, right, based on something that's, you know, an accusation that is not documented in basis. So what we actually need to do is do the legislative work. What we see is there's been, decades worth of change affecting parental rights. Nobody put in an anti-parental Bill of Rights action that alarmed everyone. People have slowly and carefully affected legislation, wording, and the law in order to achieve ends that have reduced the impacts. What we need to do is the work to undo that. And that means it will take time and effort, but we need to see that we don't

need a sledgehammer to try and fix it. We need to have more nuance in the conversation. I'm stuck on the biology thing and the thought that comes to mind and I'm like, this is what's so I don't know, I look at it almost precarious is the word that comes to mind. I don't know if that's the right one. But I have a niece who was born by a surrogate because my sister-in-law wasn't, long story short able so they had a surrogate have their child and I'm like you know a hundred years ago

that that thought process wouldn't even had dawned on anyone or maybe it did I have no idea and I go so is that why they're saying biology no longer matters right because in order to say it matters does it add in the third person who's a serial I'm just playing out a scenario folks that is very

rare I would say I don't think you know like you know how often do you hear that story probably there's you know more often than I I give credit to but at the same time I'm thinking in my head and I'm like they're the only one I know so like it's it's pretty rare statistically rare and somehow in law I don't know if that's I'm just like the biology thing is really strange to me right because like that it doesn't matter and I'm forgive me I'm not quoting it properly but the biology thing is strange right because like you know if you if you go down the track list of everything you know and I just like I just like I look at my own kids. Over time, they're spending a ton of time with teachers. Listen, I got nothing against teachers, but the way the law reads, psychological bonds, like, yeah, do they have a, I'm around the house,

and this is where parents need to be parents and need to be involved in their kids' lives. This is, this is like, in my mind, it's as much to parents of like, you better wake up, you better be involved in your kid's life, because if it says psychological bond, it's like, well, who are you farming that out to? And and then, you know, when it comes to the court of law, which we've seen the court of law here in Canada, is strange. I don't care who we're arguing against. It's, it's in a, we're in a strange land. And it says psychological bond in there.

And then interpretation. And on these, on and on it goes, I'm like, that's some scary thoughts. Yeah. I think that we need to understand that there's no harm in keeping the reality about the people. that we love, right? A parent can love natural born children, right? They're biological children and stepchildren, foster children, adopted children, right? It doesn't equal less love to talk about the reality, which used to be more common, right? Like you were adopted, right? That's a good thing. We love you and we want you, right? It's in no way. When we're talking about this, the fact is that the

majority of parents have their own biological children to care for, right? So we don't want to sound dismissive or uncaring when we talk about the other things. But when we have people who are filling the role of a parent, right, whether it's a grandparent, step parent, adoptive parent, it is still acknowledging, even in the very language that we are stepping into a role that did belong to the biological parents, right? And that's not bad or mean. to acknowledge. So when we've been seeing these pushes to replace reality, we have wordplay, absolutely trying to redefine things, right? Like tolerance, right? Tolerance means me and you need to have a difference of opinion, but we can still interact and talk, right? We can still

even care about each other and be in community. We don't all have to be aligned. But the language around tolerance has changed to you have to say you agree with me or else you're being intolerant. And it's like we have to maintain that there's room for families and people to make different choices and have different opinions and it doesn't mean we hate each other. We need to regain a little bit of capability of having those discussions without being offended. It's not against, well, it shouldn't be against the law to be offended, right? We can have opinions that people disagree with even vehemently, but that is what free speech is about. And so I would liken the argument about how to approach parental rights the same way we do with free speech. Free speech is just a

right we have. And when we've kept the bar very high, when it was the criminal law, right, to say if you shout fire in a crowded theater, now your free speech has gone too far, right? When we now see the government is trying to regulate and define what is free speech. speech and how might you use your free speech? What we end up with is censorship lots. Censorship, yeah. So we and I and that's going to affect us all right. Oh man.

I know. Well I did look at look at here's something that everybody should know. Shauna comes in. Yes, last night to do a presentation and for the kids' sake which I would think is you know not harmless but overall it's just a community group that's just bringing different speakers in to come in in the Lloyd. to talk to an audience and et cetera, has had our platform censored.

And I'm thinking of, you know, as I stare at water, I'm thinking of Culligan, a couple of the boys that, the cashels. I've had interactions with them where Culligan has been censored on some of the social media platforms for some of the things they've shared. And you're like, that's wild. Like, it is wild. And we should all be like, that doesn't make any sense. It's a nerve you to the core.

because what we all love is, I think, you know, if you're sitting here and listen to me, is like this ability to hear people out, walk away from it and take from it what you will. And they're slowly taking that away from, I wouldn't say slowly. On this one, you know how you are with parents' rights. On the censorship thing, I'm exactly like you. I'm like, this is happening rapidly. Like we can't speak out fast enough about it. Absolutely.

And I would say we don't want to make the same mistake that's happening with free speech, with parental rights. We need to acknowledge it exists, right? We need a good government to just acknowledge that parental rights are there, but we do not want them to sit there and define it because then you lose the freedom that is required to do the job. So at the AGM for the UCP,

Daniel Smith comes out and says, you know, I'm paraphrasing, but we're going to, you know, defend parental rights. Like you know more, you know exactly what she said, I assume. She basically said that the authority of parents is not going to be undercut on her watch. Now that got the biggest applause. What we have to be careful now moving forward in is what does that look like, right? And that's where advocacy work needs to step into play.

And parents need to stop and think about that. If you believe that parental rights are natural or God given, right, whether or not you have a faith, and you believe that they precede the government. Yeah. We do not want to ask the government to define it to death. What we want them to do is defend it. And that's a critical distinction. We are either going to be playing a defensive game or an offensive game. So I believe that we're at a crossroads.

And we need to think about it a little bit harder than jumping on the bandwagon. You know, bandwagons generally aren't good things, right? So just having one legislative thing where parents are notified is not actually a parent's bill of rights, right? It's one thing that's actually instructing an education system to perform in a certain way. I think we have to be careful about the point of the term. If you had perfect world, Shauna's happy. I don't even know. Is there a day where you just get to not put your feet up, you know, go back to, I don't know.

I don't know what that is. what would you need to see happen? Around parental rights. Yes, parental rights. I would just say a very short and succinct statement of acknowledgement and then the work that needs to happen in order to, again, those that are overstepping in the parental right sphere needs to be pushed back out, right? And that means work.

It would be nice if we just had a one quick fix. But we can see that there's been decades worth of. undermining it and we'd be silly to think that we didn't need to do the work to fix it. I'm, I'm, uh, that Sean to speak in the third person, which I know the audience loves, uh, that Sean is, is long gone. That was like episode 200 talking to Julie Panessi. We're up, what, like five? Yeah. What are we at folks? Five forty seven? I don't know. I don't know. It's somewhere in there. Yeah. And, um, I remember thinking, like, three months, six months? Now I'm like,

no, I totally get it. I totally get it. And actually, going back to Preston Manning's, uh, conversation I just had his big thing is when you know when politicians are running you just ask them what their core beliefs are and you and like you should be wary of the ones that can't actually articulate it to you and I think that's a I think we're we're all getting to the point where we're like yeah because because this is going to be a long trudge the opposite way it just doesn't like you say it isn't a snap of the fingers and we're back to where we all just get to this is we're back to whatever day that is

And I think we have to remember that when we think about our MLAs, because even if you elect a good MLA or an MP, like a member of parliament federally, even if we put good people into those roles, they need support. They are bombarded with people asking them to take a position on things. And so if we aren't willing to get in there, my job as an advocate for parental rights is to say, what about parental rights? What about parental rights? What about parental rights? and to come back to them with positive solutions. Here's a problem. Here's how we can help fix it.

And then to help that market it, right, to the people and to the politicians who will support it. Because really, you need to know. The reason I've done so many talks is because we have to get parents on the same page of information to say, this is actually where we're at. I know the presentation is very data rich. And that's because I don't need to convince you about my opinion. I need you to understand what the facts are. Once you understand the facts, you will understand why the work is required.

So this is kind of like laying the groundwork for what needs to happen moving forward. And so parents have huge responsibilities, like you said, in their own homes, communities, schools, churches, getting on trustee boards, right? Municipal government is important. but we also in tandem need to support work like that of the irreplaceable parent project, which is advocating for your interest to the government, which is interceding on your behalf, right? We can't make anybody do anything, but what we can do is make an argument for why it's important.

And if we have done the work on a local level of electing people who are good, even if they don't share the exact same worldview that they allow the freedom to have the conversation and to have free vote, right? I think that that's where we have to work the problem. We also need to understand it's not as easy of an argument as it used to be. And so we need to be strategic and wise in how we work. And so, yeah, I mean the support of the people for my organization to do this work on their behalf. is what I hope to say. And the days of being, I don't know, afraid, nervous, all those things, you just got to put them behind you.

Because, you know, I think when Daniel Smith came out and apologized and then she got like absolutely lambasted and apologized. Everyone was all about her, apologizing. They're all over. I'm like, but we need to support her and we need to be as loud as ever about that we appreciated that somebody. And I'm not saying that nobody did, but maybe not enough of us did. when I look back at that. That was a real opportunity to be loud and be like, thank you. And I'm sure a lot of people did that.

But the other side was louder. Right. And you got to realize, like, you know, I hate thinking it's a popularity contest. But some of this is just like you don't understand how loud the other side is at times, right? Like it's wild to watch. And certainly things are changing. But it doesn't mean we get to just relax and go to the beach. and are there times for that? Sure. But like I hear and I go watch and I listen to what you,

what you're talking about. And I'm like, I'm just happy again that there's somebody that gets lit up by reading documentation because like, you know, and I'm sure there's other people that are happy that I get lit up by talking to people that get lit up by documentation because I'm sitting here going, I'm trying to keep up at warp speed with you. And at times I get it, at times I'm like, I'm going to have to go back and listen to this because there's just so much there. But either way, I know the work doesn't end tomorrow. Like, that's just a fallacy. Like, there's, you know, this is going to go on probably for my life.

And that's okay. Absolutely. I think that, too, this is a life work now. And I think that's kind of the danger is sometimes people can think there's been a political win or a media win and the interest disperses. And that's a problem, actually. Well, we need to make very clear to parents is we will have victories along the way, but we need to maintain that pressure and support.

And so Danielle is absolutely willing to go toe to toe to with the federal government on our natural resources, which is good. I would say our most important natural resource is our children. And when it comes to Maid, we need to dry a hard line, a hard line on protecting our children from the imposition and not just our children.

I take quite a bit of time in my presentation to explain how Maid works for adults because the... Before we hop into Maid, and I'm going to allow you to talk on Maid. One of the things that you pointed out really clearly last night, and I've said this,

what frustrates me about government is how slow they operate, and I think we all think about that. You said something last night, and I'm like, huh, and that was four hours, and they had it through how many readings? And this is Alberta, correct? Three, yep. Three and past.

So we go, it takes forever to get anything done, unless they want to get it through. Absolutely. And then it's four hours to get three readings in Alberta. And you go, oh, so all it is is pressure then. That's all it is. Because when I hear that, I go, they got a majority government, right? Yeah. Which means, you know, I'm sure it's not as easy as what I'm making out, but it ain't as hard as what they're making it out.

You know, we think they got, you know, like, take a look, and I'm not, I don't want to go down this road. It's just an example. Alberta pension plan and all this jazz. If you go back to my conversation with Shane Gets and he keeps saying it's not that easy. It is that easy. Like, I mean, it is that easy. It's how much public support can you garner

on any of these issues? And if we come back to parental rights, folks, if we want things to change immediately, four hours, I mean, like, think about it. It's just you have to have the groundswell of support. Ottawa, Freedom Convoy. What was it? It was what?

Two weeks? maybe less than that, and all of a sudden all the mandates start coming off. And they go, oh, that wasn't what it was. A bunch of liars. That's exactly what it was. We all know it. So if you get all the support you need, which I don't know what that number is, but if you get the support you need, all of a sudden things start to go away.

I've been throwing this idea around one other thing, and then we're going on to mature minors and all that. But the Coots thing. Everybody keeps, are you going to go cover the? I'm like, listen, we want to get the Coots four out and actually get them out. 50,000 people show up and demand it. or whatever the number is. I'm throwing out a spitball in a number.

And I'm not pulling us in that conversation other than like to me the way this looks and the way when you say four hours to get three ratings, they play this game that takes a long time. Oh, it's going to take a long time. It's going to take a long time. It's like that's a load of BS. Well, I just said it's going to take a long time to fix things.

And so I'm going to say yes and no. The answer is we have to have the will to address it. The work to address it is bigger. So Shane Getson is not wrong. And I'm not calling out Shane. I'm just saying in general we get lulled to sleep by it's going to take four years. Absolutely. In that amount of time, so many things can happen.

Right. Political will is important. And that's what we want to foster. And that's what I'm pointing at. Right. And so we have to make that distinction because people can get an unrealistic expectation of your MLA should be able to get that done. Right?

And it's like, okay, the closer you work with an MLA, or the political structure, whoever is in power, you realize that there is work there, right? There's a bunch of competing interests. The trick is, how interested are they in this particular thing? Now, the government was very interested in getting made for mental illness or depression passed. So they did that. Then they needed to buy an extra year because they weren't ready.

Why weren't they ready? because it's difficult for the community, the medical community to sign off on. I think I've helped that person so much that it's impossible for them to get better. You know, their mental health will never improve, so we should kill them, right? The community is not there. And so they needed to buy a year. That took them from February to March 9th, 2003, which is very short. And I do use that as an example to say,

we think that government takes a long time forever. They don't. But that's just the motion to buy the time. There's still all the work that needs to happen in all the different places, right? The legislative and legal requirements, all the different branches of government. And so we see that with parental rights, too. We need to have the will, which is, I hope, to acknowledge that parental rights have validity. And then we need to do the work of what does that look like in all the different areas.

of government, right? Whether it's, you know, the justice minister, the health minister, you know, child and social services, there's a bunch of ministries that this will bleed into. And they are busy people. So we need to get that up their priority list and then do the work with their departments to get it implemented. It's not a short process. And most parents, they can't spend all their days on that, which is why advocacy is the

important solution. because we've moved from the days where it's like, do a good job, come back in four years and we'll give you a report card. Either you'll get reelected or you won't. That's actually a very important distinction when we realize that there are things happening that are not legislated by legislature. There are things happening in the courts, right, or law enforcement that are not actually legislated properly. And the reason that that's important is because democracy is what puts your elected official reporting to you. and doing the work that they're accountable for. And so we've got some imbalance in how the process

is working that we need to correct. Legislators need to take back their authority, just like parents, in making sure that they put forward good legislation instead of saying the courts will sort it out later. That's a problem. And I just wanna clarify when you say, it's not like a, or sorry, a paraphrasing

and clarify me on this, but I'm not saying a parent has to give up their life to this. I just look at it more like following your favorite sports team or whatever it is. You just need to be engaged because if you're engaged, which doesn't take as much time as we all think it does. If you're engaged, then when something strikes or you see something, then you can speak to your MLA or what have you, your elected official to be like, this isn't right.

And you can see it happening. And as you see it happen, then you don't have to get brought up to speed. You're already there. You're like, yeah, I agree. I agree, Sean. I've been watching this go. And if we had more engagement, this is the David Parker thing. Right?

Politics isn't a spectator sport. It isn't. And he's saying that. And you go, that's what, so if you can get involved in a board, great. If you don't have the time, pay attention. Pay attention. Pay attention. Everyone can pay attention.

That's what I say too. If you want to support my work, right? You need to follow along and get the information needed. Because if you, if we ever need to press that emergency button, guys, something's happening right now. We need you to get on the phone this afternoon and start calling. people. That is critical. We can talk, but you're the muscle, right? And so it's very important, like you said, that people step to date because when those critical things happen, you don't have time to write a book about it. You need people to understand the basic issue and what's going on.

How can people find you, Shawna? The website, my email is, sorry, the website address is www. www.The irreplaceable parent project.ca.com. I'll put it in the show notes. That way you can click on it and go support what you're doing. Now, all that said, we're getting into two different things. Made or mature minor, I'll let you have at it whichever way you want to start this. Well, mature minor is a huge thing, but made, I think, is the thing we need to look at because the government tabled legislation. They had a committee that was looking at this specifically, and it was tabled February 15th already of this year,

looking to bring access to maid to minors. And so it's a scary thing. This is coming fast. I need you to say that sentence one more time. It's scary that the government has already tabled a motion for access to maid, which is medical assistance in dying, for minors on February 15th. So February 15th, there's a possibility. Am I hearing that?

They tabled it. Oh, they tabled it. Sorry. Yes, it's not in effect. Correct. Yes. Let's not get mixed up on that. Yes.

That's why I'm having you clarify, so I don't, so we don't have people running all over the place. I know. Sorry. No. So, anyway, this joint committee recommendation, they made many recommendations. So the special joint committee I made was formed in May of 2022, and their recommendation, and they were called AMAD were tabled in the House of Commons February 15th. If you want, I will just tell you some of the recommendations that they tabled.

Recommendation 14 and 15 basically required studies to be done on mature minors within five years of tabling. And I just want to point out the word within. It doesn't mean even a five-year study. It means they'll do a study or studies within five years. The people they'll ask will primarily probably be minors, right? and minors, of course, will say... You mean parents won't want to kill their kids? I know. That's shocking.

There are people who will, of course, take advantage of it, but parents need to be aware. Recommendation 16 says that the government of Canada amend the eligibility criteria for maids set out in the criminal code to include minors deemed to have the requisite decision-making capacity upon assessment. What's missing from that recommendation is any kind of age limit. There are no age limits that they require. Recommendations 17 restrict made for mature minors to those whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable.

That's how the adult made access started to. I'll read you some comments in a minute that the committee made before they made the recommendations. Recommendation 18 is what's critical for us right now. They want to work with the provinces, territories, and First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities, and organizations to establish standards for assessing the capacity of mature minors. seeking made. This is where the provinces need to draw that hard line and where we need people to champion the fact that we don't want to have easier access for our adult, you know, community or our children, right? We have a natural aversion to killing children as it should be. We don't

want to cross that barrier mentally either, right? And so we need to do this work before it comes into play instead of after because it's already heartbreaking. It's hard not to be emotional talking through these materials. I do try to not give it in an emotional way so that people can just focus on the data, but it is heartbreaking. And then recommendation 19 says establish a requirement that we're appropriate. And I want you to ask yourself, who gets to decide when it's appropriate? The parents or guardians of a mature minor be consulted in the course of the the assessment process for me, but that the will of the minor who is found to have the requisite decision-making capacity ultimately take priority.

You will not have the ability to stop it. A minor, and just so I'm clear, in Alberta is it under 18? Yeah. A minor in Saskatchewan or Ontario would be under 19. And so they're saying if you're mature, which, I mean, I wasn't mature at 18, let alone, you know, 14, 12, 10, you get the point. Yeah. When you say there's no age requirement, I just, I really want to draw people, I'm sure

they're already there, but that we don't skip over, you know, what is a minor? A minor is, you know, you can't drink, you can't drive. Well, I mean, I guess, smoke. I mean, I guess at 16 you can drive. But, I mean, overall, you can't go to war. You can't, you know, on and on it goes. Yeah. There's a list of things you can't do there.

But as we've seen with gender affirming care and a whole bunch of different things, we're seeing when you talk about parental rights and like how children are being able to advocate for themselves in a crazy life-altering decision, this is death we're talking about and giving children who are mature, which just seems insane. Well, it doesn't seem. It is insane. Right. Yeah.

I think this is where, again, we go back to what is a parent. and do they not have a unique role that is quite critical to protect and guide their children until they reach maturity? Now, that is subjective, but there is no one more better equipped to decide than a parent who lives with that child and loves them more than any government ever will have a capacity because government can't love. You know, that's impossible. It's an entity. It's not a person, right and so we need to be careful when we think about giving government the authority to define even a parent they are separate spheres of authority right we don't have government authority over every area of life and parents raising their families i'm going to just interject because i know

people will say but there's always the exception right there are exceptions and they need to be addressed. And it is good if there can be intercession by the people closest to them who care about restoring the family first and foremost. And there's a time and a place where the government might need to intervene. But what we see is, again, this encroachment about when that should happen. And when you have people in different political parties or different world views that have the view that the children belong to society or the government oversight over. and above the family. You really need to stop and evaluate,

are we helping or hurting those perspectives, right? We need to be guarded in what we ask for, wise and willing to do the work that is required in order to push back. I'm, for the listener, they probably hear my papers going back and forth. It's funny, I rattled off some, in the darkness of the Vic Chuba last night,

I was rattling off notes in the most not great way, as I can see. I'm just like scribbling all over a page. You mentioned, you know, when it comes to mature minors and different things, Ontario Bill 89. I'd never heard this one before. It was about disagree. I just jotted down quickly disagreeing. I thought maybe you could bring that up because I'm sure people maybe in Ontario know all about it. Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here.

I'd never heard it before. Yeah, I know it's shocking. in Ontario, disagreeing with your child may be considered serious psychological abuse and be grounds for removal by child social services since Bill 89 passed in 2017. When we say that this is a decades-long fight, we're not kidding. We're really behind in addressing some of the things that have been going on. So Bill 89 deprived parents of their earlier right to direct the child's education and religious upbringing. The family is now only allowed to direct the child or young person's education, upbringing in accordance with the child or young person's creed community identity and cultural identity so Irwin Elman who was Ontario's provincial advocate for children

and youth said in a statement I believe this new act and its principles represents a paradigm shift for the province with its commitment that to the participation of children and youth in every decision that affects them the creation of a child-centered system of service and commitment to anti-racism and children's rights. It's huge. Jack Fineska had been quoted at the time as saying with the passage of Bill 89,

we've entered into an era of totalitarian power by the states that has never witnessed before in Canada's history. And I'm like, that was 2017. Yeah, we're six years past that. We've seen some stuff since then. Yeah. But this is again going to,

if we have unchecked imposition into parental authority, it doesn't take us good places. And it is a mission creep. right? The government has having mission creep. Sometimes you've got people with the best intentions that have bad outcomes because they think that the solution is governmental. So we have to have a tolerance for parents to raise their children in different ways and have different views and beliefs. Canada would be a sad place to lose that because we really do have an amazing multicultural

society, right? And we need to keep that same high bar that we have for free speech, like yelling fire in a crowded room or theater. We know that there's times when people cross the line and there needs to be intervention. Nobody's denying that. But when we have laws based on a minority situation instead of the majority, right, when parents are vilified. When exception becomes the rule. Yeah, and parents are vilified just for having, you know, a decision that, you know, there's cultural shifts that happen all the time throughout history. Every family doesn't need to be trendsetters or trend followers, right? We need to have latitude and grace when dealing with each other.

True tolerance gives us the ability to have differences of opinions, whether it's political, cultural, religious, you know, worldviews matter. And we've had the blessing and the privilege of, living in a place where that was allowed, right, where that was encouraged and defended. It's time to step back up to the plate. We need to each do our part. My part is to advocate on your behalf at a governmental level and to come back to you with information that helps you understand the battle that we are all in and know what you can do in your life and your local community and to support the work that needs to happen at a higher level with advocacy,

supporting those that you elect in order to accomplish the things that are necessary within the system that we have. Yeah, that's a huge undertaking you've put on yourself, you know? And it's, you know, I'm just, you know, I probably say this too much on here, but like, I keep running into people that are just doing such excellent work. And I never knew much about them, right? Like, I mean, obviously we've been bouncing off each other kind of, I don't know, is it three, four months?

And finally we get to sit here and do this. But I really appreciate the fact that somebody's trying to pay attention to it, or paying attention, not trying, and trying to warn people and bring them up to speed and allow them to fall along and everything else. You know, when we get to, like, when we get talking about made, you know, one of the of the most shocking things to me is, now I've stared at the numbers a long time, this, this hockey stick-shaped graph of where the statistics of made deaths per year are going. You know, you probably have it off top of your head.

Yeah. But since 2016, you know, it starts off as, you know, I can't remember, is it a thousand people? By 2021, it's 10,000. By 2022, which just came out, it's over 13,000. And now they're starting to do things with the deaths where. where they're starting to, you know, and this was a conversation I was telling you this morning that in the book club we were talking about it. And Dustin had mentioned that they're starting to do something similar to what they did in COVID,

which is like, well, if you had a bad heart condition and you took Maid, they're going to chalk it up as a heart condition. You can talk to that a little bit, Shana. Yeah. I'm like, I was looking at that too. I was really mad actually sitting at my desk. I'm saying to my husband, look at this. And I'm like, I'm going to have to save this to my next talk because this talk is already too long, but is necessary and so integrated.

But it's really interesting. When you look at the top 10 causes of death in Canada, Maida's not on it, right? That's because they don't consider it a cause of death. You will see all the other things. But the numbers put it right there in the middle, right? It is in the top. Think about that for a second, folks. Yeah.

Like, oh, man, okay. So we have got here, again, wordplay and ideology driving the conversation. And this is why we need to do the work of decoding the documents or at least paying attention to it because it's not even like they hide things sometimes. We're just not looking. Yeah. And then there's a whole report on Maid separately. So they would say we're not trying to hide what's happening with Maid. It's just a separate thing.

Right? But I think people would be shocked, right? It gives them a way, if you see in the news, here's the top 10 causes of death in Canada, right? Maid's not even going to be in the conversation. Those are problems. People need to know. And so in my talk, I do speak about how it's coming at adults because adults started the same way that it's starting for kids, this proposal, that it's reasonably foreseeable death. Now, within 90 days, correct? reasonably foreseeable death can be same day. If it's not reasonably foreseeable. You can get made the same day if it's reasonably foreseeable. That's called track one. So track one. So I'm clear. You walk in and they're like, man, you're going to die like in the next seven days, which.

If you had cancer and you were in the hospital, you were in a hospice setting. But think about this, folks. I go back to Chris Little and I'm like, he was given like zero time and now he's cancer free. Anyways, you know. Absolutely. And, you know, Maid is only seven years old. What did we do before Maid? There's many people in the medical profession that are like hospice care can be very effective, right?

They can do amazing things to make people comfortable, but the government isn't looking at funding that as much as needed. Maid is such a cost savings. There's a bunch of money things behind Maine that we can look into, right? Organ stuff. You know, the hospices that resist Maid have had ten. terrible, you know, prosecution or persecution, both actually. Ontario actually, no, Quebec, just decided that every hospice and hospital had to offer made.

And that pressure is going to be coming to all the rest of the provinces on a constitutional basis. So I talk about the adults because I want people to understand what is going to be like for the kids. Let me just go back to telling you what the committee said for their recommendations. Sure. And while you find it, just so, you know, the way my brain worked on May, it's like, you know, if you're terminally ill and you're over, I don't know, 80 and some 80-year-old's going to be listening to us going, 80, I'm still young.

I'll go, fair enough. I don't know the answer. But in my brain, reasonably I go, you know, you're 80 and you got whatever it is. And you're like, you know what, I'm just done. My brain initially went, okay, you know, okay. And that was the door in, right? Yeah. on Canadians.

Yeah. Like that, oh, there. And since then, carry on. Yeah, since then,

it's, the numbers are astounding. I'm just going to, before I read this about the children, I just was going to talk about the numbers that you had mentioned.

People need a little bit of context because they might say, who cares? California, and most people in Canada are like, wow, you know, California is pretty liberal.

Bat, some, yeah, yeah, there's something all right. There's something. And so they have a rule that, it has to be requested by the patient. It can't be suggested by the practitioner and it's presented

as morally ambiguous. They're not trying to promote it, right, or encourage it. Canada, on the other hand, calls it a care tool. And there's this group. It's called CAMAP. And that's a Canada's assessors, Canadian Association of Maid Assessors and Providers. And they got $3.3 million from the government to come up with curriculum, which has just been approved in September, where you can now have accreditation for being a made. You can be accredited and providing people how to die. Yeah, or in killing them.

In killing them. Yes. Yes. Maybe we should just call it what it is and killing them. Fair. And then they've been. Lethal injection, I'm pretty sure. Can you do lethal injection on the prison system in Canada?

It's very interesting how prisoners are requesting made now, which is a workaround against, our anti-death sentence position in Canada. So, yeah, that's a whole other thing. But Canada, anyway, they promote it. They say doctors have an obligation to advise parents, and they call it a care tool, which is facetious. California says they can't promote it.

What does that mean? It means marketing matters. In 2021, California's numbers where they helped assist 522 people. And California roughly has the population of Canada. Of Canada. We both started in 2016. California started in 2016 as well. Yeah.

So California is a good foil to look at us. And in 2021, they had 500 people use it? 522. And we had over 10,000. Think about that, folks. Canada's the world leader in euthanasia deaths. And we've also seen a severe increase in reliance on made patients in order to provide organ donation. So which is a whole other talk.

I got nothing else but to laugh about that. That's the most in, I think most of us sitting here in Alberta or Saskatch when look at California and go, those people are nuts. Nuts. They're just nuts. Look at everybody just fleeing there. And then you listen to that stat and you're like, holy macana. It's 500 and change versus 10,000 in change. You're like, I don't know.

Like what else needs to be said at that point? Yeah. Well, actually, I think the culture of death is what's permeating our culture. here and we have to understand that it's intentional. You can listen to government officials say that we need to take a cautious stepped approach. That is echoed by, you know, the committee members. I will read you what they said about the children. This made special joint committee recommendations on reasonably foreseeable death and mental disorders. They said most witnesses agreed that may should only be expanded to include mature minors whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable,

at least initially. Okay, they know it's going to go farther fast. Can you imagine writing that? That's how the adults started too. I know. At least initially. At least initially. And here's why.

They said, as explained by Catherine Morrison and Cheryl Maline, there is a greater uncertainty regarding the vulnerabilities at playing cases where natural death is not reasonably foreseeable necessitating further study. That's why they say they'll do a study within five years. Then Dr. Gordon Gubutz noted that the Canadian public may not be ready for track two made for minors and recommended, along with others, a cautious, stepped approach. Brian Salte, however, questioned the constitutionality of limiting made for mature minors to track one. So track one is reasonably foreseeable. Reasonably, and track two.

Same day. And track two is not reasonably foreseeable 90-day waiting period. And it should be noted. And just in case people missed it, a step-by-step approach. So they're already looking at this of how we're going to get it through the Canadian populace to allow mature minors to kill themselves with the help of the Canadian government or the system. Without their parents being relevant, consulted in some cases, depending on someone else's I guess approval of them being involved.

Yeah, it's... Well, that's not going to fire anybody up wherever they're sitting on a Monday morning, hey? How's everybody doing now? That's a healthy dose of what... Well, WTF, right? Like, I mean, it's just a healthy dose of... Oh, man, okay.

And this is why parental rights is such a foundational issue, right? This is what ties us back to parental rights. There is not a better argument for... parental rights being acknowledged and the work being in pushing out, those who are overstepping it, because it is now life and death issue. I'm, I feel like where I'm at right now, I'm like, okay, let's just, talking more about this is like almost paralyzing. I don't know the word.

Stunning. Yes. And I'm like, okay, I'm sitting here and I'm going, okay, what can the audience do? right now, Sean. And I go, one, is they could share this. Like, I mean, that's probably the quickest thing they can do. They could probably share this, especially if you're in Alberta. Not to say you shouldn't share it to other places you should.

But, like, if you're sitting there and you go, like, somebody probably needs to hear this. I would say just share it, right? I think that's probably step one. Step two is if you believe in what Sean is talking about, you can go to her website and sign up for the email, an email list so that when you're like this needs to be addressed, you can be in the loop. That's probably the two quickest things. Like to try and pull some of the stress out of people

because I don't want to just sit there and paralyze them in their vehicle or on their way to work or doing the dishes, whatever they're doing this lovely Monday morning. I want them to be like, okay, there's things at play. It's going to take time, but we're going to work. You got Shana in your corner. That's what she's doing. And from what I've heard, you've been doing a lovely job of it.

You just need more people to help push. It goes, well, okay, well, I'm sure people are like, somebody needs to listen to us, share it, make sure they do. And then if you're in Alberta specifically, you should sign up for the email list so that when things come to head, you know about it. Yeah, I mean, sign up anywhere. You can subscribe and you can donate on the website, the irreplaceable parent project.ca. I would appreciate your support. Made is an issue that is federal. Oh, right, right, right, right, right.

Education is prevention. Scratch what I said if you're in Alberta, just anywhere you are in Canada. If you're in Canada, exactly. And if you're like Sheila in Iowa or somebody else from down in the States and you know if somebody in Canada needs to share it up here too, you know, I shouldn't just. Hi, Sheila. I shouldn't pick on just anyone, you know, there's people listening in all this from all over the place. I don't mean to say I'm worldwide, but there are people listening to this from all over the place. place and if there's people they think need to hear it or get involved, et cetera.

Yeah. I would just say share, well, I don't know. I don't usually to say that, but I'm like at this point, like I hear this and I'm like, I'm stressed out. I don't want to be stressed out. So what can I do? Well, bring Sean on. Okay, we've done that.

Now it's the next thing. Well, we can share it to a bunch of people that you think need to hear it so that they can help pay attention to when the next time Sean, because I'm going, I'm not going to I'm not going to. But now I got, I know Shauna's going to. And I know Sean is going to be like, you need to pay attention to this. I'm like, all right, we need to pay attention to this, right? Yeah.

And I think division of labor is an important thing to recognize. You're doing an important thing, right? People in their communities need to do the things in their communities. I don't want parents to be stressed either. Like you, I want to bring awareness and information to them so that they understand the fight that we're up against and they have a broader context. What you see in your community might not tell you. people know parental rights are in trouble. They don't see the scope.

When you see that phrase, anyone with a significant relationship with your child repeated over and over in different places, suddenly you understand it's connected, right? It's not just one place. I'm here to work for you, right? I know you have a lot of things going on. This is now what I do full time, right? Whether I get paid or not is up to you. But I am so passionate about this. I will come and talk to you and tell you about it.

And if you hear it and you think it's important, tell your friends, I'll come and talk to them too. The important thing is we kind of get a knowledge base underneath us, which was the point of this talk in the line of fire. So that people would have the context for understanding the work as we move forward. There will be action items that come. But some of this work is conversations, proposals, meetings. We don't need all of us at those things. you need me to go and do that for you. When there is an action item, then we need to take action.

So if you're concerned about Maid specifically, and we do have this deadline coming up because on March 17, 2024, mental health or depression is going to become eligible for access to medical assistance in dying. That is a bad precedent for adults. And if kids get access to Maid, right, that is also going to be.

problematic. There's a member of parliament, Ed Fast, who had a proposal to counter this coming into active, what's the word I want? To be coming, help me out, Sean. It was going to be put into place. Access was going to become effective March 17th. And it is. That's three months from now, right? he had a motion recently and it was only defeated by nine votes. So if you want to do something right now and you know people, adults that you love and care for that have mental health or depressive issues, which can be all the world. Or if you're just, or if you're just, you're like, you could fit in the category where you're like,

I got nothing. Nobody's really hurt by mental health. But I'm a bent. Yeah. Just think of where this goes next. Where this is going. Because this is a snowball, a giant boulder rolling. down to hell right now.

Absolutely. Right? Because it started, well, it started a pretty, like in my mind, reasonable. Now, people can take that

for wherever they want. Maybe they think they should never come, ever. Fair enough. But reasonable is like, you know, you're kind of on the desk

doorstep and you just want to go. Well, I think you're right. And you go, okay, but now the door's been open and it's rolling down the hill and we're like, wait a second, mental health,

you know, like, we got all these homeless people. What's going to happen? Like, are they going to be able to access it? Well, there's people who think that they should be able to.

Of course there is. And that was a shocking study or a research report. Oh, I got her flipping right now, folks. Because I don't want to get it wrong. No, no, no, no. And I mean it in the best. I know, I've got my little outline here. Research company released a poll that they did May 5th.

And it said that... Of this year? This year. Yeah, okay. And so the proposal for mental health had been delayed a year. And the government apologized to the people on the waiting list. because there is a waiting list. They said, May 5th, 27% of Canadians agree that maids should be extended to people

whose sole condition is poverty. They said 28% of Canadians agree that maids should be extended to people whose sole condition is homelessness. 43% for the mentally ill, 50% for those with disabilities, and 51% who have an inability to receive medical treatment. when you listen to the language where it says should be extended to people,

even the acronym made sounds so helpful. Yeah, it doesn't sound anything bad. But I'm like, this is when you say the word killing. We're just killing people. It's like that cuts through the BS. And all I can think of, you know, is in Nazi Germany. You know, I don't bring that up lightly. But they had the eugenics program where they were taking the mentally disturbed,

the disabled, the, disabled, the. on and on it goes and doing a whole bunch of things to them. And it's just like this boulder is rolling down the hill as fast as it can go. And March 20, March 17th. March 17th, I suppose it, 27th. That's going to be there. If you're sitting anywhere in Canada, is there anything that can be done before then, other than reaching out to your MLA or MP?

This would be your MP. Thank you. And I would say do that because I think there might be another push before March 17th. They were only nine short. That means we need nine more MLAs to feel the pressure from the people. To say it is unacceptable. When they were nine short on the vote, was the Liberal Party all for it? Or were they all over the place?

Oh, the Liberal Party is the one who's pushing this the most, right? I don't have in my head who was for and against it. But the conservatives were against it. You know, it's always the block and the NDP that are kind of, you know, deciding which side they want to put it. You're living in Quebec. I shout out to my people living in Quebec because I know they listen. Yeah.

It's like, well, that's on you, Quebecwa. That's on people who are voting liberal. That's on people. And there probably isn't a whole lot of them. But I mean, if they are, and they're in a riding where their MP is liberal, so be it. Reach out to them. Well, I'd love to say this to the people of Quebec, because Quebec is now 8% of your deaths in 2021 were made. 8%.

You are the hot spot in the world. Canada leads the world in or euthanasia. We lead the world. And Quebec is the hot spot. But Alberta and the rest of the country should sit up and take notice because our numbers are increasing everywhere.

The pressure that's going to come on all hospitals and hospices to provide maid, if you are an organization in the medical field that does not provide Maid, they want to deliver. They will go to court to say constitutionality, you can't stop people from getting access to Maid. Well, what about the people who want to be in a place

where they don't want Maid? Like, again, tolerance. Are we going to insist that Maid is accessible everywhere? Well, just listen to the veterans. The veterans is where it first exploded, right? Oh, that was huge news. And this is the problem, because when it comes to organ donation, right?

They're like, this guy, he makes me kind of crazy. Arthur Schaefer, the director of the Center of Professional Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba. This is a direct quote from him, and this was in an article on CTB News. He said, I was rather proud that Canada has done so well in terms of organ donation by made patients. He said Canada's numbers show a strong move to turn death into. to a win-win. So I say, good on us. It's a wonderful opportunity for someone facing death to make something significant out of the end of their life. And I'm like, if you think about that in the context of people thinking this is a solution for homelessness or poverty, our veterans were already

willing to lose their lives to help others, this is going to be a mental mind game. Do we know why life is sacred and why it is important regardless of circumstances. Because if we don't know the answer to that, we are going to get talked into how this is a help. And you're right. The numbers are stunning. Right now the conversation is a worldview. Well, if people want to do it, they can. But it is not going to take long.

And the government already notes the cost savings of made. And now the conversation is going to become practical. Yeah. Well, you think you think of, and I don't know the answer this. This is where a doctor could help me out. But I just assume, I just assume, that a person in their 90s who's committing made isn't donating many organs.

I assume like you're not getting a brand new heart out of a 90-year-old. I just assume that's the way it works. Maybe I'm wrong, okay? So full disclosure, I'm not a medical professional. I want to make that adamantly clear. But the way my brain works on that is I'm like, okay, but then you start adding in the mental illness portion of this, the disabled.

now your numbers of age group is coming down and down and down and down. And what does that do for your organ transplants? Now you're getting healthier organs. And that's, who are we kidding? That's a big market. There's a market. And then you get into mature minors and everything else. And it's like, oh, my God, this is going to be, oh, this is scary.

Right? I've just like, you can see where this gets to where there's a word I'm looking for. and I can't find it right now. And like the, it can be overwhelming. The ethical dilemma will start to be, but we're going to save lives with all these young organs, right? All these people need these.

And they don't want to live anyway. So why? We're just giving them an option. It's not a, like I almost, I can almost see the horns on the devil when he's saying this, right? He's almost, it's, this is just, it's not a big deal. We're going to, we're going to kill a few.

We're not even going to kill. We're going to, we're giving them what, to want. They're going on to a better place. Now we get to take it and we get to give people life and all my. And by the time you get there, like, I don't know how you put that genie back in the bottle. That is Pandora's box. There's another Pandora's box there. And I think Sheila Nett Lewis pointed was like a case where we saw, even though she qualified for organ donation, because she didn't take the vaccine, she was disqualified from the transplant that would have saved her life. She died August 24th. Somebody else needs to work the whole issue of transplants. You know, the implications

with Maid, they've just now changed the rules where people, it's not an anonymous donation anymore. You can actually designate who gets your organ. And that's going to incentivize Maid because now it's like, well, if I do kill myself, I know that I could give my heart to this other willing or worthy person. This is this is the name. now another ethical dilemma, right? And so if we don't get our heads wrapped around where this is going, where this is going, and we've seen arguments on all sides of life now, right? The value of life is definitely an issue in play. And when it comes down to the bean counters, that's an easy thing to say. It's way easier to pay a couple of bucks and help somebody with euthanasia than it is to

sustain their life or give them hospice care. So we're going to come down to practicalities. Well, right now, the buy-in is being sought on the altruistic argument, right? And people don't want to suffer. They don't want to be a burden. They don't want to wreck the holidays. We really need to understand. People used to know how to suffer well. Even through suffering, there are things that we learn and teach. There are valuable days and interactions right up to the last day of death. And we need to hear people's stories. The committee on maid heard people give their own personal stories. You know, my friend Mike Chuton shared about his son dying of cancer.

And right up until the last day, you know, he had an extra day they didn't expect. And his whole hockey team came in to see him. And there's beautiful moments. And it's like we rob each other of those things. No, it's not easy. I wouldn't say getting old is easy at all. People can die at any age. but there is value in what we offer to each other, right?

Life lessons, wisdom, community, support, relationship. Are all those worth nothing? Look at the Emmington Oilers. And I'm forgetting, why can't I think of the... Let me a second. While we're talking about organs, I'd like to just mention that really horrific new development about how they want to use babies as a source for organs.

And there was an article. Joy Moss. Joy Moss is like, it was with the Eskimos now, the Elks, and the Eminton Oilers. He's, he, um, uh, had Down syndrome, right? And he became this giant amongst men. Yeah. And you, you can go talk to some of the most prolific athletes in Eminton history. Heck, in NHL history, I bet.

and everybody knows about him. Yeah. I mean, you go to an oiler game right now. Yeah. And he's still on the screen singing the old Canada because everybody loved it. There isn't a fan who doesn't love that. Yeah. And, you know, when you talk about getting robbed of things, like, um.

Right. Man, I tell you what, as a younger man, I used to love a good scary movie. And I used to watch it with the wife. And, but I never, after it, down and be like, all right, let's turn on like something, you know, like light. Light. Make me laugh so I can go to bed in a good mind. And today's world, I don't, I don't know the last time I watched the scary movie once, but I haven't had to watch anything scary because I'm just like, but after this conversation, I'm like, well, hello Monday.

It's time to flick on your best comedy special to try and just lighten the mood a smidge. You're about to hammer me with one more and I'm going to let you. And then we're going to say how people can follow you and do that one more. time and we'll leave it there because I'm like, man, this has been very interesting, Sean, but heavy at the same time, you know, with where we could be heading, where we are heading if we don't put a stop to it. Yeah. Well, I hate to end with this one, honestly, because it is so heavy.

Actually, I cried when I saw this come out in the news. It was just September 22nd. The headline was American surgeons suggest harvesting kidneys from terminal newborn babies. And he said newborn babies represent a huge untapped pool of organs. He figured that 12,000 out of 21,000 infants who had their lives lost in 2021 could have been considered viable organ donors. And this was presented to the European Society of Organ Transplantation Congress in Athens, Greece, just in September. In their press release, they said there's concern amongst the transplant community about the difficulty of the procedure, along with its experimental nature. Through the exchange of experience amongst pioneering centers, we hope to address these concerns, foster acceptance.

There again, we see that, of this forgotten source of organ donors and ultimately save more lives through organ transplantation. The thing that I want you to leave with is this is all stoppable. because what they're banking on is convincing you that it is acceptable and possible for us to live with this disregard for life. And I'm going to circle back to parents. Nobody cares about kids more than the parents of those children. Nobody cares about the family more than the people in the family, right? It's not to say that other people don't care, right? They do. We need our greater communities too. But the buck has to always stop somewhere. And we have to decide if the buck stops with government or us. And then we need to work towards that end. So if we ask the government to define parental rights,

we're going to be handing over the authority and structure and how we work and how we get to make decisions to other people. If we ask the government to acknowledge parental rights, that's a totally different thing. And then we want to encourage them to work in ways that push people out of the fear that they've stepped into that's not theirs. Offensive or defensive? Let's end with that hockey illustration. You know, illustration. We need to pick because we're at a crossroads now in the country, I would say. And I hope that we can work wisely moving forward and have a government that's willing to have our backs instead of decide that they're the boss of us, right? Because parental rights precede government, they don't come.

from government and we need to make sure we don't give them the illusion that they are in charge of print rights. If you want to follow along with Shauna's work, put the website in show notes and then there will be a full presentation. It's just dependent on when the video gets uploaded and all that good stuff and we'll toss the link in there as well. Other than that, I assume you go to a website and you can just sign up for email, the list and that way you can you can pay attention for your work and everything else. Any other final

thoughts before I let you out of here? I appreciate you coming and doing this and sticking around town and finally getting to do it in person, you know, across from one another. It's a heavy subject. In saying that, I think by this point, you know, there's a lot of heavy subjects. And digging through the fine print is what so many of us struggle on. So to find somebody who's doing it and doing it well, at least that's, I think your reputation preceding. you into this room and that all the people I was talking about say the same thing that you're you're really good at digging into the finer details of what's happening and advocating on the side of the parents and parental rights and everything else yeah it's been an interesting

24 hours and certainly if you just buckled into this one and had no idea it was coming at you you're sitting there going holy diana but appreciate you coming in and doing this show thank you If you want me to do this work for you, please do subscribe or donate. We can't do the work without your help. And if you're interested in having a tip talk, tip stands for the irreplaceable parent project, reach out on the website, and I would love to come and see you in person because I think you need to know. Your community needs to know.

Not everybody will listen to a podcast. Sometimes in person is best, and I'll do my best to be there for you. Why didn't we do this virtually, right? Honestly, right? There's something special about across from the table. or in the audience, et cetera, to seeing the person and getting to know one another. And I don't know. Interact.

They interact for social beings. Yeah. Thanks for having me on the show and out with the kids' sake, for the kids' sake. It really is for them and the families that I work. They have my heart and I won't stop in what I'm trying to do. So thank you for having me come.