Shaun Newman Podcast - #715 - Nadine Wellwood

Episode Date: September 24, 2024

She is a chartered investment manager, public speaker and political advocate who is a board member with the 1905 Committee. We discuss why she was not allowed to run for the UCP, her thoughts on Russia/Ukraine, the 1905 Committee and her thoughts on Premier Smith and the UCP government. Clothing Link:⁠⁠⁠https://snp-8.creator-spring.com/listing/the-mashup-collection⁠⁠ Text Shaun 587-217-8500 Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcast E-transfer here: [e-mail] Silver Gold Bull Links: Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/ Email: [e-mail] Grahame: [phone]

This is Tom Longo. This is Alex Kraner. This is Lila Micklewaite. Hi, this is David Collum. Hey, this is Gordon McGill. This is Kirk Libdemo. This is Chris Sims. This is James Lindsay, and welcome to the Sean Newman podcast.

Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Tuesday. How's everybody doing today? Silver Gold Bull. Yeah, they're my go-to precious metals dealer with their complete in-house solutions, whether buying, selling, storing, or adding precious metals to your retirement accounts. And I think we can all agree that the price of gold is a measure of trust in government and with gold at all-time highs,

trust in government is not surprisingly plummeting to all-time lows. And Silver Gold Bowl has an exclusive offer for you, the SMP, listener, on quarter-ounce gold coins from the Royal Canadian Mint. For anyone looking to protect their savings with physical gold, these low-cost fractional coins are great by. Down in the show notes, text or email, Graham, for more details. Or you can just hop on silvergoldbill.com, depending on what side of the border you're on. and get all their, the latest, greatest from what they're doing.

Anytime you're buying from them, just make sure you throw in, you know, your Sean Newman podcast listener. It helps them, helps you, helps me. It's a win, win, win. That doesn't happen very often in life, does it? I don't know, maybe it does. McKell Thorup, he was on stage at the Cornerstone Forum. He's got the world's largest offshore event taking place entirely online

from October 7 to 11th. He is the host of the expat money show. You can discover why international diversification is a must for those looking to preserve their liberty and wealth. Learn everything you need to know about crafting your perfect plan B, how to quickly acquire a second passport, diversify your finances offshore, invest in international real estate, and get in-depth insights on geopolitics from world-renowned experts, that is. Headline speakers include Dr. Ron Paul, Doug Casey, Scott Horton, Tom Woods, Mark Faber, Tom Lwango, and a whole bunch more. To reserve your complimentary ticket, just head on over to expats. money summit.com. That's expatmoneysummit.com.

Racktech power products for the past 20 years, they've been leaders in the power sports industry. If you haven't stopped into their location on the west side of Lloydminster, you really should. Their showroom is something else. And last time I was over there, they got ego lawnmores, ego kind of like a line, and just, you know, think of like a...

You know, you get all your, oh man, I'm spacing on the, well, this is going to be fun. I'm spacing on the words I want to use here this morning. Great. Happy Tuesday. But you know how you got your batteries that go in the bottom of drills and how they can go into, you know, little saws and on and on and on, right? Pretty versatile. You charge the battery and then you can use, you know, five or six different cordless drills, et cetera, et cetera, right? Leaf blowers, I think I'm making my point.

Well, this ego line, they got lawnmores that are battery powered. They also got an ego miniature motor bike, motor dirt bike. I don't know what they have to call it. You know, it's for me, not being a giant guy, it was actually like the perfect size. And it can rip. And you can go take it for a test track. Go over the west side of Lloyd, stop into rec tech, tell him Sean say. You go find Ryan and be like, hey, I heard about this ego little, uh,

motorcross dirt bike. I don't know what the heck to call it, folks. I'm not in this world. I got the ride it, though. And it was pretty cool. And it went. And I'm like, this is like, hmm. And the reason I bring up the power tools is it's battery operated.

And the batteries for the lawnmower go in the motorbike, etc., etc. You get the point. Hopefully I'm not butchering this. They're open Monday through Saturday. For a full look at what they got, go to rectech power products.com. Or if you're in the area, stop in on the west side location. and if Ryan's there, tell him Sean sent you. And, well, I look forward to hearing some thoughts.

If somebody else who goes and tries this thing, and it's like, this is pretty wild. Ignite distribution out of Wayne, right, Alberta. They can supply industrial, safety, welding, automotive parts. They've got to on-site inventory management, and they can make sure you never run out of all the things that make your business run along.

And as I get close to heading to Florida here this Thursday, I'm sure other people leave for weekends or trips or get busy. Helps to have somebody like Shane in your corner making sure your business continues to tick along. You can give them a call. 780 842-3433. That's Shane Stafford out of Wainwright, Alberta. Substack, folks, we've published again on Sundays 5 p.m. That's when our articles become, has been coming out now for six weeks.

You can get the week in review. and you know it's once a week right now so sub stack down the show notes if you haven't subscribed to it that's a you know you get a couple of things i think i had a couple pictures in there from the phone too so if you're interested in a few of the behind the scenes it's free you can also subscribe and become a paid member and we give you a look at the next episode and a couple episodes a couple articles ago we had um the premier back kind of what was going on while she was in the studio you get full out of access to the full recording of the Cornerstone Forum.

And, of course, you support independent media. Hey, there's my sales pitch for you. Down on the show notes. Friday, November 29th, SMP Christmas Party, bringing in the dueling panels to the Gold Horse Casino. We still have tables for Friday, November 29th. The Saturday, November 30th, is completely sold out. So if your business is looking for something around Christmas time,

shoot me a text down in the show notes. And legacy interviews. A few left, a couple left. And if that is up your alley, shoot me a text, I can send all the details to you. All right, let's get on to that tale of the tape. She's a chartered investment manager and one of the founders of the 1905 committee. I'm talking about Nadine Wellwood.

So buckle up, here we go. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast today. I'm joined by Nadine Wellwood. So Nadine, thanks for hopping on. Oh, my pleasure. It's like you just said. It's been long overdue. Well, I was, you know, for the audience, I, you know, your name, I feel like.

And maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong. I just feel like through the middle of COVID, maybe even the year after COVID, your name came up. I can't remember all the ins and notes of why people wanted me to have you on. And it wasn't like I threw that in the trash. I never throw any of those suggestions in the trash.

They actually go on a bit of a list. And then you start to see what people are, oh man, this just keeps coming up. Henceforth me having you on because the amount of times I've been texted with the 1905 committee, I'm like, I have no idea what this is. And so before we get to any, of that, you're right, it has been long overdue, but for the people who don't know who you are,

let's just start there. Who is Nadine and what makes you tick? Sure. Well, I guess most people probably know me from the People's Party of Canada. And so in 2018, I felt a little bit politically lost, like it didn't belong anywhere. Like my policies, my values were, didn't fit with any of the traditional parties. And then Maxine Bernier and the People's Party of Canada kind of popped onto the scene. And it was actually my husband who looked at me and says, well, now that you have someone that you agree with and policies that you support, what are you going to do about it? And I'm like, what do you mean? What am I going to do about it? And he's like, well, you know, you can't be a sofa warrior. Like, what are you going to do about it? And I was like, well, okay, you'll see what I'm going to do about it. And I ended up being the federal candidate for the People's Party of Canada here in Banfairdry at the time for 2019 and 2021. And still very much a strong supporter for Maxine Bernier and the policies. I think, you know, as far as all the party platforms go, he has the absolute best policies

and is very principled. Like he is the one person who I say walks his talk. And so I got involved politically. I'm a chartered investment manager. And I've been doing that for two decades now working in finance and investing. I owned my own investment securities firm. So I understand the burdens and overburden of regulation and government interference in the private capital markets and the economy and all of those things.

I have many people who often ask about my bookshelf and I do read the Ray Dalio's, but I also read and the Warren Buffets, you know, and I follow what's going on on the traditional side of the house, but I'm a Ludwig von Mises person. I'm a Thomas Sowell, so more the Austrian economics philosophy that actually you see the results that makes sense. It's a very logical results oriented kind of way of looking at things and so politically for me when Danielle Smith said that you know we Jason Kenny kind of got removed out of the picture I said well if you get elected as leader

I will run provincially and that's exactly what I did I ran down in Livingston McLeod and was very very well received down there there were six other people who were going to run they all decided to throw their ballot behind me so none of them challenged me and And it was Roger Reed, actually, at the time, who was the MLA. And in the five minutes to six type of thing, five minutes before the deadline to kind of withdraw your nomination, that's exactly what he did. So I was to actually be acclaimed. And went through the interview process with the CA, they put my name forward only to have the executive at the UCP disqualify me. So I'm sure based on what's going on with Jennifer Johnston and a few other things, that's going to make for some very interesting conversation.

today because I still don't feel like I have a place to belong politically, provincially, because I feel like. What was the reason, Nadine, they cited disqualifying you? There was a number of them. So one of the big ones was I had called for Tyler Shandrow, Jason Kenney, and a few others to go to jail. Now, in context, like I said in my interview that day, I said, okay. So Tim Stevens, pastor Tim Stevens, had just spent 21 days in jail. And the day before my interview with the CA constituency association for Livingston McLeod,

he was fully acquitted for having done absolutely nothing wrong. And my response to that question, it was Kyle who actually asked me from the provincial board representing the executive, I said, look, I said, here's a man. a pastor doing his job spent 21 days in jail fully acquitted. I said, what do you think is a fair and just consequence for the political advocates who put him there? Like they are the ones who develop the policy. So what do you think is a fair and just consequence for the politicians who put him there? And of course, all the eyes go down and it's like, well, we don't want to answer that question. Like that's far too rational and reasonable. Right. And so that was one of the reasons.

they didn't like my stance on Ukraine. Now, I have worked in aerospace and defense. I owned a modeling and simulation human factors engineering company back in the 2000s. And I worked in Ottawa. I've worked with the Department of National Defense. I've worked with the Lockheed Martins. I've worked with the Boeings, the CAE's. I've worked with French companies. We have actually even done some work with some Israeli technology. So I have quite an in-depth kind of knowledge and experience first had with the military. So I didn't support the war in Ukraine. I didn't think that Canada should be sending money to Ukraine. I didn't think the U.S. should be. I said, you know what, this should never have started to begin with, in my opinion. And a very unfavorable take,

but it's welcomed here. So you're in good company. Carry on. I'm going, well, it looks like Sean won't be running for the UCP anytime soon. Carry on. Well, and that became the problem. And so because I had a difference of opinion, it wasn't welcome. And I went, well, wait a minute. I thought this is what we were supposed to be, a grassroots organization. And under Danielle, it was supposed to be more open to accepting difference of opinion so that we could have the debate. Now, I mean, I could go all the way back in history, right back to 2014 and beyond, you know, and I talked about in, you know, when the Warsaw Pact ended, maybe NATO should have been disbanded. There's a very good logical explanation as to why that should have happened. And, you know, the commitments that were made that

weren't followed through on. I talked about the Monroe Doctrine, you know, if Russia parked itself on our borders, we'd be going like, hell no, like, no, not happening. And yet we expected, expected them to accept that. If I may, in this conversation, if anyone, because I'm sure there's going to be people who are like, what the hell is she talking about? Listen, I have done now, I was just looking at it. Go back through folks, I should just publish the list. I've done 15 interviews with Tom Luongo and Alex Kraner and one individually with each of those guys. And are they right?

110% on everything they say? No. But what they talk about and how we get to where we are with Russia, Ukraine, everybody should go do themselves a favor and listen to it. In June of 2023, I brought them to Canada. And they talked on stage in Lloyd Minster of why we're on the wrong side of Russia. Ukraine. It doesn't make Putin this great human being. We're not saying that. Just look at what the evidence shows on what the United States, among others, have been doing, NATO, and you get to where you're like, holy crap. We are on the brink of World War III. I told you as soon as I'm, so Monday,

when people are listening, it's going to be Chuck Prodnick, and we're talking about how freaking close to World War III we are. It is insane. And everyone's just like, yeah, we got to, you know, I shouldn't say everyone. Politicians are all like, yeah, we can't lose this war. We can't. It's like, do you understand what you're saying? Do you have any idea what you're leading us towards? And everybody points to Putin like he's, like he's, I don't know, I think maybe the app comparison.

It's a, you know, anytime you say these words, it's just like, oh my God, like he's Hitler and he's about to take over all of Europe. But go watch everything. Go listen to what's going on. Educate yourself. And you find out we're the ones provoking it, like over and. over and over again. So I guess I just hop in here to say that, that, you know, the Ukraine thing on my end isn't, I guess I'm curious why they knocked you off. You've mentioned, you know,

calling for jail. It's like, well, we just had the Coots. And the thing that me and Marco Van Hogan boss talked about, like almost after Coots, like, I don't know, first two months, Nadine, after it had happened, he's told me. He's like, I'm probably going to jail. I'm like, ah, and he's like, but I want everybody to ask why I'm going to jail and why I went and stood. there and why what led to that and it's almost like we forgot that things were going on in our province and our country that were not okay it was it was insane and for that good men and women were forced to do things they they didn't want to do and then they go while they brought you know you go to tony on like and all these guys all they brought guns it's like do we realize what we thought

was happening they were they were talking about not letting this in the hospitals and like all this crazy stuff on and on and not to mention the pastors and everything so you You got me so far. What else did they say that you were, you were this individual that shouldn't be allowed in? So, Danielle herself actually told me I wasn't a team player. And I guess now when I, I look back, I'm definitely not their team player. No, I'm not a Daniel Smith cheerleader. And I'm certainly not a person who is just going to accept policy because that's what I've been told I'm going to do. So they picked up on that very quickly, obviously. And I mean, I have some. I have six years of history. I've done things like YouTube here and podcasts and very outspoken on social media.

So, you know, people have accused me of working for the W.E.F. You know, because I have been out. Are you working for the W.E.F? Apparently so because I am outspoken against Danielle Smith. And it's like, I am not, it's not personal. It's not about her as an individual. It's about government. And government makes promises today that they don't keep. And they double speak. They, you know, they say all these pretty words and then they never follow through on. As a matter of fact, they often do the exact opposite of what they say they're going to do. You know, it's like, oh, well, we need to have peace. I mean, you just mentioned, you know, Hitler and Putin being Hitler.

Well, Trump is Hitler, apparently. So, man, there's an awful lot of Hitler's running around in the world, right? But they use this, you know, euphisms and they use this double speak. And the words don't mean what they mean anymore, what they should mean anymore. They've been hijacked to mean something else. And, you know, it's really funny because you'll read a pretty sentence from the United Nations. And people only read the headlines, right? That's all they have time for.

And they go, oh, God, that sounds like a really great idea. And then you read the content and you go, oh, my gosh, there is no way that we can allow that to happen. Right? But they bury it, you know, and they make it complex. But they speak publicly on all, you know, the nice words. But it's not, they don't say what they mean. And so, you know, 1905 really came about as a result of wanting to hold politicians to account, wanting our government to do what it said it was going to do.

I would like to see one rule of law that applies to everybody equally. No more special interest groups, no more political favors, no more cronyism. You know, how about we reduce the size of government instead of expanding it? Give the power back to the people. And we cannot do that under the current system. Are you saying what I think you're saying in that if you're in government and you break the law instead of being what was the ethics commissioner, Finkelstein, you get exposure. You get exposure. That's what you get. And I'm like, you know, in the real world, I break the law. I'm going in the slammer. So is what you're trying to say is I feel like what me and Vesper talked about maybe a week and a half ago is that you would like to see government close the loopholes so that they're held to the same. standard as the population. Am I catching that right?

Why aren't they? Why do they get to a separate set of laws and, you know, get treated differently than you and I? But I don't have an, like, I mean, other than to say what we got to in the conversation is this isn't something new to the UCP government or the liberal government or the Democrats. Like, you go back in history and what you're going to see is the fact that this has been going on for thousands of years, right? Governments are even in the best attention governments, the United States, eventually human beings are human beings, and they find loopholes and they start to expose things and pretty soon, you know, corruptions running rampant and you're just

trying to, I guess, hold the government account. You would like to see some of the things and the promises held up. Am I catching that, right? A promise made needs to be a promise kept. And if we are, so one of the fascinating things for me, I laugh because People look at me and they go, Nadim, but, you know, we have a conservative government. And I'm like, do we, though? What is the definition of conservative? What are our values? Right.

And yet, because when I look at this government in particular, I hear net zero all the time. Is that truly a conservative principle, a conservative value? Right. Is that what we believe as conservatives, that climate change is, you know, catastrophic and it's a crisis and needs to be addressed and we need to destroy our oil and gas industry in order to accomplish that goal? I don't think so. but yet every other sentence is net zero, net zero, net zero, carbon capture out of this government. And I'm like that, I find very frustrating. There is not one rule of law that applies to everybody.

I mean, I don't see justice. I see lots of legal, but I don't see justice. And Coots is a perfect example of that. You have to look at why those men were put in that situation to begin with. They were put in that situation because the government acted unjustly against. its own people. And so they stood up against that. And now they are being politically punished and using the law, but it's not justice. So, you know, that is why 1905 exists. It's really about leadership accountability, holding our government to account. It's not about the individual that's at the

helm, although unfortunately, the leader has to accept accountability for the party. So people look at me and they go, Nadine, well, you seem to very unfairly be attacking Daniel Smith and it's like give me someone else to attack i've asked daniel smith she said um she's had her wings clipped on the coots issue i'm like okay tell me who clipped your wings hey that there there's a bone for me to go chase tell me who clipped your wings who in this province has more authority more power over the premier because i didn't elect them did you elect them sean certainly not uh with the wings Clipped. Let's talk about that for just a second. Because I had her on, it was, I don't know, I've had her on, I think, three times since she's been Premier. I want to say. And I want to say the wings clipped stems from the Arter Polowski phone call where they filmed her and then released it. And then all the hubbub came from her interfering in government is how they sold it. If you went and listen, you know, when you talk about like UN headlines, if you actually went and listened to the phone call, it was a nothing. Burger. I thought. I thought I listened down. I'm like, the heck can people complainant about it?

She basically said, I'm going to look into it. I'm paraphrasing because I actually don't have the audio. I haven't listened to it a long time. But as soon as that happened, the backlash on her starting to mess in the judicial system was like, I don't know, pretty loud. I thought. And I, to me, I looked at it and like, we did it to ourselves. Like Arterpolski filmed the phone call, maybe rightfully so, maybe not. I don't know. But then he released it. And then the backlash on her getting involved in it. I don't know. That's the way I saw it. And when she talks about it, that's where she goes to every time. It's like, well, I tried. And then I got my wings clipped. That's how my brain understands it. How do you understand it, Nadine? Well, to me, there needs to be

political will, right? So if somebody is doing something wrong, even if it's the government, who's going to be responsible for calling it out? So I expected that our premier, when she was elected, who said she was going to look into this, who understood the political, weaponization that was going on of our judicial system was going to continue to look at when when things got a little bit tough, you back away and you say, oh, I can go to jail. Well, you've got, you know, a group of men right now who are going to go to jail. So, you know, it's like her priority is to protect her own self-interest. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But the reality is she made a promise and a commitment to follow through to make sure that this wasn't going to happen again to look into what did happen, this politicization, weaponization of the judicial system. And then she backed off the minute things got hard. And to say that my wings got clipped is like, okay, so I want to know who, who, what organization, what individual, who specifically clipped your wings? Because, hey, if they are the problem, let us the people address them, Right? We can probably have more influence and put more political pressure, more public pressure to either remove them or to have something changed. But we can't work with something we don't know. So unfortunately, Danielle Smith doesn't give names. It's like the whole, well, she has people around her who are working against her. Well, she doesn't think so. You ask her that question. She's like, no, we're one big happy family. Now, I mean, if you know anything about politics, you know that's not true. So either she's lying or she's delusional. you know so or or i might or i might add she's just playing the game right like she's playing the political game which is i'm trying to create the the the idea that we're one big happy family you're always

going to have somebody who's disgruntled and that is part of being maybe a part of one big family it is but the reality is just say it that way like you said that very eloquently there's no one going to disagree with anything you just said right and but people i think on Honestly, especially people like myself who I, you know, I call myself a conservative. I belong to the UCP. But I'm more probably on the libertarian side of conservatism than I am. You know, like these people who call themselves progressive conservatives, and we can talk about that in a moment too.

That's an oxymoron. It doesn't exist. Either you're a conservative or you're a progressive. You can't be both, in my opinion. Oh, but I'm fiscally conservative. It's like, oh my gosh. That's a whole other, you know, episode in and of itself. And the same thing with Danielle, you know, she needs to be honest with people because people are done with politics.

Like myself, I am just really tired of people who get in and then they play the game. This is my life. This is your life. This is the future of my children. This is not a game for me. Right? So that's why I got involved in politics because I'm tired of them playing games with my life and with the future of my children. children. And I thought she was going to stand up against that. And it's just, it's been a sad

reality that, unfortunately, I'm not seeing that from her. You know, Sheila Gunn-Reed said something that has really stuck in my brain. And that was, you know, basically as a journalist, her being on the right-hand side, she's like, the entire world is going to try and pull Danielle left. And I have to be one to hold her to the right. And when I hear you talk and the idea behind 1905 and once again I please expand if I'm getting any of this wrong but to me it sounds like you've taken that from a basically a journalist standpoint into a group kind of like I don't know take back Alberta is the one that comes to mind I think everybody in Alberta specifically listening this show knows all about what they were able to along with a whole bunch of others

accomplish and run up to the leadership review and then the election And I just hear, like, maybe I'm wrong, but am I getting that right, Nadine? Like, am I hearing that you're kind of like an interest group that looks at this and goes, if we don't start, you know, talking and trying to exert some influence on Danielle, we already see where she's leaning to. And it took a few different things on, you know, the LGBTQ side to all of a sudden have her talking a little bit different on what she was going to introduce as a bill in Alberta. Are I wrong on that or am I getting some of that right?

No, you're getting that absolutely right. You know, people are really, conservatives are really happy to call out the NDP or the liberals, but they're not so happy to call out their own. And when our own start moving left, and this is the problem, every time we get finally a good leader or... We go to sleep and we go back to our job and we just expect they're doing everything right. And then you wake up one day and you're in the middle of COVID and you're going, what the heck is going on? We got a conservative government. Just leave us alone.

And then pretty soon we're at Coots. And I mean, I'm jumping. I'm being a little hyperbolic. But I mean, it did happen. And I mean, we are still seeing the ramifications of it. And that's exactly what I see happening here. Danielle is going to continually move left. Let's take a look at, you know, you mentioned LVGTQ.

Right. And when I ran in Livingston McLeod, boys are boys, girls are girls. That's my belief. Right. And it's not shocking. Can we just say that is not a shocking statement? And I like Jennifer Johnson trying to explain. I got no ill will towards you.

You know, I'm talking to the video that went absolutely, you know, hyperbolic and it's like it just everywhere. J.K. Rowling is literally tweeting about it. Like I'm just like, holy dinah. That isn't a crazy thing to say. I mean, the world tries to make it out, but I continue to have conversations all over this place with thousands of people. And nobody will tell me that's an odd statement to make. I come from a farming background. This is life.

You can take religion into it. You can take religion out of it. It doesn't matter. That's not a wild statement to make. Men or men, boys or boys, women or women, girls or girls, sure can they identify something else? Absolutely. Can you do the things to your body to make you like the other sex? Certainly.

But you ain't. That isn't, there's men, there's women, done. And I don't understand. I do not understand. I pick on Pierre Pollyev lots. Why that can't just be it. They're worried about the ramifications. Like, just feel like the world is ready for that.

But maybe, maybe I'm just too far ahead of the world at times, Nadine, or too far behind. Who knows? Well, you know, try and milk a bowl. Try and milk a bowl would be right. Or try and get a rooster to lay some eggs, you know? Right. Like, I mean, the list goes on and on and on. And then they'll point out some, you know, some lizard or some snake or something that, you know,

and you're just like, really? Is that where we're going to go? We're going to go with the less than 1% and not the 99.9% of all living things. Well, on that topic for me, it's, well, I don't know why it has to be at the cost of somebody. If you want to be a trans woman, then be a trans woman, right? That's how you identify. You're a trans woman, not a woman, right? I have, I think, my own unique identity as a woman.

You have your own unique identity as a man. They have their own unique identity as trans. men, trans women. There's nothing wrong with that. It's like, you know what, that you do you. I have no problem with that. You do you. But when I say that I don't acknowledge you to be a woman, and then I am shamed or discredited or ridiculed or I'm being forced, Jennifer Johnson being forced. And here's my problem with this one is Danielle Smith goes on a Jordan Peterson podcast, an interview, and talks about how much she supports his right, you know, on pronouns and how, you know, happy she is that he stood up for that. And yet here she is doing it to a member of caucus herself. Like the hypocrisy here

is not lost on me. And it is not lost on a lot of people. Like this is just wrong. So she's putting an MLA through re-education, which apparently she's against, but she's forcing it upon one of her own. So which is it? Like I this is the and and this is just one example of many we could get into. You know, it's like you can't just when you do not have a foundation principled foundation, whichever way the wind blows, that's where you're subject to, right? Depending upon the day. I want to I want to make sure I get this right because this, you know, I've been sent this and this was from, leave two nights ago now, now for the people listening like last week. And this was a premier's office statement on Jennifer Johnson. I want to make sure we're saying, I thought there's two

spellings I've seen, Johnston and Johnson. This one has it as Johnson again. So I'm pretty sure it's Jennifer Johnson. I don't know if it's, yeah, anyways, it doesn't matter. There has been, this is quoted from Daniel Smith off of Global Eminton. There has been no decision to allow MLA Johnson back in the caucus. She's doing good work as an MLA in sessions, in session and in estimates, but she has some work to do to rebuild trust and relationships in the LGBT Q plus community. That work is ongoing. Now, in fairness, as I say that, I have no idea. Like, I've been trying to dig up, like, exactly what she said and how she said and everything. But I've watched the clip that went viral where the trans woman is losing it on her.

And I'm like, I, listen, I don't know much about politics. I feel at times I, you know, you just start to have a bit of a morsel. And then other days, I'm like, I know nothing. But I saw the video and I said, oh, it would have been perfect time to invite her back in the UCP. And you could have just said, listen, we're for everybody being able to be who they are. But here under the UCP, you know, we really appreciate difference of opinion and settling things in a, you know, a respectable manner. She has different views than some of the people in the UCP. And that's okay. But we want her to be part of the fold because we appreciate the way Jennifer's, whatever.

You could run that off. It says she says that. and it added gasoline to the fire is what it did. And I'm like, I don't actually understand. You know, and I'll probably get a whole bunch of text for saying that. But I'm like, I actually don't understand. I watched it all play out. I'm like, this is a ridiculous video.

I don't know. Like I would just call her and bring her back in the fold. Instead, that hasn't been what's played out, which really seems bizarre. And if I get Daniel back on, I plan to ask her about it because I'm like, I mean, it happened right in front. I mean, is it an old video? Is it from 10 years? nope there's a statement out almost immediately like i i just don't understand i don't understand

nadee but i'm just a simpleton so no at times it's above my pay grid yeah well western standard did another article too smith says gender identity policies could provide independent mLA with redemption um and then here you know daniel smith said her gender identity policies will offer jennifer johnson with the opportunity to speak about her beliefs and fix her relationship with sexual minorities. I'm going, why is Danielle Smith so concerned with, you know, the MLA's sexual relationship with sexual minorities? Like, that's her business. That's not Danielle Smith's business. This brings us into a bigger issue, though, because the party position takes priority over the individual MLA, who I am sure the individual MLA who got elected with a majority vote great.

than that of Danielle Smith herself, I'm sure her constituents agree with her. That was my position in Livingston McLeod. And that was my response to that. It's like, you know, other people can agree if you want to be in downtown Edmonton and, you know, the majority of the population are LVGTQ, you know, S plus whatever, you know, the alphabet soup that it is. Great. You know, you represent your, you know, the electorate. In Livingston McLeod, it is. It's happened to be a very, you know, boys are boys and girls and girls. And I happen to agree with that. And so whose job is it? Is it my job is there in LA to represent them? Or is it my job because I happen to be with the party, UCP, to, okay, sorry guys, I can't represent you today. Why? Because

this comes back. This comes back to a story I've been telling a lot lately, it seems, because on the Saskatchewan side, we sat down, you know, like, we sat down just after the end of COVID-Nating with different politicians from our area. Nothing, nothing crazy. It wasn't like the premier was in it. It had nothing to do with that. But one of them was from the Saskatchewan party, the SaaS party. And we got one of the guys, it was when Matt Wallace's video would come out, you know, or movie, you know, what is a woman? And, you know, you go watch that and you're like, this is wild. This can't be the way it is. So anyways, we had a SAS party member. who's now running to be an MLA of an area and asked him, you know, what is a woman?

It was kind of off the cuff, kind of laughing because everybody was having a pretty good time. And, you know, I just had in John Rummock, who is the leader of the Sask United Party. And I actually asked him, because having the SaaS side of things on, I just asked because I was, like, really curious what he was going to say. You know, he kind of looked at me probably the way you would look at me like, yeah, I know what it won't, you know. But the SaaS party guy who's, you know, active government folks, but kind of bounced a little bit. And everybody noticed it. We're like, oh, that. And then he, and he said, well, I believe. And then he, and he kind of like sounded off on, on his thoughts. And I'm like, why do you keep saying I believe? He's like, well, government's pretty tough, you know, like the cities have one way of thinking. And, and I'm like, what? I'm like, but it's, but it's not true. Like it has, I mean, you know, like, when we're talking. can do, does Emmington need an electric bus compared to, say, you know, whatever small town you want,

you know, Okot, well, not Okotogos, Okotos, well, for Lloyd, it's decent, says, I don't know, Vermillion, right? You're like, well, I'm pretty sure Vermillion doesn't need an electric bus. I could be wrong. Maybe there's a great case to be made for, let each town decide what they want. When we're talking men and women, it's like, what do you mean that you have to have a different talking point? Like, so this idea of talking to, you, so this idea of talking to, you know, certain audiences a different way to capture their vote is like, has been in politics for a very long time. The thing that's very different now is the ability

who everyone to have one of these, film it in real time, put it up in real time, you do something like this, you shed all points if you're ever in a Zoom call or whatever, you should just assume it's being filmed at some point, right? And so it's interesting to me, that this is we're just seeing it play out we're seeing this you know what what a whole group of us are just ready for is just like just just lay it on me and there's still a huge chunk of the the like electorate to the the voters that are like oh no no no you know you got to do certain things

certain ways there's a whole bunch of us that are like no you don't i just i haven't ran into somebody other than someone from the far right or far left sorry the far left of the lgbc community because i've met people in there i've had them on and they're like Like, I don't understand the trans stuff. I don't understand why they're trying to do what they're trying to do. So that means it's this little tiny sliver way over, well-funded, that is absolutely losing their tops, and nobody will talk about it in forums like this, I mean, except for morons like me.

And that is dictating politics. You're like, that doesn't make any sense, because I can see all my conversations say something completely different in closed doors, right? See, that's the difference with me. It doesn't matter where I am. I'm consistent. Like these are, this is what I believe to be true. This is what I believe to be true. I'm not going to say one thing to you and then go have a different conversation with somebody else. And so I'm very authentic that way. And I mean, I've got six years of videos and social media posts and, you know, people have challenged me and I'm like, go back and look, you know, just go back and look. I have been very consistent

about all of this. Immigration is a great one. So in 2018, when the People's Party of Canada first came out, I got on board. As somebody who follows the economy, obviously I'm very well informed when it comes to economic policies and economics, very well informed when it came to foreign policy. You know, immigration was a huge issue. I could see the writing on the wall. I could see what was happening in Europe. We got ahead of that curve, right? That's what leaders do. Daniel Smith, I love it because she keeps quoting Ralph Klein. Ralph Klein, you know, always said, find a parade and get in front of it. Well, is that true leadership?

No, the leadership happened, the person who created the parade, right? Leadership is about doing what's right. Leadership is about speaking the truth. It's not about a popularity contest. And so what we're seeing today in politics is polling. It's all popularity contests. They will only get, and you see this with Pierre Paulyev, he is only willing to get in front of the parade.

When the polls suggest it. When the poll suggest it's safe for him to do so. And for anyone who is like, what? It's like, well, freedom convoy, one, two, one million marks for children. And you can go down that list. You can just, you just watch how he dictates what he says. And listen, I think Pierre Poliav is a great, like, he's really, impressed me in lots of things.

But he's exactly what you're talking about, where he waits to see how the public's going to react, gauges it, very strategic, then comes out. And then waits and over and over again. It's very interesting. It's the game.

And I've asked this question lots. And I mean, I've got to pull you back to 1905 in Alberta, but I'll ask it anyways. Well, start fresh with 1905 in a minute. Well, I've wondered,

you know, like, I, like when it comes to electric, I always do the electric thing because like, you know, being in being rural versus being downtown Eminton, there's different needs. And I understand when it comes to infrastructure and even, you know, some economics, there's different things going on in those two.

I think everybody can agree on that. So you're going to talk to, you know, somebody in Emmington, different than you're going to talk to somebody in rural Alberta about things like that, what you're trying to do for the province. But what we see right now is like this. crisis of epic proportions on who we are as a people. It's attacking the very foundation of us. And instead of just addressing that head-on, they address it head-on with one group and head-on with another group. And I've been having this discussion now for probably five years,

maybe a little less, maybe a bit more, on why a federal politician, I'm not going to talk to provincial, I'm going to talk to federal, why federal politician can't walk in and say those things. And the answer I get is something similar to what I was just talking about with Saskatchez. The cities are different than the rural part. What they say is Ontario and Quebec are different than Western Canada. And I'm like, on the foundations of life? I don't know. Nadine, do you agree with that? Do you think you could run as, because I mean, Maxine Bernier is a guy who's talked a lot about that. He's been on the forefront of a whole bunch of things. But the game then doesn't put him on the stage to debate Trudeau and, you know, sing and all these different people.

I've been told by him this year will be different. He will be on the, well, whenever it is, maybe next year, he'll be on the stage debating. Will that change things? Will they allow, you know, the common man, not the common man, Max and Bernie is not common, but you know what I mean? Like the common foundational topics to be just, this is what it is. I don't know what we're arguing about right now. Yeah, no, and the problem I have is, So if you're going into a court case, right, typically you've got a crown prosecutor and then, you know, the defense, right? So if you're being prosecuted, are you going to argue their points in your defense? Like, is that how you win a court case?

Is that how you win a battle? Is that how you win a debate? Right? In every debate, you have two sides. And what we have now is whether it's provincial or federal. absolutely relevant, you have a uniparty that are all speaking to the exact same message. There's no difference. There's no debate. There is no opposition. So that's the concern that I have. So even with Danielle, you know, so I said our principles, one rule of law that applies to everybody equally.

Speak the truth, right? It was Alexander Schultz. And when I read the book, Guleg Al Archipelago, that was my one takeaway. Do not partake in the lie. That is exactly the fact that. That is exactly the path to socialism. That is the path to communism is when you participate and you give fuel to the other side's argument. And that's exactly what I just said. You don't go into a court case and argue the other side for them. Right. So, you know, you need to speak the truth. You need to be honest. I think people are looking for authenticity and respect, you know. And when you tell me what you think I want to hear rather than tell me what I need to hear, tell me the truth, I think that's very disrespectful, right? And you see that with Christia Freeland, Miss Bottlehead. You know, she sits there

and she talks to you like you're in grade five, you know, and then government needs to be transparent. There should be no secrets, you know, hockey tickets. I'm just going to bring this up because it's such a stupid little thing. Yeah, but, but it is. But if we're going to harass the NDP, then why did we give conservatives, like, right? It's, it's as soon as your team, this is the whole team thing again. If you're going to hold one government to a certain standard, then both need to be held. So it is stupid, but it is the little things that matter. Right. You need an objective referee in the game of politics. Right? You can't pick a side and then ignore it because it's your side. You can't say going to COP 28 if your NEP is this awful thing and then we go do it and

often it's the best thing in the world because it's a double standard. I get what you're saying. Exactly. And so with hockey, like when Emmington was in the playoffs, I kept saying, where is our premiere? Where is our premier? I saw no photos of her at the games. I saw no, you know, video footage of her at the games. I'm like, where the hell is she? I expected her to be at the game, you know? And yet, she's up in a booth, you know, and some of her ministers apparently were flown down to Florida on private jets. And yet we're expected to give that a pass. And worse yet, she's the one. who changed the rules to allow such things. And it just, it's optics, right? You just don't do stuff like that, especially when everybody has, you know, one of these and are so quick to tell. You are such, you know, be consistent.

You want transparency is what you're talking about. You want transparency. She should have come out and said, hey, pan in on me. Here I am with my, you know, pom-poms cheering us on. It's how things are done that is just as important

as what is done. You know, and so then the other thing is, is integrity, right? Just do what you say you're going to do. Danielle Smith made a ton of promises, flat tax, you know, she promised to reduce taxes the day after she got elected. Here we are. Now she's talking about maybe the day before she gets the next election. She might, you know, reduce taxes. And she came out just two nights ago in her public address and talked about all this new money now she has apparently for building schools, but apparently we had no money to reduce taxes in this budget and or for the next three years. There's just so many inconsistency, Sean. So which is it?

You're not telling us the truth. 1905. Yes. Tell me about this. Like, okay, is it your brain child? You know, full transparency, one of the things that I love about my audience, they're smarter than me. So they call BS real early on on different things. I've been enjoying the chat, Nadine.

I don't know what they think of it. 1905. Tell me about this. Is it out of your brain? Is there a group? You know, it says 1905 committee. Like, you know, a committee would suggest more people. And then let's just walk through it.

Tell the people of Alberta what it is. So 1905 is a grassroots movement of concerned Albertans who want to see accountability in our government. regardless of what the government is. So a promise made needs to be a promise kept. If you were going to make a campaign promise and you should follow through on that campaign promise. And the one thing that I learned very early on just in the last, just recently, it was actually Tim Hoven who put me onto a really great book called The Dictators Handbook. And politics is driven by self-interest. Their job is to get re-elected. That really is their primary objective. So if you want to see change in

government, you cannot go in and say, oh, would you pretty please, you know, consider putting this into policy for us? It does not work. It is about public pressure. This is why you see the very loud, very well-funded, 1%, you know, that can rule and force public favor with government, right? So it's about public pressure. And so it wasn't my brain child per se. There is a group of us. We do consult on the issues. We consulted on what the principles should be. We consulted on what our policies should, we had to get started, right? So we picked five policies to start, but now we've expanded that a little bit. And we do support other people's ideas. Like I keep telling people, if not 1905, it's about engagement. You cannot sit on the sofa and expect change to happen. You've got to get involved.

And thus, we've been encouraging people to come out to the AGM. So the AGM is, I tell people, you know, people think that they elected Daniel Smith on, you know, the Alberta Election Day. It's like, no, Daniel Smith didn't get elected on Election Day. She got elected at a UCP leadership by 4,000 people, not four million people, right? So it's, it's. It's also about helping people understand where their voice can matter most. And so we focused on principles and policies. I'm not focused on governments and individuals, right? Leaders are going to come and go, right?

But principles should be just that, right? What are our non-negotiable principles? Those are not going to change, like you said, whether I'm in rural Alberta or rural rural Canada or urban or west or east, principles apply to everybody. And policies may change from east to west, but again, you know, policies I focused provincially here on the issues that I felt mattered most to Albertans. Immigration, flat tax, why? Because affordability is a huge issue for a lot of people. Leadership accountability. Constitutional Convention, which is about getting a fair deal with

Ottawa. And then last but not least was the Alberta pension plan because I've been speaking about the Alberta pension plan and that falls into the Fair Deal panel. It falls into the constitutional convention. And it was something that Danielle came out very, very strong on and then boom doggled. So those are our five policies and those are our principles. And that's, that's our primary focus. Is like, I don't know, I don't know. Do you have 1905 committee like meetings that are public or like you know or is it just a i don't know is it an email list like how can people find out more about you right like you know like i'm just where would you direct them and then how involved can they be and and all these good questions i suppose yeah we have 1905 there is a

website 1905 committee dot ca you can go there we have an info if you want to contact us if you want to volunteer you want to get involved you want to donate um you know there's a tremendous number of ways to get involved politically and with the 1905 committee. And the reality is, for us, it's about being consistent. And it is about those policies, not about the people. So we have a lot of people behind the scenes who actually, even they will want to remain behind the scenes. They don't necessarily want to take a role up front. And I mean, the trans people, they're a very loud, very aggressive group, right? There's other groups, people who are businessmen and women who just, you know, they don't necessarily want the potential political ramifications of being on

side with 1905, but are extremely supportive. So we are very much a committee. And if people want to get involved, you can start with 1905, committee.ca, that's our website. You can reach out to us there. You can donate there. But I also do live streams. I will come speak to groups if they ask me to come speak to a group. I've done that in the past as well, primarily podcasts like this to spread the message. And I assume, sorry, that your 1905 committee will listen to this. I just assume. And I just come at me with everything got, I guess. But I go, a group that wants transparency, I would love to know who the group is. And then I go, I just told the story where I don't disclose the guys name because we're going to close me and I kind of feel weird just bringing up and

everything else. So I'm like, I get it. There's certain things that can't be known to the public or you, you know, you have trust amongst a group of people, totally understand. But if you're the public and you're getting, you know, you're starting to learn about this, you're like, but I want to know who's in there. And the reason the group won't announce it is because they're worried about backlash. I'm like, this is what we're trying to get away from, folks. This is hiding in the shadows is. Well, that's the difference. We're not hiding in the shadows like here you're not you're definitely not you're here you're you're you're the figure head and you're going to have a figurehead I get that I just to me like I would love to know oh

look there's the list and it's like well that's I'm not saying you got to give out the full list but if you got a board of directors or I don't know how this thing works we do have a board of directors Carol Volk is on the board as well it's her and I currently and we did have other board members but the minute political pressure got a little bit steep and a little bit harsh they wanted to back away right because really they're ramifications Let's just talk about that just for one second. When the political, when it got difficult, is that the UCP government coming down? Or is that NDP or is that LGP or is it everything?

That was the UCP coming down on conservatives, right? You're not allowed to oppose Danielle Smith, right? You have to be a Daniel Smith cheerleader or else, you know, you're going to receive pressure. They all got phone calls. They all got pressured to back down and to back away. I don't know. Maybe I'm unusual. I'm sitting on this side. I don't get any phone calls. I'm maybe like I don't know right maybe after this one I will. I don't know either. Right. I maybe after this one I will I have no idea but that's interesting to me because if I was sitting in her chair not that I want to encourage dissent, but I would be like if we keep going this way this is where we're going to get to it'd be nice to have a little bit of you know alternative media alternative thought processes.

to help balance out the conversation because when the conversation gets balanced, you know, then then it gives you options, right? Because you can talk like you could just talk to it instead of walking in and nobody's heard the other side yet, right? I don't know. That's what I think. Maybe I'm once again very nice. You have MLAs that are afraid to express their opinions.

You have MLAs that are afraid to express their opinions that are afraid to stand up and voice the concerns of their constituents. Why? Because it might violate the party's policies. I understand. man but but this is but this is this is this is to me once again i feel like this is the issue we have and that is listen we all said in the middle of covid what are they going to do arrest us all right and so they arrested key individuals or you know they arrested individuals and now they're throwing

the book at them and we all stare at that and we go holy crap they're making uh um they're basically a show of force of like listen you do this again this is what's going to happen to you once again they can't rest us all in the ucp caucus right you're you're one of the melaes that wants to speak out well what are you there for are you there to get reelected or you're there to to do what is right and and and and listen to your constituents and everything else and if the answer is number two then the way to change this isn't by waiting on daniel smith it's the individual mLA starting to speak out because if they don't then you see like uh just to me it's it's a systemic problem Like it goes from the top to the bottom.

We got MLAs that are too afraid to speak out. So now they're waiting on Nadine to form a group and try and push her from outside. And they're waiting on Sean to have somebody on the podcast. And then all of a sudden, and they're waiting. Instead, we got a majority UCP government. And I'm speaking to the MLAs right now more than I am Nadine. If you're sitting there and you're going, well, I got, man. It's like, well, what are you waiting for?

Are you wanting to be in there for 10, 12 years? Or are you trying to move the dial? and if you don't get reelected, who cares? If you become an independent, what is she going to do? Make you all independence? Gee, actually, that's not a terrible idea. It's broken even before that because what happens is the party controls the nominee. It controls the nominations.

Sure, but they're all in there. But what you're saying right now is in there, there are people that are concerned. They're nervous about speaking out because of the public backlash. Yep. Turn your phone off. They're not even so much concerned about the public backlash. They're concerned more so about the party backlash. Yeah, I did.

I don't know. We all talk in these circles of like, well, I'm not getting elected because I want to be a career politician. But what it sounds like is a bit of a cop-out. That's just me being honest this morning because I get in these circles where it's like, well, okay, we got the 1905. And we had the take back Alberta. And there's another one over here. and we got another one over here. And everybody's saying similar things,

but when you talk to elect officials, they don't want to be, they don't want people to know who they are. Because if people know who they are, there's going to be public backlash. There's going to be party backlash. And you're like, well, maybe that's what needs to happen.

Maybe people need to see that, oh, 15 MLAs don't think like the rest of the party. And you can either do one or two things, make them all independents or start to change some policies and then they find some confidence in their voice. Maybe I'm completely wrong. I could be, listen,

I've never been in politics. I've just been staring at this since the middle of COVID. MLAs have a responsibility to the people who put them there, in my opinion. They need to speak up for those individuals and they need to basically be their voice. That's what it is. It's about representation. And when that is being put in second place to the party policy and or you're seeing what's happening with like Jennifer, who I'm sorry, but, you know, she's being pushed out simply because she has a difference of opinion. not that she's even being disrespectful, you know,

but she just has a difference of opinion, her belief. But then you have a leader that stands up and says, well, I'm sorry, this is our position on this, you know, forcing her to do re-education. I mean, these things are just wrong, right? And I mean, for so many people that are in the UCP today, we thought under Daniel Smith things were going to be different. And I mean, we honestly believe that.

Daniel Smith, when she ran for the Wild Rose, was about smaller government, right? Smaller budgets. And what do we have today? the biggest government, the biggest budget we've ever seen. So that's moving us in the wrong direction. And people are afraid to pull things back to the right because there are repercussions. So I don't begrudge anybody, you know, wanting to stay in the background.

But there's a difference between a private company and a private institution like 1905. I mean, we are, we've got an objective. We've got an agenda. We're very open about it. I'm here. I'm available to anybody. I will speak to anybody. Here's our policies.

Here's our principles. Right. You know, but government is a different story. Government is my tax dollars. They're my elected representatives. They work for me. They work for you, right? They don't get to pick and choose what they share with us or what they don't share with us.

Every dollar they spend is your money. It's my money. It needs to be disclosed openly and honestly. So I think that's, I mean, I've run private corporations. I'm not going to give you my Kentucky Fried Chicken. He's not going to share his proprietary recipe with you because it's proprietary and it's a private corporation, nor would you even expect it. Right. So, but with government, it's a very different scenario, right?

It needs to be very public. It needs to be open. It needs to be transparent. Why? Because that's the only way that we as the public can hold them to account. And it's the only way to avoid corruption. Are you encouraging, is 1905, one of the things that I've heard is that you're amassing a large sum of people to go to the AGM and voter out. Is that the goal?

No, no. So have I ever asked anybody to actually how they were even going to vote on the leadership review? Anybody I have ever spoken to, many of them are on the UCP. I've had executive members call me. I have said, look, you vote your conscience. Well, who am I to tell you how to vote? That makes me no better than them. You're speaking to the choir because my audience, you know, I, listen, they are brilliant.

And I don't try and fill their heads with anything. Usually they'll light up the phone line after and give me their thoughts. And they've picked up on things that I didn't clue into. I think then what you're saying is, is what I always say, encouragement to go to the AGM because of how important this event is and the fact, I think this is, you know, the one time there's a leadership review in the next three years. So you might as well, if you want to have a say, good or bad, this is probably the time to go. This is the time to go. You have policies that will drive legislation that will impact the rest of your life, the rest of your children's life. Those are just policies, right, that we can now push and put in front of her.

And we have been a big advocate of our policies. the 1905 policies please come to the AGM help us push those ideas through let's make sure that the government hears that immigration and we don't want a one million red deer we don't want a 10 million Alberta right I want her to keep her promise tax support ability is an issue Danielle how about we follow through on that I'd probably take a higher population Alberta I I hate to give it a number but I would love you know can imagine Nadine being like, hey, listen, if you have four kids and I know I'm bringing this up a lot, but I'm like, you have four kids, no taxes. I'm like, oh man, we got three right now. I've been

trying to convince the wife, you know, and she laughs at me a lot. We can't have any more folks, so it doesn't matter. But I'm like, you know, wouldn't that be an incentive of a lot of healthy families, you know, to, I'm sure there would be some people at trying to abuse that. I get it. But, you know, when you're trying to increase the population, you should just maybe go to people in your province and be like, hey, what do you think about incentivizing that? We could use a, we could use a population bump. One of the things I've often said on the population thing is that, you know, Danielle has come out and she comes across really harsh with the federal government and says, oh, well,

you know what? And then she says, well, money can fix the problem, right? Oh, well, if you're going to, if you're going to bring more people in and they're going to come here, well, then you need to pay us more. That's not going to fix the problem. It's only going to compound the problem. money is not the answer to this problem, right? So and then it is just that. So we can grow organically, right? If we grow organically, we can, we have time for the economy to adjust. We have time to build

the infrastructure. We have time to do all those things. We're also preserving our heritage and our culture and our values in doing that. But that's not what's happening. What you're seeing is mass immigration of people who don't necessarily share our same values, don't have, you know, and they're coming and then they're a drain on the system because why we don't have the opportunities we don't even have a place to put them and all they're doing now is costing opportunities to your children my children who can't even afford a home but there's that's a really good question why have people chosen not to have children because they're too expensive yes but it's even it's gone right back to grade kindergarten grade one grade two grade three grade four all the way up through the education

system now, right? Even right down through a trans, you know, normalization process of what's normal and what's not. You know, there's so many directions you can go in that one. But the reality is, like, why are people choosing not to have children? Why? Because they put their career first. A lot of women have put their career first. You know, your best childbearing age is, you know, basically those career when you're in school and you're getting your career started. And then, you know, we're late to the start. I mean, I was 39 years old when I had my first daughter, right? Oh, my gosh. If I had known sooner what I was missing, I would have four of them, right? Not that I could afford them, but I would have four of them. And I did try for more, but I was late to the game, you know? And so

where do we as a society place our priorities? And for a lot of women, they've placed their priority. And I'm a little bit guilty of this too on, you know, I'm a woman, I'm strong, I'm independent. I can take care of myself. But you know, what you come to realize with maturity, I think a little bit later in life, and I shouldn't say maturity, with wisdom, with experience, is that you're far stronger with a man in your life than without a man in your life, right? A good man, right? I'm not talking abusive. Well, I hate to break. Well, I'll add to that. A man is far better with a good woman by his side than not. Absolutely. We're stronger together, you know, but yet we have high rates of divorce.

We have single parents living and struggling to make ends meet. And we have this idea, this fairy tale relationship, you know, where it's all going to be marriage is work. I don't know about yours, but mine is work, right? You have to work at it. So, you know, these are all things like on the affordability issue and own immigration, you know, if we want to do it organically, that's a different story, right? But that's not immigration. that's population growth.

What Danielle Smith is proposing is immigration. She wants to see people coming into this province because how else do you become a one million city when you're only, that's 10 times in the population, right? It's impossible to get there organically in the time frame. What's the population of red deer right now? 107,000 people. Is that all red deer is? That's all red deer is.

I thought red deer was bigger than that. No. You know, here's a question for you. Because I see that, you know, I want to have some round tables, Alberta politics leading up to the AGM. I think it would be really interesting. But I keep falling into these circles where they're harping on Daniel Smith. And I'm like, has she done nothing, right? Are we saying that there's nothing?

I'm curious, Nadine, as you watch her, have you went, you know what, though, she's doing this well? You know, I, when Danielle, for example, the parental rights, when she came out in January and made that announcement publicly. I actually sent her a text and went, you know what, that is your legacy moment. Like, wow, congratulations. I knew there was going to be people on the right who were going to go and say she did not go far enough, you know, and I knew there were people on the left who were going to lose their minds. And but I went and I said, yeah, I think you've struck a good balance here. And congratulations. I said it. Legacy moment. And so do I think she has done something? But what's happened since then. Zero. Absolutely nothing. People go, but Nadine, that's done. No, it hasn't even passed

through first reading. Nothing has happened with it. So there's the problem. She speaks a very good speak and she's a very likable person and there's nothing wrong with what she said, you know, when she speaks to the conservative freedom-loving groups, but she doesn't follow through on it. And for me, I'm about, I want the result, I want to see the action. That's the accountability, right? So, you know, that was done in January. And then I get, you know, the UCP president comes as, well, that's not how policy works. You know, it takes time. I'm like, no, it doesn't take time. It takes political will and prioritizing it because she passed through the Sovereignty Act within 30 days. And somehow, now, apparently it takes a year to get legislation through. I'm like, no, no. No.

You can't prove, you know, that you can pass legislation in 30 days only to then turn around and tell me that it takes a year. It's there's no political will to push it through. It hasn't been made a priority. Yeah. I mean, I just, I always go back to the Freedom Convoy, right? We were sitting with like, you know, couldn't go to a restaurant, couldn't leave the country. Wow. We're still going to, you know, the things within a provincial body.

And, you know, I said a way. week and then people started texting me. No, it was like days. You know, so like things can happen real fast when the crowd amasses, right? And, uh, one of the things that I think would be really cool. I, you know, when I sit here and I sit, you know, and we're an hour in and I go like, I believe that good things can happen. Okay. I believe that. I believe that we can have a better world if we so choose and so i look at the a gm coming up they go what happens if 10 000 people showed up just argument's sake what if it was the largest a gm that alberta's ever seen in history and it voted 90% or 95% or 99% one way wouldn't that be a talking point for pushing on our

politicians i think it would could be wrong yes and no because here's the reality though um if I come in and I tell you, hey, Sean, what a great job you're doing, man, just keep doing what you're doing. Are we going to see change? No, but I understand what you're saying. So then my question back would be, okay, so 3,000 people show up, 2,000 people show up, whatever you want. Well, I would love to see 10,000 people show up because that, to me, says people are in age. But what can happen? Do you look at the AGM then, Nadine, and go, nothing's going to happen?

Or do you think there's a possibility of something happened? And if there's a possibility of something happened, and then what, in your mind, does it have to be to signal to Danielle or to whoever that we need to go do these things? Yeah, no, for me, it is the public pressure. I would love to see 10,000 people show up. For one, you know, 4,000 people, that's a small number, even 10,000 people is a very small number, yes. Right?

Those are the people who are very vested in pushing an agenda one way or the other, for the most part. They feel very strongly about things, right? So, I mean, it would be nice to have 10,000 people show up. Obviously, the more people to show up, the more diverse the ideas, the more diverse the conversation, the more diverse the debate, you know, that can be. So I think more people is obviously better. But, you know, to say that, you know, we all need to come in and 100% support to.

So I am, I think the leadership review is a little bit flawed to begin with, because it's either a checkmark or an X. Either I 100% agree with her or I don't. And that's not reality either. You know, it's like, why do we not have this on a scale of one to 100? Where do you think she falls? Right? I should clarify.

I didn't mean 10,000 come in and we all vote 99%. You're doing a great job. More, my understanding, because I've never been to an AGM before. This will be my first one I've ever gone to. Is the one day, right? Is basically policy, right? What's getting through and what should be there? And I would love if, I love it, whatever the number you.

want it to be. I just go, what's the largest AGM in Alberta history? Let's just go past that. And then that day, I would love to see as high a percentage say, we need you to do this. We need you to do this. We need you to do this. Whatever the top, whatever it is, three, five things. And then where I sit until it's done is the largest AGM in Alberta history said they wanted this done. Why isn't it done? Yes. They said this one done. They wanted it done.

And the next day you, and I guess my brain just looks at it and goes, I assume then she has to go, this is what the people have said. This is what we're going to do. And the next day, they vote her 95% and you go, 95% of people at the largest AGM in Alberta history said, Alberta or Daniel Smith is the woman to take these policies into place in the next year, whatever it is. And then the next time she comes on, I get to go, Danielle, here's what they voted. Yep.

Here's what you said. Where are they at? Yep. Nope. Where are they at? Nope. Where are they at? And then it just happens.

Because I, this whole like, I don't know. I'm not showing up there to go cast a ballot. And I have, you know, like I hope I'm envisioning the day right. But that's where I sit for all the people of Alberta. That makes my job a hundred times easier. I just did it with the Alberta Bill of Rights. It's like, well, when is it going to be? Well, when is it going to be?

Well, when is it going to be? It's going to be the first week right before that. That's what she said. And I go, okay, the first week right before this AGM, the Bill of Rights should be in play in there. We're going to find out. And if it isn't there, well, then she's going to have to come back on, I hope. And I'm going to say the exact same thing.

You told me this date. You told me this date. And I've gotten advice from a lot of career journalists that that's sitting on this side, that's what I can do. And I think as the population, the reason why we keep talking about the AGM so much is it's your one opportunity to guide the next year of what policy should be. And if she agrees to it, which I think, you know, if the people vote on it, she has to. I could be wrong there. Then that gives a year until the next one for people like myself and yourself and others to just hold those things to account so they get done.

Am I wrong? No, you're not wrong. That's exactly it. And that's exactly when 1905 exists. because last year, if you had attended the UCPA GM, very little has been implemented from that. If you look at her campaign promises when she got elected as the leader, she was told, she told us all, my mandate is very clear, fair deal panel, right? We wanted to see an APP. We wanted to see a provincial police force. We wanted to see a collection of her own taxes.

She knew the direction that people wanted to go, and none of that has happened. So that is why 1905 actually exists, is to hold her to account the promises and the commitments that she's already made that she hasn't followed through on. Now, do you think that honestly, and I'm not, you know, bolstering us up here unwarranted, APP was virtually not being discussed at all anymore by the UCP until the 1905 started pushing on it. Immigration, you know, she was going to- you're talking Alberta pension plan, correct? Alberta pension plan, right? immigration. You know, she was talking one way. Now we have her kind of going, okay, not so popular here with the group, right? With the population. I might add into that thought process, it was by

accident at the end of my January interview that that came up and then exploded. So that was, that was fun on this side. Right. It is people like you, people like I, who put the pressure on, who bring it to the people as to what she's actually saying and doing. And they're going, wait a minute. No, she's not. I've had people tell me that she's never said she wants a Deere to be a one million city. So what do I have to do? I go and I post it. Here you go. She said it and they're like, oh, I had no idea. And it's like, so then it's like which is it? So, you know, we, we, the people do have the power, but A, we need to know what's going on. And for a lot of people, they don't because they're not involved. And then, you know, even things like

a flat tax, people say, Nadee, well, why are you pushing on the tax? Because the tax is huge as far as the Alberta advantage goes. It's huge as far as creating affordability. It's huge as far as abating corruption and political favor. It's huge as far as putting more dollars back in the pockets of, of Albertans, you know? And the Alberta pension plan, people go, okay, well, Nadine, I don't support the Alberta pension plan.

But here's the thing. Danielle Smith said we would have a referendum on the Alberta pension plan. It's like, well, there's no date picked. No, there's no time. She came out very strong. Then I hear Jason Nixon say, oh, if the Alberta, if Pollyev gets elected, the Alberta pension plan goes away. And I'm like, oh, no, no, no, no.

What does the federal government have to do with our provincial best interest as far as a pension plan go? Absolutely nothing. So why would you make such a statement? And then with reality. Because the polls, if I'm just, if I'm just Monday morning quarterback and I'm thinking about this relatively rationally, hate my thoughts or not, I look at it and I go, Pierre Poliev is what a year away, maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less, away from being the next prime minister of Canada. And he wants to walk in and unify the country and he needs Alberta part of it.

So he's already made a phone called Danielle, would be my guess. Yes. And has said, listen, this is what we can do for you. This is what we're going to do when we get in, blah, blah, blah, blah. And, you know, whether or not she's backed off of it, you can talk to better than I can probably. But certainly, I haven't heard Jack Squad about the Alberta Pension Plan. I know Tanner Nadee, I was just talking to them. They're still doing events, but from a government platform that could literally call up anybody

at any time and make a press announcement, we've heard pretty much nothing, I would say, on the Alberta pension plan for quite some time. Right. And why? And here's something that 62% of Albertans actually voted in a referendum to end equalization. So Alberta pension plan is an equalization payment to Canada. That's exactly what it is. And we do not need.

Everyone says, well, we need to know the number. We need to know the number. No, we do not need to know the number. We could start with absolutely zero in the bank account. And we would be better off with an Alberta pension plan. We would actually have more money in our pockets. We could actually provide better benefits to our seniors and or better savings to future retirees. How so, Nadie.

So if you look at the numbers, you know, we basically are over-contributing to the Alberta pension plan to the tune of $3 to $5 billion a year. Canadian pension plan, we're over- We are over-contributing. So that money is going to retirees in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and there's a surplus that then goes to the Canada pension plan to get invested. Well, the surplus is coming from Alberta. it's not coming from Newfoundland and Labrador.

So when people go, well, hey, that $300 some billion that's sitting that's owed to us, yeah, it is owed to us. Why? Because it's our money that they've been working with to grow. Because we've been one of the very few provinces who have actually been contributing. So if I'm hearing you correct, sorry, I apologize, got me worked up today. That's good. And I tell you, it would be the next time, you know,

we got to find a way to get you here in saying that I get the drive but in studio would have been fun um What you're saying is if we started at zero dollars right we get nothing back from the the federal government They're gonna give us nothing folks within the first year we got Let's just go low two billion in the count The next year we got four billion in the count the next year we got seven billion in the account People can start to see where in the next five 10 20 years this goes real fast if we started at nothing. Yes. So I have a graph because of course, I'm a chartered investment manager. So I started the Alberta First Pension. That was my brainchild. That is my, I started that. And so with respect to

that, I have a presentation that I give. I actually show people a little circle of where we could be in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years and 40 years with the money starting with zero. So for people sitting in their 60s, right, they're just about to retirement age. Yep. Where could they be at 70? Like as far as alberticos. Well, I mean, they can have a better benefit more money in their pockets, actually, or they can say, hey, I don't necessarily need a better benefit, and we can opt to say that let's reduce contribution rates. Because you have to remember, the Canada pension plan is not necessarily set up as a pension plan. It's a payroll tax. So you are the benefactor of somebody else's tax money, basically. And it's businesses that actually have the highest

cost associated to them because so you and I pay the payroll tax once but if you're a business owner and you've got a hundred employees they're each paying the payroll tax once but you have to match that payroll tax for every employee you have so that's a hundred times so for business owners we talk about the economy and affordability and productivity and stimulating growth how about we change that, right? We lower the contribution rates. So you're paying less. You're keeping more money in your pocket as a worker. But now the businesses are paying less to the government. They're keeping more money to do capital improvements, hire more people, offer you better benefits. You can see where the cascading effect of like one simple change could be. I mean, it's a giant change,

but I haven't heard well I'm fascinated because I guess I haven't heard enough about the Alberta my brain is very simple at times I look at it and I go who controls our pension right now not us so we need to pull it back as fast as humanly possible and it helps we're sitting

in Alberta because Alberta has a lot of great things going for it if we just allow it to happen look if you had taken just the money yourself that you've contributed and what your employer has contributed on your behalf and you started at age 20, let's say, from what you were working. You put in the maximum amount, which is not a lot of

money. So you put in the maximum amount. In 40 years, you would have $1.3 million to retire upon. Right now, the maximum that you ever are going to receive, and very few people ever receive the maximum from the Canada pension plan of $1,800 a month, you're barely getting what you've contributed back. So where's the rest of it going? You die at 60. You never claim CPP. Do you get to your family? No. You get nothing, right? So who's keeping the money? Like I've never seen the government yet devise a program that's to our benefit. It's usually to their benefit. So we have an opportunity in a white sheet of paper called an Alberta pension plan. We can create something that actually benefits Albertans as opposed to benefiting the rest of Canada. That's fascinating.

But you know what Danielle Smith did? She put in Bill 2. So she can hold a a referendum anytime she wants. All she's got to do is call one. She can do it with municipal election. She can just call one out of the blue and say, hey, we're having a referendum. She didn't do that. She actually put an obstacle in her path. She made it legislation. So it's great while the UCP is there. Maybe, hey, they want to have a referendum. But what happens if we get another NDP government? They don't want to have a referendum on this, right? And she has legislated it. Even the Canada pension plan. There was no legislation that said we had to have a referendum. All the province had to do was call up and say, hey, we're leaving the Canada pension plan. Done. What do I need to sign?

Moving on. And Danielle Smith put Bill 2 legislated that a referendum would be mandatory. So one of our policies was repealed bill 2. Why do we need it? We don't. But it begs the question, why did she do that? Why would you put an obstacle in your path that even the federal government did not put in path. I don't have an answer to that. I don't either. I wish I did. And these are the questions that I'm bringing up. These are the questions that I'm asking. I'm sure in some rooms you are not exactly welcome. In other rooms, you're a great party guest. I have had members of the UCP executive come up to me and go, you're the devil. I'm like, oh, apparently, I guess that's, that's me now at the UCP executive. I'm the devil. But, you know, have I sound an unrational to you? Do I sound like,

you know, somebody who's asking for too much of their government? Maybe I am. But I just want to see change happen. I want to see integrity bought back to politics. I want to see policies become the focal. And I want, I want commitments. I want to see integrity. People who get into power, who say they're going to do something, follow through on it. It is not acceptable, in my opinion, any longer, especially after COVID, to turn a blind eye to bad behavior and bad policies. Why? Because they impact all of us. And if not now, they will later. So, you know, my push is to see change. Before I let you out of here, you got a couple on your website. I just pulled it up. I want to make sure that I briefly bring up with you. One of them is Redford. Explain to me. So Allison Redford,

can you find a conservative probably in this province who is probably as discreet. liked as that woman. And Daniel, sorry to interrupt. Where I sit is I am, I was not politically active probably three years ago. So when I hear the word Redford, I hear all the anger, but I do not understand it. So, explain it to me. Her jet setting, her and her daughter around Sky Palace, you know, where she was basically using taxpayers' dollars to benefit herself, right? So there's a lot of anger around Allison Redford simply because she abused, I think, the system to her own benefit, and it was very public, right? So to the point where she had to resign. So you take that individual and then Danielle Smith now

appoints her to a Crown Corporation, Alberta Invest, managing money and talking about money. Like, it just you can't make this stuff up. And then she says her justification for that is, well, everybody deserves a second chance. Well, most Albertans do not believe that Allison Redford should be anywhere near their tax dollars or deserves a second chance. Like, let's be honest, they don't. So, but Danielle Smith says, oh, she deserves a second chance. But Jennifer Johnson doesn't deserve a second chance. She has to go through re-education, right? And she has to agree with, you know, the trans agenda in order to get maybe, you know, allowed back into caucus. You know, again, I'm looking for consistencies here. I'm calling out what I see as politics.

Hands off Alberta's Heritage Trust Fund. And if people are wondering what I'm reading, I'm reading the current priorities of the 1905 Committee. Yeah. So with respect to the Heritage Trust Fund, the Alberta Pension Plan, I'm going to bring the two of them together. I went around the province, two concerns. One, there's a false sense of security in the Canada pension plan. I can address that because that's numbers and that's facts. The other concern, though, is a fear that Danielle Smith and the UCP was going to steal and somehow do a bad job with their Alberta pension plan. Now, Danielle Smith and her office come out and they say, we're considering bringing the Heritage Trust Fund under the Premier's office.

Now, do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing? She just proved to every citizen who had a concern that the Alberta pension plan could be interfered with. It's not about reality. It's only about perception, right? Your perception creates your reality. And so what she did was she just turned around and said, yeah, we're going to bring the Heritage Trust Fund under the control and the influence of the Premier's office. We're going to use that to invest potentially in businesses that are deemed too risky for the banks. Does that sound like a smart investment to you?

And this is the woman who just came out a little while earlier and said, hey, trust us with your Alberta pension plan. Oh, no, we would never do that. And what does she go and do? She goes and does it. The Heritage Trust Fund, in my opinion, belongs to every Albertan. It should be a fund in which case it's either redistributed to everybody or it's saved. for times like this, like affordability. You know, we have a fuel tax.

Why did she put the fuel tax back on? She talks about affordability and trying to make life more affordable, but yet Saskatchewan doesn't have a fuel tax. Manitoba doesn't have a fuel tax. Right. Manitoba doesn't have a fuel tax. And yet she put it back on. You can't have it both ways.

How about, I feel like this is the only one we haven't talked about. Constitutional Convention. Maybe you brought it up and maybe I just, my ears turned off for a second. Yeah, so constitutional convention is a fair deal with Ottawa. For a lot of people, you know, we don't get a fair deal. We don't get, you know, representation. We don't, we pay for a lot. We don't get a lot of services back, whether it's health care, whether it's education,

whether it's infrastructure, you name it. So the thing for me with the constitutional convention is we need to work with the other provinces to put into place. And she's doing some of this. And this is one area where when you ask me, does she do something good? She is having conversation with BC. She is having conversations with Scott Moe in Saskatchewan and some of the other areas to say, look, we as a country, if we're going to work together, we need to have equal representation. Our voices on the West have to matter as much as the voices on the East.

But for me, it's not good enough to just write strong letters. That's what Jason Kenney did. It was a strong letter writing campaign. And that's what we're seeing a lot of from Danielle. put the sovereignty act into place and hasn't used it let's use it nadeen thanks for hopping on today i uh well i'm i'm you know i i look forward to meeting you i guess at the a gm and a whole bunch hopefully a whole bunch of other albertans and um well we'll see what gets said there and um certainly there's going to be i think there's going to be a lot of eyes on it and a lot of talk around it um here's a

uh people would have just heard about it on the mashup but me and two are going to be there and it sounds like we're getting um we're going to have a live show there we're hoping to do a couple live round tables that type of thing so we're going to try and bring in some different voices from around alberta to you know just kind of uh talk about the weekend and and keep everybody informed so there be more details on that coming out as far as the 1905 committee uh... needy and one more time where if people want to find you want to find more information with the 1905 where can they go yeah so you can always so i did a live stream which is on my YouTube channel, Nadine Wellwood, YouTube. You can go there and it's a one hour, very concise,

what is 1905, who we are, what our policies are. I speak to them very briefly on each. And then, of course, 1905committee.ca is our website. We do have Facebook as well as Twitter as well. And you can check us out. We're not, I always tell people, I am the easiest person in the world to find. I am not hard to find at all. And if you need to reach out to me, info at 1905 committee.ca. And send me a note. I will get back to you. I get to ask this.

It just popped back in my brain before I let you out of here. When you take, just take the world right now and how much money printing has gone on and everything and everything and everything. Words recession, inflation, all these different things. When you look at the next like, I don't know, is it a year? Is it five years? I don't know your timeline. A lot of people I listen to have had on here talk about the echo.

economic situation we're in and what that could look like in Alberta or elsewhere, what do you see? Well, I think you're already seeing it. If you look at what the OECD has said with respect to Canada and productivity, we are basically the lowest of any of the industrialized countries, let alone the G7. So we just, there is a productivity crisis to use the Bank of Canada governor. She said there's a productivity crisis. And so many of the problems we have actually can be solved quite easily. We need to stop printing money. We do need to increase productivity.

And one of the best ways to stimulate increased productivity is actually to reduce taxes. But, you know, people don't understand the economy and they don't understand even something as simple as inflation. inflation occurred the day Justin Trudeau and the government printed the money, right? And then people relate that to a rise in price. But the rise in price is a lagging factor. That happens 18 to 24 months or longer after the fact, right? And so I think we're in for some challenging times. That's a different conversation.

And as a chartered investment manager and somebody who has followed the economy for, you know, three decades. And I'd be more than happy to come back on and just. Well, I tell you, I tell you, we tell you, We do these blue color roundtables. And I've got one coming up and I don't know, spoiler alert, I guess folks. We're going to do one on housing. So I got a few different people coming on to talk about the housing industry, whether

it, you know, crisis, whether it's booming, you know, different things like that. And one of them I've been ruminating on is having people on to talk about this, this topic, money and inflation and recession and on and on and on it goes. And I think it'd be really interesting to have a couple different people on, roundtable it so maybe offline we'll talk about that either way i realize i think really interesting government is responsible for about 40 percent the cost of every house that's built so if they were truly sincere about reducing the cost of housing they can easily do so because they control about 40 percent of the cost is that just all red tape or where's the 40 where 40 percent bureaucracy

regulations, absolutely. Absolutely. Time and time is money when you're building, right? If you look at in BC, for example, and I know this because my husband develops some lots in BC, it can take up to two years for people to get a building permit. And the red tape and the archaeological studies and the this and the this and the this and the this and the this. And all the government, literally, it accounts for,

and Pierre Paulyev has spoken to this as well. Pierre Paulyev has come out and said, you know, about 40% of the cost is government-re-related. And he's not wrong. You know, El Salvador, did you watch Tucker Carlson El Salvador's president? I'm going to naive Bukali. I don't know if I said that right. It doesn't matter.

Do you know what I'm talking about? Yep, I do. When he gets talking about looking at the United States and like how long it took him from the Bill to Empire State Building. And then he goes, how long is it going to take for them to fix the Baltimore Bridge? And you're like, this is fat. I'm like, I'm told no politician like this exists. And here he is.

He's literally saying exactly. what I'm thinking. And when you talk about a house being 40% by the government, like, that's a wild stat. Because you think of the red tape reduction minister. I can't even believe we have one of those, but I'm like, just walk in and start cutting the red tape. Just, that's, and it just- How about we just cut the size of government period? Sure. I promise you, we could cut the size of government by 30% and you would not even notice. You wouldn't even notice? Nadine, I feel like there will be a round table. I want to have one on the economy and with your background.

Man, I just feel like there's a larger discussion to be had, and I think it would be beneficial for me and the audience. So we'll talk offline about that. I appreciate you hopping on today. Hopefully this helped illuminate some things for people on the 1905 committee, and well, we'll probably run into each other at the AGM. Thanks again for coming on. My pleasure.

It was a pleasure to be here.