Shaun Newman Podcast - #871 - Bruce Pardy

Episode Date: June 17, 2025

Bruce Pardy is a professor of law at Queen’s University, executive director of Rights Probe, and a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute. A classically liberal legal scholar, he critiques legal progressivism, social justice, and the discretionary administrative state. His work focuses on environmental law, climate change, energy policy, property and tort theory, human rights, university governance, free markets, and the rule of law. He advocates for equal application of the law, negative rights, private property, limited government, and separation of powers. Pardy has taught in Canada, the US, and New Zealand, practiced civil litigation in Toronto, and served on the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal. He is a vocal commentator on civil liberties, notably co-creating the Free North Declaration to protect rights against COVID-19 overreach. His writings appear in traditional and online media, including a Substack newsletter, First Principles.To watch the Full Cornerstone Forum: https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcastGet your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500Silver Gold Bull Links:Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/Email: [e-mail] Grahame: [phone]Bow Valley Credit UnionWebsite: www.BowValleycu.comEmail: [e-mail] Use the code “SNP” on all ordersProphet River Links:Website: store.prophetriver.com/Email: [e-mail]

This is Viva Fry. I'm Dr. Peter McCullough. This is Tom Lomago. This is Chuck Pradnik. This is Alex Krenner. Hey, this is Brad Wall. This is J.P. Sears. Hi, this is Frank Paredi.

This is Tammy Peterson. This is Danielle Smith. This is James Lindsay. Hey, this is Brett Kessel, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Tuesday. How's everybody doing today? The number of ounces of silver needed to buy an ounce of gold now a 30-year high. Silver is now a bargain price win compared to gold.

and I pointed out last week, or last week yesterday, and I'm going to say it again, it's a grad season. I got to go to home on grad and be the guest speaker on Friday. So showed out to all the grads out there. And when it comes to maybe a gift for said grad, what better than a silver coin? Or, you know, if you got the pockets, maybe a gold coin. Either way, I think that would be something that sticks out in the noise of grad

as something pretty unique. And, of course, it's silver gold bull. They have a wide variety of best value silver for every budget. You can simply text or email Graham for details. And whether you're a season investor or new to precious metals, he will work with you to answer your questions and recommend the best products to meeting your investing goals or maybe your gradgift goals. It's all down on the show notes.

If you're ever on silvergoldbowl.com or dot CA, just make sure to reference the Sean Newman podcast. Brand new website for Profit River. They've got it launched now and they've got some new features. It's trying to create ease for all you customers. And of course, when any purchases, just make sure to reference the SNP coupon code, whether you're in person, over the phone, online. That's going to get to you entered into monthly draws for some gift cards.

And we got some cool stuff at Proffer River, including a knife with Profit River engraved on it, Rectec, and the SMP logo. So for all your, they are the major retailer, firearms, optics, and accessories. spit it out, Sean. Serving all of Canada, so it doesn't matter where you're at, folks, listening. Profitriver.com, that's where you want to go for all your firearm needs. Rectech power products have been committed to excellence in the power sports industry for the past 20 years. If you haven't stopped in the showroom on the west side of Lloyd Minster, you really should.

And any purchases there, if you reference the SMP, you can get one of those knives. Once again, it's got Sean Newman podcast on it, but it's also got Rectecke and Profit River. They're pretty sharp. And with golf season upon us and, you know, all the quodding and, you know, all the things outdoors right now, you just got to stop into their showroom. Tell Ryan, the manager there that I sent you, you know, whether we're talking summer, golf carts and lawnmores and side-by-sides and quads, or you're looking out on the water, they got Lund boats, they got side-by-sides, they got pontoon boats, or you go in the winter scoos and all the sledding stuff.

And, you know, there's just a ton of stuff in there. It is quite the showroom. It's open Monday through Saturday. And for further details, you can visit them at rectech power products.com. PlanetCom, when you're running a business, running a growing business, that is, trying to stay on top of the ever-changing world of information tech, while that can be overwhelming to say the least, and that's what they do. They're going to, they want you to leave it to them so you can do your thing while they do theirs. For the past 22 years, PlanetCom has been there to boost your productivity by proactively managing every aspect of your IT infrastructure, both in the house and in the house. the cloud and they ensure you're not too tangled up in technology to get anything done.

You can just check out the shan Newman Podcast.com, the shan Newman Podcast.com to see what planetcom is, uh, planetcom is all about. Planetcom. Man, I am messing things up today. Happy Tuesday. Ugh. I've, my, my, my wording today is bugging me. I can't seem to read a script to save my life. All right. Substack. Yeah, it's free to subscribe to. And, uh, My apologies on not getting the week in review out. That really irritates me. But I did home on grad Friday night.

We had a wedding all day, Saturday. And then Sunday we had a triple-header ball tournament out in Banffels. So, like, it has been balls to the wall, I think is the way I would say it. It has been hard at them here. And we got like two weeks, less than two weeks before I'm leaving for family holidays with the wife and kids, which brings me to what's happening in July. I want to make sure everybody knows this is coming, okay? So beginning of July, we got Monday, Tuesday, Thursday episodes.

So Monday, Tuesday are going to be new content that you haven't heard before. And we're going to do this year, we're going to try out throwback Thursdays. I know the first one I'm probably dropping is going to be Don Cherry. I've been getting asked a lot if I would interview Don Trariant. And folks, I have tried, reached out to their team. And the last time I talked to them, they just said, Dawn's not really doing many interviews anymore. but I did have mom once upon a time. And so I thought it might be cool to do a throwback Thursday for the month of July.

It would ease a, I say burden in the most light of senses. I'll watch Trump will get shot again or some weird thing. And I'll be right back into podcasting because how can you not talk about such a world event as Mel and the kids learned last summer when, you know, we're sitting in Idaho. And that happens. And Mel looked at me and she's like, yes, you can go podcast. And then we rattled off a few. But, you know, for this July, I'm going to do.

my best to soak in some time with Mel and the Kids. And so we're going to be doing Monday, Tuesday, things you have not heard. There are going to be new episodes. But Thursdays we're looking at doing the throwback Thursday. I think I'm going to start with Don Cherry. I got a couple of their ideas. But if you are like, hey, this was something I really enjoyed way back when, you could text me because I'm open to just about anything in the first 500 episodes, let's say.

I would like to listen to it again, give some opening thoughts on, you know, listening to the episode and, you know, some cool things I heard in going back because, you know, one of the crazy things is we're over a thousand episodes now, you know, you tack on the 800s we're into, and then the mashups and the archive interviews were well over a thousand now, which is, I don't know, what you think. I'm sitting here and I go, that is, I guess that's just what happens when every day you show up and you go to work and, you know, just inch by inch by inch, you're just a little further along. And so I'd like to have a little bit of fun with it, this July and do some throwback Thursdays so you can expect that.

Okay. In July, Monday, Tuesdays are going to be throwbacks and Friday the mashup will still be here. It'll be best to catch it live on X, Facebook, Rumble, YouTube. Tuesday is going to have a new co-host in every week and I'll be putting them up on the podcast as soon as I can get to them. But if you're waiting for me, as I know a few of you are, my apologies, but the podcast for a month of the year in July. I try and put it on the back burner.

I try and unplug as much as I can to be there with Mel and the kids and, you know, just kind of recharge the batteries, so to speak. So I just want to keep reiterating. That is coming. Now, if you're listening or watching this on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, Rumble, X, make sure to subscribe.

Make sure to leave a review. If you're on X, hit that retweet button. All right? Let's get on to that tale of the tape. Today's guest is the executive director of Rights Pro, Professor of Law, Queens University and writes special commentaries for the National Post. I'm talking about Bruce Party.

So buckle up. Here we go. Welcome to the Sean Numa podcast today. I'm joined by Bruce Party. Bruce, thanks for coming back on. Sean, all good to see you. Well, you said something that most people don't say these days. And that is Aboriginal rights should not exist.

That is like going completely counter to what the world says these days. from everywhere, you know, we stand on these nations, or, you know, these lands, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I mean, you watch the Oilers in the Stanley Cup playoffs. It plays before every home game. And you're going, if Alberta goes as a free country, Aboriginal rights should not exist. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.

And thanks for hopping on. Yeah, my pleasure, right? So you're referring to all the land acknowledgments, which have become a ritual. I mean, those don't help anybody. But it goes beyond that. So we have in this country a very well-embedded idea, both in the culture and the Constitution,

that there are separate and distinct groups of people. And some of those people have constitutional rights that are different and higher than the rights of other people. And so right off the back, we're in difficult territory. Because if we like to think of ourselves as a free country and one of the features of a free country is the rule of law, and part of the rule of law is the idea of blind justice, that is, the law applies to you without regard to who you are. You know, Lady Justice wearing the blindfold, the same standards, the same laws, the same rights, the same freedoms will apply to you as to the next guy without regard to your lineage, to your parents, to your background, to your ethnicity. That is one of the

fundamental features of a country governed by the rule of law. But these constitutional rights for aboriginal peoples are not consistent with that. It's always been an exception in this country. And Canadians, I think, regarded as the natural and proper order of things, that there should be distinct peoples in this sense. And of course, it is the reverse. It is the reverse. The idea that somebody is different from you in the legal sense because of, you know, what genes they carry, which is what it comes down to,

or what culture they identify with, is problematic. In Canada, it's one of our third rails. You know, you can't talk about it. But in an independent Alberta, if Alberta was to separate and to become independent, then the idea of separating means that you are not just leaving the country, but you are also living the established order of things, meaning you should start again, and rethink how your country should run. And one of those things, I think, is you have to start with the premise that everybody, everybody has the same legal rights and

freedoms as everybody. Is that why there's pushback from First Nations, like on this idea? If you're First Nations, you've been fighting for however many years, 100, 100 years roughly, to get to where you are, to where you're almost getting to veto

powers on, you know, anything going on in our country. Why would they sign up for them? When they kind of, it feels like, are starting to have everyone by the balls. Yes. interesting way to put it yes sure sure but but note note who objects and where their interests lie so this system we've been talking about this this different system of rights for certain people

acts to the benefit of some and not others right it acts to the benefit of an awful lot of chiefs and leaders and non-Aboriginal people and institutions too. Consultants and lawyers and politicians, it is a gravy train. I mean, over time, billions of dollars have been transferred from Canadian taxpayers to this cost. And you would have thought, given the amount of money, that all Aboriginal people will be very well in great shape

and the communities will be pristine and work perfectly. That's obviously not the case. This system does not work to the benefit of an awful lot of rank and file individual aboriginal people. And so it is not the case that all of those people objected this idea. Here's one of the suggestions that I've made. In the transition from the one to the other, I've suggested this. those Indian groups under the Indian Act, it's still called the Indian Act. It is archaic.

Everybody, well, not everybody, but it is largely thought to be an archaic act that deserves to be repealed, but nobody can ever, you know, get the support together to have it repealed because it acts to the advantage of certain people, the Indian Act. So under the Indian Act, under the reserve system, individual indigenous people do not own property on their reserves. They are allowed to live where they do because the group, as controlled by the elites, have said you can live there. So here's my suggestion for transition. You take those reserve lands and you chop them up into lots. And you give title to those lots to individual and individual.

indigenous people. So they have their own property and they can do with that property what everybody else can do with their property, which is anything they want. They can improve it, they can mortgage it, they can sell it, they can bequeath it, whatever they want. It's totally up to them. That is not the case right now. Right now the problem is group rights and these are group rights we're talking about. The problem with group rights is that they're controlled by the leaders of the group. And that is not to the advantage of the individual people in that group. Sean, I can't hear you suddenly. That might be because it's raining in the background. I can hear it. And I muted myself,

because I'm like, although it's kind of a nice, nice tone in the background of Bruce talking, folks, here I am and I can just hear it downpouring, thankfully for the rain. I was wondering what, you know, is June 3rd when you put your post out? And I read it and I'm like, oh man, that's an interesting thought. You know, like, Most people don't want to steer into that, as you put it, third rail. What has the feedback been like since you put that out? Like, I assume you've been under attack by certain groups, but I am kind of curious.

Like, has there been a general consensus even from First Nations that they're like, yeah, like that makes a ton of sense to us? Or is that not been the case? Overall, the feedback has been very positive from an awful lot of people, including some individual conditionist people. I mean, I think there is a large, broad consensus, certainly that the status quo isn't working. It hasn't worked for a long, long time. And that the inclinations of not to want to touch it is the wrong impulse.

Of course, this is going to threaten the status of some people who are going to vehemently object. Yes, sure. But for me, that's an indication that the idea is appropriate. The fact that somebody objects does not mean the idea is bad. It means that if in the status quo, somebody is making off like, you know what, then maybe that's not appropriate. So it's been a very positive, constructive experience for me anyway. And people are open to this. It's just that it's a very hard thing to get people to talk about because

Because they're afraid. Now, well, in fairness to people, there's certain subjects right now that are really tough to discuss. And opening up Alberta separation in Alberta independence, Alberta, whatever you want to call it, folks, I think it was Keith Wilson, who said, you know, you can use independence and separation. It just depends on the discussion. They, you know, roughly are similar in what they intend to do. but when you come back to that it's open this flood gate of like a whole bunch of people jumping on and like that's a dumbest thing you're your traders or all these things and it's been it's open up on a different conversation of well actually look out all the things that are taken from Alberta look at how they're treat Albertans are treated etc etc so this just becomes another I don't I don't know if it's like I mean at the end of the day one of the first attacks it came was forum chiefs they were and then you know as you dug into them you started looking where they tied to and you're like entities maybe not of Canada and you're like well maybe they don't have the best interest of us at heart and you know I it's it's as I'm listening I'm like man I guy should really just

track down a couple people on the reserves and just have them on see what their problems are because you know when you start talking to people about this people who know nothing about it are immediately against it they're just like no no I'm Canadian I don't want anything to do with this and then the longer you listen to him talk they almost start to talk themselves into separation because like it's almost the more you explore you're like man this is this is a almost an open and shut case of why you should just get out but once again when people are talking about it i think of um jeff rat when he's at his best he's talking about first nations he he has some really eloquent thoughts on it um

have you talked to him about this at all? Well, well, Jeff, Jeff. Oh, I touched a hot, but Jeff doesn't like this thought. Jeff does not like this idea. Really? Not one bit. Nope. No, he, he, no.

Not, not, not, not even a little bit. What are the criticisms from Jeff on this? Well, he hasn't described to them to me in the, detail, his response was rather more abrupt than that. In the Jeff Rathway. I would, I would love, I would love to get a chance to talk to him about this, debate him about this. Love we could, I tell you what, Bruce, you're talking maybe to the right guy.

I'll reach that to Jeff. I would love to, I would love to put that together. I think everybody on this show would be like Jeff Rath, Bruce party. Let's go. Let's go. Great. Why not? I'm there.

He hasn't given. giving you why he doesn't like it though. Is it because- Well, so he and I were on a podcast a while back. Yes, I remember listening to it. This is before that I wrote the piece, but the issue came out very briefly. And if I recall correctly, his argument was, well, if you do that kind of thing, you're going to deny Aboriginal people the ability to pass on property to their children and

grandchildren and so. I don't understand that objection at all. In fact, right now they do not have the ability to do that because they don't own property on the reserve. Everything is a group, right. If I, they do have the right if they live off the reserve. If they go out and buy property anywhere but the reserve, they can pass it down to their lineage, correct? Yes. So let's go back, let's go back a step and make that point because it's very important.

Aboriginal people have the same rights and freedoms as everybody else in Canada. They have the right to do all the things that everybody else has the right to do, to vote, to own property, to marry, to divorce, to own a company, to have a job, etc., etc. There are all the rights, if you are not on a reserve and you are an Aboriginal person, you have the same rights and privileges with everybody else. these distinct category of rights we're talking about are group rights that apply if you are on a reserve or if your group has aboriginal title or etc., etc. It depends upon the context.

It depends upon what group you're affiliated with, what the history is, whether there's a treaty or not, and so on and so forth. So you can't make blank statements about all the Aboriginal people in Canada having certain rights, because that's not true. The groups are distinct and the people, the individual people are distinct, of course, as well. So we are talking about an extra special status that differs from group to group and context to context. But those rights are group rights. And they're untouchable, essentially, by the individual. You cannot own your own features. simple property on the reserve but if you did then you could do with it whatever you want to like pass it on in your will to your children right now you can't do that because you don't have

property in the reserve and so i don't understand the uh the the the objection that's interesting now now i'm now i'm now i'm going to have to bug jeff because i'm kind of curious what his thoughts are Right? Because when I had him and the APP on, a while back, folks, I think that it was just before the election, maybe just after election, one of the two. I think it may be just after. And they were talking about all the emails. That's right. Just after the election. I thought his most coherent thought. And sorry, Jeff, I don't mean to say the rest wasn't coherent. I just thought it was like a really solid speaking point he had is when he brought up First Nations and he was talking about it. And I thought I was like, wow, he should really stick to and not that he can. speak to everything. Just I thought that was like a really powerful thought. And when you say your thought, I'm like, that's a really interesting thought as well. And so to me to bring those two, like, because I think a lot of people, Bruce, really respect your train of thinking. And to bring both you together, you know, I think would be, would be valuable, especially if I was, if I was sitting on the reserve or I wasn't because I'd want to hear the pros and cons of going back and forth. Like what's,

you know because i i could see how they don't want anything you know we fought a long time to finally become you know a nation within a nation to have our own way of of doing things out on our land but you're pointing out to well then you're you're at the behest of who is in charge of that and when you go around to you know all the reserves there might be the odd one that's being ran really well but there are a ton that are in exactly so and there are they are they are Back to my point, they are all different. You can't make blanket statements about this. Right?

They're different from community to community. But there's a more basic point, too, which is that it is not right to continue to view people as different people. So let's, I mentioned this in the piece. Let's just do a thought experiment. And so let's say, you know, foreign people invaded Canada as it now exists. Right? We would consider that to be an invasion. Like, that's okay.

And tried to repel them. Fair enough. But let's say there's an awful lot of them when they come in. Okay. We would think this is intolerable. But let's say it happened 400 years ago. And the people stayed. Now, what has happened over time?

What happens over time is that people mix. The culture that they brought with them and the culture that existed at the time that they arrived, neither one of those two things exist anymore. Something else exists. It's a little bit like, little, like, no, let's go it this way. Invasion and migration and mixing is the history of humanity. This has happened over and over and over again, everywhere. So, let's take England, for example, like the Roman.

invaded England a long time ago and eventually conquered it and then the Saxons established themselves as the power you know around 500 AD and then the Romans came and they they they became dominant in 1066 okay so does that mean that British law has specific rights for those people who are derived from Romans and Saxons and Normans Okay, we all know that would be ridiculous that people are British. The laws apply to everybody because who the hell knows where you're from? Who's your ancestors or how many of those people or how many of those people you have in your bloodline?

Who cares? It's today. The question is this, does the legal system treat all the people who are here with an even hand without distinguishing between them. If the answer is yes, there is not a problem, because we all came from somewhere and we all belong. Many years ago, I had a conversation with a young indigenous man.

And during this conversation, he said something like, you know, we were here first. We have been here longer than you. And I asked him, how old he was and he said he was in his late 20. And I said to him, well, in that case, I have been here longer than you. I don't care who your parents are. I don't care what your genes are. I don't care what your affiliations are. I have been here longer than you. I was born in this country. I am as native to this country as anybody else. And we are past the point, I think, I hope,

maybe not yet but getting there of worrying about evaluating your lineage to see where you fit in we got rid of this idea or tried to you a long time ago you know the king used to be the son of the king before him he still is but he has no parent if your parents were serfs in old england then you were a surf too and there was nothing you could do about it okay lineage was destiny and then the law of all and we mostly got rid of that idea this is insisting that idea that idea that's a bad idea and when you say view people as different different sorry when you're viewing people as different people feel like that happens naturally but what you're specifically talking about, I believe, is law.

Law should not look at a person and judge them or give them a different set of laws to be judged by. And certainly when you start talking like that, anyone listening to this can go, our current judicial system is exactly that. It organizes the people, okay, this is what they look like. Okay, we've got to make sure we're over here. And this is kind of the set of laws that apply to them. And, you know, and let's just kind of go. and they're already making judgments and calls before they even get into the case or what has gone on.

And everybody, I don't know, Bruce, you probably know this better than most. Has it been 10 years? Has it been 20 years? But that has been Canada right there. To take it out of law, I walk around. I see Bruce, I'm going, I'm already different than me. What's Bruce's background? That type of thing.

When you talk specifically a law, you go back to the lady piece with the blindfold. That's what it's supposed to be. and we've been long since, like, we're gone from that. We're getting even close. Right. Right. Your point is very well taken. So I am speaking exclusively about the law.

If people want to identify and associate and group together, it's totally up to them. It's supposed to be our free country. You can do whatever you want. If you want to gather together, you know, in your own community with the people that you regard as the same as you, then totally fine. You can do as you wish. But as far as the law is concerned, it's supposed to be blind. Now, yes, this country has lost that idea or has certainly been losing it over the past, well, almost 40 years.

Ever since the charter. We have a charter section, Section 151, that says that the law shall not distinguish between people. It's basically the Canadian Equal Protection Clause. They also have that in the American House. But unlike the American Constitution, we have an exception, 152, that basically says, oh, well, reverse discrimination is okay. And our Supreme Court, over those decades, has basically said, well, the exception is the rule. If you are discriminating against the right kinds of people, well, then that's okay. right and so the the aboriginal example is the most explicit acute example but yes we are we are losing

the blindfold in in all kinds of other ways and more generally too yeah well because we i don't know how to put this so maybe you can put it a bit better than me when it comes to aboriginals yeah we're trying to put right what was wrong in the past and By doing that, we're creating a whole bunch of new wrongs in the judicial system by like putting them in different categories and different things. Am I, am I, you give me. Let's examine that statement. Sure. When you say we are trying to write wrongs, who committed the wrongs and against whom?

And I think the answer would be, well, somebody a long time ago came into a territory where they weren't welcome and they did something to somebody who was alive then in that territory. Okay. So, none of those people are alive. So what we are doing is we are attributing identities to the people who are now alive and putting them in the shoes of those people who are around them. This is, this is, this is, this is, this is false. Here's one of the principles that a legal system mostly sometimes still reflects, which is, you are. are responsible for your own actions. So if my grandmother goes and robs the bank,

that's no arrest me. Yeah, that doesn't make Bruce a bank robber. People may judge you because of your family lineage. That doesn't make Bruce a bankrupt. Well, they're free people. They're allowed to just be whoever they want to. But the law is not going to require me to pay back the bank because I didn't rob the bank. And by the same token, the people who are alive today, whatever their identities and whatever their combination of genes, are not the ones who were there at the time that any of these events occurred.

And so back to my historical point, which is, look, we are all here now. We are all mixed up to some extent. The law should treat us all as people, not as distinct peoples, because we are. are not distinct people. We are not. And if you were starting a new country, say Alberta, you go, you have a real shot at starting as a clean slate of like, let's just, let's just try and appease or, I don't even know if that's the right word.

It's just like, let's try and put everybody on equal footing. I don't know the right word here, Bruce. And it sucks what I'm with the law professor. I'm like, I'm going to get, I'm going to butcher this the entire time. That's all right. You pick apart my words. Your idea is a blank slate. Let's try and put everybody on roughly equal footing, roughly.

Yes. Well, so, but let's be careful now, because the idea of legal equality can be two quite different things. The first idea, which I've been talking about, is equal protection or equal treatment or equal application of the law. That is blind justice. The law should not distinguish between people on the basis of identity. The other meaning quite different is equal outcomes. And the idea of equity, which is more or less what we have in this country under the charter, is that it's like, all right, well, how do we change the rules? How do we get different rules for different people so as to try and achieve equal or comparable outcomes between groups?

completely different idea those two things cannot coexist yeah that's a terrible idea by the way right but that's but that's what we're doing and that's one of the things that i would like to think that independent alberta would say not us we're not doing it that way we are going back to the to the to the principle of equal protection of the law that the law should not distinguish between people if you have the same rules and standards being applied to you then you make your way as best you can. That is the idea. If you, in your mind, if let's just say, hypothetically, I don't care of the time frame, let's just throw it out in a year's time, two years time, doesn't matter.

Right. Alberta became an independent country. Yeah. And kept the treaties as they were. Okay. So all First Nations, nothing changes. Yeah. Do you foresee then a problem coming in the future with having two systems of governance or

however you want to put that like you're just like well you just you're not you're going to create a divide amongst the population even though you've removed one of the big ones in ottawa you still have two separate entities well sure yeah it's a problem for so many reasons but but one of them is that it's not true right so i'm sure you know i know i know people who, who, I know someone who looks Irish, redhead, freckles, she has a status current. Why? Well, because somebody in her lineage, you know, was a member of an Aboriginal group that has a reserve. That's the kind of thing you get. It's, it's, it's your, we're now playing games. You know, who belongs and why, you know, how many genes do you have to have? Do we really, want to go down this road, we really want to pretend that, you know, going back to the English

example, that it matters whether or not you have more ancestors that were Normans or Saxons. I mean, who cares? Who cares? Certainly, certainly the law should not care. It's funny. When you bring up Normans and Saxons, though, my Canadian brain goes to like this far off place, which it is far off place, right? I've read the stories and those words carry like no weight, like almost.

like zero weight with me first is you you say the word Indian first nation Aboriginal take your pick on them and all of a sudden you can feel the Canadian culture there's there's animosity around that around this conversation right like yes there's just so much I'm like I don't can you convince or open up the discussion enough for Albertans in particular since we're talking about Alberta to go on not even to go along with it but to understand your argument like it to me you haven't said anything like crazy but I'm like most albertans aren't going to listen to us they're going to not not listen to that Bruce party talking about first nations and they're going to rattle off 17 things and they're going to carry on with their day that's where I feel like that's

where society's at maybe I'm wrong maybe Bruce you have a different thought than that listen you're asking me a political question I don't know you would know well as well as me probably have the maybe more of a finger on the pulse for albertans than i do so i do not know my my job is not to figure that question out my my my damn it brews you're supposed to have an answer to everything look all you all you can do is is is say what you think is right and then people will respond as as they do and maybe they were respond one way the first time and then maybe not quite the same way the second time once they've had a chance to think about once hopefully when people see that actually what they're insisting upon does not actually make a lot of sense and it is not to the advantage of the people that they think they're trying to help so it's bad in principle and it's bad in effect so why would you want to keep it i just feel like now i got to go talk to some first nations i'm just like i'm listening i'm like this is this is fascinating to me

but like wouldn't it be interesting for them to come out saying we just want to have what we just we just we want out of us we want out of all these these these things we just want out of it wouldn't that be more shocking than anything than than the regular i don't know i don't even know i'm just i'm just like i'm just like well we'll we'll sit and banter this and i go I don't know how much weight my words carry with people living on a reserve. That's as unlikely as, as the people who run the show outside of reserves coming on and saying, well, you know what? We need to reform the whole system.

People act in their own self-interest regardless of who they are. So we have elites in this country who run the show. We have elites in central Canada. We have a Lawrence. Those people are not going to sign on to a radical reformation of the way Canada works. That would not be in their interest. They would lose the perch that they have. We should not expect that to happen.

And by the same token, we should not expect that kind of reaction from those who are advantaged from by the perch that they have in accordance with the existing system. There are going to be some people who object to changing that system vehemently. and they'll not be able to move them because that's who they are. That's what their status depends upon. But those are not the people who count for the most part. The people who count are the people who do not have that kind of perch, that kind of advantage, that kind of elite status. Those people are not being advantaged by the system.

And I think those are the people whose opinions I think are most important. Yeah, well, you're painting a picture for me of the way, I would say, a lot of Albertans view Ottawa. Yes. And you're bringing it into a sense of if you live on a reserve, they might have the same viewpoint of a select group of individuals who run those areas. Because if they have a lot of money coming in and it isn't coming down and all of a sudden you're just seeing all the great things happen from it. And I would love if the audience would like text me, oh, there's 1,800, well, not 1,800, but there's 18 reserves here in Alberta that are just being ran spectacularly. You know, and maybe that is. Maybe that is the case. But that's the, that's the image I get is the way we look at Ottawa and how they just take everything.

You're painting a picture of a similar in a smaller side. Let me put the Alberta thing another way. So if Alberta comes to separate and becomes independent, The objective is not just to leave the Canada outside Alberta, but to also leave behind the Canada that is inside Alberta. Because there's an awful lot of Canada inside Alberta, and it is not serving you well. And this system is one of those bits. There are lots of other bits as well that I hope Alberta will leave behind. But part of leaving a country means you're not just leaving the country.

you're leaving it's established order of things. And you have to have to start again and think, all right, how should this work in this country, in this year, given the people who are here, and given our experience with the system that has not worked well, how should we govern our new country? If you were sitting on a panel for that question, how would you govern a new country? Like, what laws specifically would you make sure are at the forefront? Well, the one we've been talking about is a very important one, which is the law is blind. The law does not distinguish between people on the basis of any of those factors that we're talking about. The law should not care what you look like, where you're from, whether your ethnicity is, who your parents are, what your genes are.

The laws are the laws. Rights are rights for everyone. If you believe in a rule of law, that's what that means to me in any of that. But to your larger question, what you need is a different kind of constitution, a different kind of governing system. So Alberta, like Canada, is governed by a Westminster system of government. I mean, it's not just in Ottawa. It's also in Edmonton. That's not a good system.

It turns out not to be a good system. And so what I would like to see, ideally, is to do in a sense what the Americans did. And here's what the Americans did after their revolution. They took from Great Britain some things that were good. Like, for example, they took the common law, the common law system. And they took some elements of British constitutional thinking. but then they left the rest behind and they designed a new constitutional structure a new architecture if you look and their architecture is better than the one that they left now it's not

perfect the u.s constitution is the best one going but it is not by any means perfect so here's what i would like to see ideally in my in my in my in my blue sky moments i would love to see alberta say let's take the best one which is the american one we'll start with that we'll take its best features and then we'll leave the rest behind we'll fix it so that it is better and so that Alberta now has the best constitutional architecture going I mean are Alberta Alberta could save Western civilization Alberta has the chance to be another America the 21st century America to start again and see and show how this should now be done to promote and to to prosper in a western civilization

i'm going to stick on the u.s constitution just for a sec you say take the best parts what are the best parts from a guy who studies this the best parts are the best parts are the idea of look let's start with separation of parts the americans have a better separation of power the the Americans have a better separation of powers than we do and then England, the UK, Great Britain does. Their separation of powers is explicit. So let me go back a step. In Western thinking, the state is split up into three.

The legislature who passes laws, the executive who executes the laws and the courts that apply the laws to particular case. And the idea of separation of powers is that the jobs of each of those branches is distinct. And that's important because that means that power is distributed across these branches. And that means that no one person or branch can rule. That prevents us from the rule of persons, protects us from the rule of persons, which is, if you like, the opposite of the rule of law. So separation of powers is part of the rule of law. in the Westminster system we also have sort of that that separation of powers but in the

Westminster system the people who run the legislature are also the people who run the executive and so the branches are different but the people are not the legislature is under the control of the Prime Minister and the cabinet so as the executive they want this the statutory mandate to do something they just have to go over to the legislature and demand that they pass a bill. In the majority, they can do that very easily. So there is separation, but there's not. It's not nearly as effective as the American system. Now, one of the complaints that they're made against the American system is that it creates grid law. They have two legislative chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The president doesn't sit in either one of them. But in order to get a bill passed, it has to be passed by both the Senate and the House and not vetoed by the president. That creates gridlock. How do you get anything done? But that is one of its advantages. Sometimes you want it to be difficult for government to do things. We are now entering into the era where governments want to be agile. And that's the word that they have used.

Agile government. We need to respond to things. When the problem comes up, we need to be agile enough to respond to it on a and create new policy and new responses and so on. That is a terrible idea because it reflects managerialism. We are ruled by a managerial state and we are because the government is able to respond to things quickly without having to go through all the process. So we wouldn't want gridlock something. And the difficult system that the American Constitution creates is one that prevents government from taking on

too much, too fast. Now, this is one of the respects in which it hasn't worked, because they have a managerial state in the, in the U.S. as well. So that's one of the things that has to be fixed. You're making me come to terms of one of the things I hate about government. I hate how slow it goes. Oh boy. But you're pointing out that essentially that might be a good thing. My issue with government is the red tape they put in front of like, you know, key infrastructure, building houses, like all the things that matter. And what you're, I think, talking about is like they want speed to address and, you know, I don't know, COVID, right?

Like, I mean, like, let's look at the most recent example. Or, you know, passing bills for, let's say, war coming up, right? And so you go, well, let's put some things in place so they can't move too fast. And so I have two trains of thought because one of the things absolutely hate about government is like they talk about one thing and it'll go 10 years and we haven't done anything. Like, how do we get anything done in this place when government is going that slow? Right. But yes, I agree with you, but let's go back at step. Part of the problem is that in order to get anything done, the government has to be doing it.

That's the problem. I mean, so the other day, you know, there was a meeting in Saskatchewan with all the premiers and the prime minister and they talked about, you know, projects, national building projects and energy corridors and so on. You'll note what all the rhetoric was about. It was about governments doing projects. Governments doing projects with government resources and government purposes and government criteria. It's like the government is doing this. The government builds projects.

That is a managerial state. The government shouldn't be doing this. governments should pass laws with rules that keep the peace and otherwise you stay out of people's business you can have rules that say

look you can't build a pipeline unless you satisfy these environmental criteria fine but then that's the law and if you can meet that criteria then you can build a pipeline no questions asked that's not the way we do things

Bruce, is the population, have we come to expect that the government's going to do things? Yes, yes. We all think that the government has to lead on everything. The government, I think most people believe that government exists to solve social and economic problem. And that's not true. I mean, that's the way it works right now. That doesn't have to be the role of government. If you believe that, then you believe in a managerial state.

You believe in agile government. You believe in governments making things up as they go because they're dealing with problems. One of the best illustrations of managerialism in government, which is the opposite of the rule of law, is that scenario that we saw over and over again during COVID, you know, some public health official coming to the microphone on a two, phone on a Tuesday to announce to us all what the rule is going to be tomorrow. Okay.

That is managerialism. That is not the way it's supposed to work for my money anyway. If you accept that, then you, you accept what we have. Well, and then my tinfoil hack goes on because then I go, well, then they can make the problem. And then come out and make the quick solution and be agile about it. But this happens all the time. I know. All the time.

I know, Bruce. I know. I'm just realizing that, you know, like one of the things I want out of government, I'm like, wait a second. I don't actually want them to do that. I just, it's the way our society's operated my entire life. My entire life, I've watched the government try and solve our problems all the time. Right.

And this is why the Alberta independence thing is such a moment. time. This is one of the things that could be fixed. If the people have the wherewithal to say we are starting again, the system that we have does not work. So we're going to keep the best of it, but we're going to get rid of the rest. And all the things you're talking about are things that do not work that need to go. My brain's annoyed with me right now because I'm listening to you and I'm like, you know, you're making sense, but I'm like, I'm like, I don't. I, the other problem I got is I'm like, I just, I don't know how you get people.

There's a ton of Albertans. Sorry, folks. I'm, you know, I'll probably have some texts coming in. Maybe I'm just slow to the game. That's totally fine. I can be, but I look at a bunch of Albertans. And, you know, I come from a place where we solve problems. We're out in the middle, you know, we're two hours away from the largest center.

It's kind of what I love about this place is it's a place where people have to solve problems. I come from the farm. My, my lineage is people who came here. and you read their stories and nobody was coming to save them. They had to figure it out. And you're pushing on people to try and figure it out. And yet what government has baked into society

is we don't have a lot of that anymore. I'm not saying Alberta doesn't. We certainly do. But there's a lot of people that don't have that anymore. They're waiting for the government to, you know, roll out daycare and make it more affordable. And we better have some dental care. And we better have, you know, you better be able to

just have free everything, right? And then I go, but I try and tell these people like, free, what are you talking about? Give your head of shake. Where does that money come from? And then I'm the guy at the dinner party that isn't that fun, you know, because I'm like, what are you talking about? You mean, so, but people keep talking about, you know, one of the, one of the claims made by people who are in favor of separation is they want to have a free country.

They're determined to have a free country. And great. I mean, thank God for that. But then you have to drill down a little bit. Like, do you mean just free from Ottawa? Or do you mean free? As in a place where people have liberty, actual liberty, to do as they think for themselves and their family and their community. And here are some litmus tests that like you've mentioned. So test them. If Alberta were to become an independent, free country, does that mean that you will be getting rid of your socialized system of medicine? I certainly hope so. That is a socialized, single-payer, communist-like system of healthcare.

That cannot stand. are serious about having a free country, then the system of health care that you have in Alberta has got to go, got to go. Otherwise, you're talking about both sides of your mouth. And the same thing with, you know, dental care and child care and you can go down the list. I mean, you can go even more extreme. You can go to public education. And certainly Aboriginal rights. In other words, the kinds of things that the government pays for is going to have to shrink to almost nothing. If you really mean it, it cannot be a country of government largesse, because that's not what freedom means.

And on the flip side of that, though, if you shrunk government and you work your bag off, think of how much more pennies you'd have in your pocket, maybe a bit more than pennies. because you think of how much money goes out of your paycheck to fund all this insanity. Exactly so. Exactly so. That's probably why they always go back to the economics of it because people can understand that. They're struggling to pinching pennies to go to the grocery store to see the price is just rising insanely. This is the irony, right?

People think, well, I need the government to provide that for me because I don't have any money. I don't have any money because I'm paying so many taxes. I mean, this is a catch-22 kind of situation. That doesn't make any sense. If the government was not providing all these things, you wouldn't be paying those kinds of taxes. And you'd be able to keep what you earned, which is the whole idea.

And what you earned might be great. You're reminding me? I haven't talked about Alberta Independence Burr's. This may shock you. I don't know. But I haven't talked about it probably in like three weeks. Maybe maybe a month. I just got, yeah, all right, let's do it.

And then it's funny, I started talking to more people. And I, I've been through so many conversations where, you know, like people think you vote on it, boom, you're out. I'm like, well, no, that's not the way it works at all. Like, I mean, like, you're in for the fight of your life if you get a yes. Yeah. And if you get a no, you're just kicked the can down to maybe never. So like, this is a huge moment in time. This moment might not come again in our lifetime.

And so then I press on, you know, like, well, what are you actually worried about? And it's funny. They're worried about what matters to them. And that sounds so simple, but it shocked me because I'm like, what? You're worried about that? Oh man, it doesn't make any sense to me. Because to me, I just, I don't know if I just oversimplify the problem and then realize the answer isn't just boom and you're out. And I'm sitting here listening and I'm going, I'm going to have to interview a heck of a lot of people to paint a future of what Alberta could possibly be because when you talk about free and you drill down on it that could make some people

nervous no no no health care oh we do but then the flip side is yeah think about how much money you're paying and then and then you'd be like well there's going to be some entrepreneurs that are sharp that figure out ways to make your life good right like i just i go back to like lloyd where i'm from you go back through the history of the town small oil slash ed tag town that did a lot of cool things for a lot of years. Why? Because everybody was a business owner, entrepreneur. They figured things out.

They made a lot of money. They put the money back into the community. And the community thrived. Now, is that similar to now? Yeah, but it's growing to a size now where larger companies have bought up the smaller companies. It's become more centralized. They're not all living in Lloyd.

And now you can, I guess I just paint the visual of a straw coming into your milkshake and sucking it out, you know? Like, the money is going somewhere else. And largely, Ottawa is doing that. Sure. So if you bring all that wealth back in, you know, like it solves a lot of those problems, but almost have to walk people through that.

Yeah, but so I'm trying, I've been trying to say people not to try to do that too much. So let's go back to the Americans. Imagine this. Let's say you were talking to a bunch of American colonists who said, well, you know, We don't want to do this unless you can tell us what's going to happen. Well, you know there was no people, Bruce.

Some people, I'm not going. I'm not doing it. And then 10 years later, they're like, this is pretty good. Tell me exactly what's going to transfer. What kind of country are we going to become in the future? Like, tell me, like, I don't know. You have to have enough faith in, in who you are and what you are and the abilities that you have. and the potential for the future to take this leap and then let the future unfold as best it can.

If you want certainty, if you want safety, then you are being Canadian. Don't be Canadian. Be Albertan. That's well put. If I may, you know, I brought up two other things I wanted to discuss with you. One is Bill C2. Right. I was hoping you could walk me through this or at least give me your third. thoughts on it. And for the people are not up to speed, it's, it's basically a securities bill.

And it's aimed at the border, but then it's got tucked in and a whole bunch of things, basically spine on me and Bruce and a whole bunch of you as well. But that's me oversimplifying all over again. And I thought maybe you'd, you'd have some thoughts on it. It's not that much oversimplified. I mean, it is the border security bill. And it is exactly, as you say, it's supposed to be about border security, you know, about threats from the outside. you know, migrants and extremists and so on. But tucked in there exactly as you say are things like this. There's a prohibition on anybody, anybody spending more than $10,000 in cash for anything.

So, you know, if you like to take the money that you earned and pay taxes on and take it out of the bank and walk down to the, to the dealer and buy your car with cash, not allowed. Why? Well, because they want to track what you're doing. Now, the excuse is they want to track, you know, large cash purchases because they're, you know, they've been scared about money laundering and gangs and, that kind of thing. But in fact, what they're doing is tracking everybody. Yeah, because money launders are laundering millions upon millions of dollars are doing it in $10,000 increments. Right. You know, like, I mean, that's the big scare.

No. Like, the example you're giving, I'm like, how many of us have actually had $10,000 sitting in cash? More than I cared. I'm not saying that as an author. Now, how many of us have had $25,000 sitting in cash and go down and buy something? Now, I'm not saying you don't do this. I'm sure there are those that do.

But it'd be pretty rare, I would think. Well, maybe, but that's not the point. I know that's not the point. But that's what they're saying, oh, no, we got to monitor this because that's money laundering. Go money laundering. The money laundering cases have been millions upon tens of millions, upon hundreds of millions. They're self-explanatory. Somebody transfers 10 million in cash or goes into a casino with a large sum of an

should maybe raise some, Bob goes down to buy a car. He's lived there all of his life. He's got $25,000 of cash. I guess if it happens once a week, it'll raise some flags. But I mean, if I save 25 grand in cash, Bruce, anyone going to tell me how I can spend it is going to be a rough day for him. Right, right. And let's mention, the two other things that you alluded to, which are quite right. So the two other things that raise red flags in this bill, number one, basically Canada Post and the government are given the ability to open your mail. And number two, the government can require your personal internet data details from service provider. Like not with a warrant, not on suspicion that you've committed an

offense, but just because. And here's the truth that underlines this whole thing. So the bill purports to be, as we've said, for the purpose of border security. But the fact of the matter is that the menace, the governments now are most concerned about our Canadian citizens. Yeah, it's me and you. Not gangs, not foreign governments, you know, not not not not not. immigrant people who are here to yell death to Canada, but ordinary Canadian citizen. And that's what they want to keep tabs on. You can see that. You can see that in the way the bill is put together.

The Bank of Canada has wanted for a long time to create a digital currency. And this is just one of the steps leading to that result. Again, back to our previous comments. This is part and parcel of the way a managerial government works. You want to direct and control and track and surveil the people, because the people are a thing to be managed. Again, one of the things, hopefully, that an independent Alberta will get rid of. Well, we'd certainly have the choice to get rid of that. And I think that's what excites a lot of Albertans,

is the opportunity to have a blank slate, somewhat, right? Like to try and get it right. To like try and weed out some of the things in there that have just over the course of decades slowly crept in. You know, one of the other things that has gone on in the last, man, has it been month? When was it, folks? I'm spacing on the actual date. But, you know, it's funny, me and a friend were talking. It's like, how do you keep tabs on everything? When they just keep coming full force, it's like, you know, it's like, you know, it's like, You're staring at one thing and all of a sudden Monday, you're like, Bill C2, where did that come from? I'm sure it was there.

I just wasn't paying attention. Somewhere along the lines, all of a sudden, everybody signs onto the WHO pandemic treaty. And you're like, what? I thought that was dead in the water. What are we doing? Like, WHO pandemic treaty. Does that just pull us right into more insanity when it comes to health crises all over again? Yes.

Yes. So, yes, the HOO was planning to pass this treaty. It came and got into some roadblocks that was put aside. Everybody thought, oh, well, we dodged that bullet. And, of course, no, they just went to sleep until you went to sleep. And then they brought it back and now it's passed. Now, the one important exception, of course, is that in the meantime, Trump has taken the U.S. out of the food. So it's not nearly as powerful a thing as it would otherwise have.

been but it's but it's not good it's signs Canada and many other countries up to an international regime of cooperation that provides for this that and the next thing now there is some confusion about international treaties people think that if you sign up to a treaty that means you lose your sovereignty over those topics and that's actually not quite true it has the effect of here's the way it really works i think So your country signed up to a treaty. The treaty says certain things. And then something happens like somebody claims as a pandemic.

And the provisions of the treaty sort of click in. And then the people who rule your own government, your own leaders, say, oh, well, now we have to do things that way, because that's what the treaty says. Okay. That's actually not true. The treaty is now the excuse for your own leaders to do things in. that they claim they don't want to do, but they have to do like lock you down.

Okay, this is a slight of hand, but it's a bad slight of hand. It would have been better if we were not part of the WHO. Would've been better if we hadn't passed the treaty. We should get out of the WHO, but we are where we're at. Would my summarization of a treaty be, I put down treaty equals influence.

So you're signed up to it, which means you're into that pipeline of information And when they come out saying whatever it is, they're going to give you a list of things you should do, which comes down to the government. And the government has not an obligation to the treaty, but it might even feel like that to then implement. So here's the thing. It has an obligation under the treaty in international law. I mean, it does.

According to the text of the treaty, maybe, depending upon what it says, it does have an obligation to do that because it's sign up. But in international law, and I keep having it. this argument with people about international law. People think international law is something. Like it is the law. International law is not really law in the same sense that we talk about it in the domestic sphere. Right. So international law, I like to say international law is the language of international politics. So when you get together with other countries and make a treaty, you're making gentlemen agreements about what you're going to do. And, you know, you might all, you might all carry out those promises or you might not when if you don't the other countries that

signed on to the treaty will complain that you didn't do what you said you were going to do okay but that's about all it's not like they're going to take you to a court because the courts you have to agree to their jurisdiction it's not like taking you to a court in Canada because the court in Canada has the power of the force of the state if a if a court gives a judgment that you'll pay this money, then you'll pay this money or you'll end up going to jail. That's not the way the international system work. And so yeah, there's a kind of rule of law, but it's not the same kind of thing at all. And people give more credence to it than it deserves.

So do you not give a ton of credence into signing on to the WHO pandemic treaty? Like are you like, yeah, that's not good. But it's still going to come back to the population if they go along to get along with all the stupidity that comes down through the pipeline. It's not good. It's not good. I would have preferred that we didn't do that. I would prefer that we were out of it because it is going to have political implication. And it's going to enable the government to behave in a certain way and claim that they have to. So it's a tangle of things that are no good. but it's not like you've signed away your sovereignty and can't get it back.

Let's say, for example, if you had a different government in the future, and that different government was of the opinion that this was a totally bad idea, and we should get out. Well, then you get out. You're allowed to get out. But to me, it just, I don't know why it reminds me of maybe immigration or something, right? everybody's talking oh we got to we got to settle these huge numbers we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna grow the population and all of a sudden a bunch of things happen in media and over the course of

a week 24 hours I don't know how long it was all sudden there's a whole bunch of conversations around slowing it down we got to get all these people out and no more uh people coming in through the colleges and the universities and it's like overnight it just flipped and it's like well where did all that talk go that we were going to do this and to me that's what I see at a politician so when I see you know when were signed on, you know, that didn't get. But I also hear it's like, yeah, but if the population just goes, we ain't doing this, no, we're not doing this. They can try and make life difficult, but they're not going to do political suicide over a WHO pandemic treaty.

But that's the case for almost everything. If you were able to get a population to say in great numbers, an overall majority, no, not going along with that. then that thing would change overnight. But that's not typically what happens. I mean, most people most of the time don't notice and just go along. So it is, in fact, a tool or a weapon for the government to get its way. And once again, to influence the population.

Sure. We're signed on with all these nations. And there's a big, scary thing coming. And we really need to do these things. Yeah, exactly. Right. Yeah, when it comes to the health side of things, Bruce, I don't know about your world, but where I sit, your side of Canada. Where I sit, I just, I just can't, I can't see.

I'm here, but it's not my side. Does that mean one point in time Bruce will be on Albertan? If Alberta went, went independent, did all these lovely things with law. And you looked at him, man, that is something. Oh, I'd be there before that. I'd be there before that. I wouldn't want to miss the show. That's pretty cool.

You know, when you say that, I'm like, how many other Canadians would not want to miss the show? That'd be an eclectic group of people walking across the border. It could be, it could be, it could be a moment that will never be revisited. Like, it's a moment in time. The potential for what happens in the next of a while is extraordinary.

And nobody knows how it's going to pan out. Of course. But just imagine what could occur. And you wouldn't want to miss them. Bruce, as always, appreciate you hopping on and doing this. I've got to go wrestle with a few thoughts that, that's what a good guest does and you always do it. Appreciate you hopping on.

I'll see if I can work on Jeff Rath. Because I think, you know, I'm like that, what you're talking about is an interesting idea. And to discuss said ideas is what we should be doing right now. We shouldn't be shutting down an idea. We should be discussing it. So we'll see what happens. Maybe I'll find out a rude awakening that nobody wants to discuss your idea, but I can't see that.

But you never know. Either way, appreciate you hopping on and doing this. And we'll see if we can't get you on in the future and maybe Jeff Rath or others might want to saddle up and have that discussion. Perfect. Sounds good. Thanks, Sean. Thanks, Bruce.