Shaun Newman Podcast - Mashup 171

Episode Date: August 15, 2025

222 Minutes is on to discuss this week's headlines. We are joined by Jeff Evely and Jeff Rath. 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 UnionBitcoin: www.bowvalleycu.com/en/personal/investing-wealth/bitcoin-gatewayEmail: [e-mail] Prophet River LinksUse the code “SNP” on all ordersWebsite: store.prophetriver.com/Email: [e-mail] Money SummitWebsite: ExpatMoneySummit.com

Welcome to the Masha. Tell me whether I'm wrong or right. Easter west up or down side to side. I sit to stand and fall to fly. Of all of my impulsive plans, pop and locking salsa dances on demand. I follow leading off the map to stop the chatter, scream happily. Welcome to the Masha. Welcome to the MASHup.

Welcome to the MASH up. Welcome to the MASH up. Jews is known for a lot of things, but one of them is not sick days. And after his co-host spent the last two months in jail, uh, Tuesday's like, my voice is pretty under the weather. I think I need to take a day off.

He literally texts me like less than, yeah, right, six in the morning. SOS. You know what you do when it's an SOS 2's? You call. You go, listen, dude, I'm,

I'm down and out. You don't text when I'm in the middle of trying to get all the things ready. you just call. You say, man, I'm done. And then I would have found. You sound fine. I feel like you're one of those Canadian postal workers. No, that's great.

Honestly, I think this is the sorrest anybody's throat has been in this country since Margaret Trudeau. You know, you know what, put them back under the weather folks, a game of slow pitch. That's what did it to you, isn't it? Right? You went out, you had a hard, you. evening of slow pitch and now you're like oh man I'm just tired I'm feeling sore I got a little something in my throat you know that that must have been real bad real bad guy tries to take one sick day no no sick days for twos um we got we got a heavy show or a

full show I should say a full lineup here um today on mashup 171 welcome everybody to the mashup Thanks for hopping in with us. Good morning, Lisa, Ferguson. Good to have you here. And before we get to our first guest, a couple things, happy Airborne Friday did all the military boys out there, Jamie Sinclair, wherever you're hiding out. Hopefully you're tuning in at some point. But a happy Airborne Friday.

And let's do Coot 6 and a half before we have Jeff Hop in. We do the Coot 6 and a half. Global News, Suspect and Abbotsford laundromat stabbing had previously stabbed paraplegic man this is uh i mean i can read this all up this guy's rap sheet goes back to 2004 it's just like every time they they arrest him they let him go back out and he just continues to uh in may 2019 while he was intoxicated roly attempted to use a shoelace to strangle a man who was being interviewed by the police uh a guy shouldn't laugh at this but it's i don't know what else to do judgment hold you back yeah that's right that's right

Right. So. Because, yeah, the other thing that will not hold you back is our judicial system in this country. Correct. Unless, of course, you don't like what the government's doing. And then they don't throw the book at you. Correct. And speaking of getting the book thrown at him, we got our first guest of the day.

Jeff Evely is joining the show. Sir, thanks for hopping on with us. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. Now, I assume our audience knows exactly your story, but maybe you just want to enlighten the audience on what's gone down in Nova Scotia over the last couple weeks? So for the second time in three years, the province has brought in a blanket ban on anybody in the province entering the woods in order to mitigate the risk of wildfire.

They did this in 2023. I submitted a judicial review at that time to have the measures reviewed in light of the charter. However, the court would not award me standing. stating that there was no money involved, so I couldn't stand on my rights in the Canadian court alone. And had I gotten fine, then I would have been awarded standing.

So when they came out with it this time, I actually called ahead to the Department of National Resources and I booked an appointment for me to go in and get fined. I went in in the afternoon while the guys were doing their shift change there. They were just coming on shift. And I explained the situation to them. and I told them, you know, there's, I'm not trying to make trouble for you guys, but in order to get this in front of a judge, I need to receive the fine.

So I invited them to join me behind the building where the woods was found. And I entered the woods for about 90 seconds under the supervision of three conservation officers. And then when I came out, they find me $28,872. 50 cents. Okay, I'm curious about that. My understanding is that the fine was 25,000. Was this just like a top-up? Yeah.

That was my understanding as well going into it. It wasn't until they issued it that I realized that they put taxes, court fees, and a victim fee on top of that $25,000. So I'm assuming that some of that money is going to go towards the tree you were standing next to then. Yeah, no doubt. I kind of like people have been asking me who was the victim and I'm like me. I'm curious.

You know, I had Peter McIsaac on the show yesterday. Since you've done this, like what is what is the feeling around Nova Scotia with you standing up for, I don't know, God given rights? Like walking into the forest. Like has there been feedback? I assume there's been feedback. Heck, you've been everywhere all across. I've been sent your story an awful lot. What is the, what is the, oh, poor pun of words, but temperature out in Nova Scotia like?

You know, I haven't really left the house since getting fined. I've been doing the media blitz interview after interview. So like in terms of like actually being out in the community, I haven't really gotten the vibe there, haven't taken that temperature. But the feedback that I've been receiving online has been overwhelmingly positive. A lot of people have been reaching out in private messages, finding me online. And, you know, I'm hearing from all kinds of different people, you know, that are supportive of what I'm doing. Veterans and even firefighters who are, you know, supportive, say enough is enough. And I do get the odd troll, but luckily they make it really easy for me to tell who good guys and bad guys there are

because they're the most disgusting, nasty people you would ever want to encounter. it's pretty clear to me that I'm one of the good guys and all the bad guys hate my guts. Yeah, well, I mean, you did actually have a U.S. colonel speaking about it here. I've actually got a clip here. Oh, really? Yeah. Survivor of countless incursions behind enemy lines.

Kill for vagrancy in Jerkwater, USA. Anybody else pointed out that this is exactly how the movie First Blood starts? he goes into the woods they don't they don't want to walk it through they're down and then he goes off

and it escalates from there but this is literally how the movie starts is basically your story well I guess what I'll say there is that Rambo was a tactical guy and I spent most of my career in headquarters I'm more of a strategic guy

so this this is how we wage war at the strategic level administratively I was curious your thoughts. I was reading some different news articles. That's what we do on this show, right? We pull across the headlines and then read different stories. Here's the Globe of Mail, Stephen Maher.

He said, there's no chance that me plotting, my plotting morning jog will set the woods on fire. So the rule is absurd, but fires are mostly caused by dim-witted and careless people, and there's no way of separating them from their careful neighbors. So the ban is necessary. Okay, so ban driving because some people will drive drunk. That's it. It's not even drive drunk. It's drive recklessly.

Some people are going to get into accident so we shouldn't have any driving. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Safety is. And that is. So nobody should be able to walk. Yeah. And that is the kind of safetyism that I think the totalitarians used to erode our freedoms one inch at a time. But, you know, it's never some government officials are going to abuse.

taxpayer money, so none of them should be able to spend it. That never crosses their mind. That's a great point. I like that one. For somebody who isn't paying attention to Nova Scotia, let's just assume for a second that there's people tuning in right now that have heard relatively nothing on the Nova Scotia ban in the forest. Could you walk those people through what's gone on over the last couple weeks? You mentioned back in, I want to say he said, 2023, they did simple. similar things and then didn't give you standing because he didn't have any money essentially in the in the fight.

Walk us through what has gone on with restrictions so that maybe people who don't know the full story can kind of cramp your hand, Jeff, what's been going on? Actually, the first day they brought the restrictions in, I did a video and it was just kind of for fun. I was just goofing around because I was actually pretty ticked when they did it again. So I just needed to blow off some steam. And I went around, what they had done is the park where I walked my dog in the morning, they had taped off multiple sections of that park because they put caution tape across the trail

because that's the woods. And then there are these trails that are indistinguishable from the other trails that are not taped off, because that's not the woods. And so that's what I did as I went around saying, this is the woods, this is not the woods. The whole thing is absurd. So, and they're slapping people with $25,000 fines for, you know, getting out and enjoying nature like Tim Houston told us to. And like Mark Carney says we should all do, stay home in Canada here. And, uh, well, three days before it, sorry to interrupt, but three days before it, Tim Houston had tweeted saying, you guys need to go check out the woods.

The woods are awesome. Go see the woods. Yeah. And when they brought that blanket ban into effect, like there, there wasn't, there weren't even burn bands everywhere when, uh, when they did. that. I mean, the fire weather index, you know, they use that to

make these calls. And it was at different levels all over the province. So, you know, there were burn bans in some areas and not in others. Now, a burn ban, I could see. A burn ban, fine. You want to ban smoking in the woods. You want to ban people from taking their camp stoves in there. You know, and I think they even do

like ATV bans at some point out in Alberta. Somebody was telling me. Those like, those are logically connected to the goal of preventing wildfires. And that is required under the charter, right? Under a charter of rights and freedoms, whatever interventions into my liberty,

the government makes, whatever measures they put in place, they need to be minimally impairing with respect to my liberties. And this isn't minimally impairing. It's maximally impairing. Like there are any number of measures that they could have put in place first,

like I said, smoking, any source of ignition. You want to ban all that stuff fine. But when you go all the way to sneakers and just people, there's no logical connection between that and the goal of preventing wildfires. And also it's not minimally impairing. It's maximally impairing. How many fires have been started from fishing in Nova Scotia?

None of which I am aware. Peter McIsaac, I think was even saying that nobody's ever died of a wildfire here in Nova Scotia. And yeah, so the fishing is another one. the fishing, hiking, hunting, I mean, maybe I could see if you're talking about like gunpowder and ricochets and stuff like that, I guess. Even then, like, these things need to be quantified. Like, what is the actual risk here? You know, never mind the fear porn.

Like, at what stages are we going to put what measures in place? And I think that's what needs to happen, really. Like, if I were to get sort of a Cinderella solution out of this, legally speaking, then the Forests Act of Nova Scotia. They're standing on section 251, and that says that the minister can ban anybody from any section of the woods at any time. I stood in court in 2023 and said, you know, I think they meant within the confines of the charter, but that didn't seem to be the argument that the crown was making. So maybe we have a problem here, and we need to get the Forest Act declared ultra virees so they can rewrite this sucker and actually put, you know, the measures that we're going to put

place. You can just tie it to a weather fire index and then no thinking required. We shouldn't be allowing these people to exercise judgment. And that's really, I think, the way the law should be constructive, the way that our system should be set up so that these decision makers, like Tim Houston, should have as little room to exercise judgment as possible. It should be just kind of clearly laid out somewhere, codified into law, what it is that they're allowed to do and not allowed to do. because right now they've just given themselves license to do anything. Well, license to do anything.

And then my understanding is like it's not like it's blanket, but like, you know, you can still golf and, and I'm not saying you should shut down golf. I'm not saying that at all. I just like, no,

but I think you're right. I think you're right because I would say that your chances of starting a fire withholding a golf club in the air a little bit higher than going for a stroll. So if anything, like, to be logical. That would be the next step. And then Scott Moe would look at it and say,

you know what? I think you're right. We also need to make sure that nobody stands next to either one of the trees in Saskatchewan. And then you just go from there. Well, and the irony here is the trees are not as flammable as the grass. You mentioned golf courses. Well, an open grassland is a much greater fire hazard.

Like it's at a greater risk of a fire actually starting in an open grassland than it is in the woods, like an open grassland. like an open grassland, the grass gets burned, it gets dried. And in the woods, like, that's a shaded area that tends to retain moisture. So the risk of a fire actually starting is greater on an open grasslands. And that sounds a lot like a golf course to me. Yeah, well, I guess the reason I bring up the golf course is it just reminds me of, you know, I go back to the COVID days and you'd have certain rules for some over there.

And then you're like, wait a second, it doesn't cross that line. And we're not going to do it over here. And when you look at the fire restrictions, golf courses aren't in there. And you're like, well, wait a second. Are you doing it to prevent all forest fires? Are you just eliminating certain things that you deem the public will find acceptable? Too's. Mick Maa play to go on in Halifax Park after Nova Scotia wildfire restrictions caused uncertainty.

There's an indigenous reimagining of the tempest from Shakespeare. And that's allowed to go through. They're going to let a literal tempest go on in the woods. But you can't walk there. Who's going to be able to go see it? No one's going to be allowed to go see it. Yeah, great point. And that is an indication that this is political and not actually a matter of public safety, right?

So they'll make exceptions for their political friends and, you know, the indigenous. I'm sure had they shut. down the golf courses. We have some of the most beautiful golf courses in the world here in Cape Breton Island, for example. We got happy Gilmore up here just last year, I think, buying rounds of drinks for everybody. And we, you know, there are a lot of high rollers that come through that golf course, especially, I think the one in Inverness is probably, well, that's, that's astonishing. It's right on the ocean. So it's, they're not going to shut those down because that's where the important people, that's what the important people like to do.

But, you know, those of us who are just lowly proles like myself, we just want to walk their dog in the woods, like we're going to have to pay the price for our government's ineptitude, especially with respect to their ability to mitigate the risk of wildfire. They've actually decimated the fire services out here. They've been cutting them back since probably the late 2000s. And, of course, they decimated all of our emergency services. our health care system with the vaccine mandate. So this is a mess that they created.

And they're expecting the rest of us to shoulder that burden for them. But, you know, without recompense. It's basically slavery. Tim Euse can just, you know, conscript me into providing, you know, my hardship and sacrifice for his political objective, but without compensation. So I find it to be just, the whole thing is egregious. And it's a real affront to human dignity and an insult to our intelligence. I think that's very well put.

I was just thinking while you were talking that if the George Floyd riots were happening and people were burning stuff, they would give that an exemption. Yeah, I think that's a great point because they already did that. When we were under lockdowns, there was a group called Freedom for Nova Scotia that wanted to do a protest on Citadel Hill and they were permitted and all this stuff. And then. Sorry for people aren't in Nova Scotia. What's Citadel Hill? Oh, that's the Capitol. Okay.

Yeah. Well, it's not like, it's a hill on the Capitol. But, yeah, they wanted to do a pro, like, it's in Halifax. Sorry. But they wanted to do a protest. And the province of Nova Scotia actually sought an injunction from the courts that got them to shut down that protest because they were so worried about outdoor transmission. But this was after they allowed Black Lives murder to rage all over the province. And nobody had a word to say about that.

It's political. Again, it's political. Since you've done your walk, right, taking your fine, is there any new things? that have come out of the Nova Scotia government since then that they've changed their tune. Has anything like that gone on along with, you know, like the bands of walking in the woods? I'm having, I'm pretty entertained, I think, just kind of watching the premiers, the Atlantic provinces do this kind of tap dance where, you know, you had Tim Houston coming out and saying, oh, you know, for, you know, for please, just stay out of the woods.

Like, you know, if you're walking around in the woods, you're going to start a fire. and then you know you can switch to new brunswick right next door where susan holt is saying no of course walking doesn't start fires that's not why we're telling you to stay out of the woods we're telling you to stay out of the woods because we're too busy fighting fires to come and save you when you break your leg walking in the woods um and i i'm looking at it like um you know they they they seem to uh they seem to think that we need babysitting and i was calling it the paternalism of the guilty minds uh on uh on uh there not too long ago. And that seems to be what I think is happening. They've screwed this up so royally. And now they're saying, we need to abuse you because we care so much about the risk that's the jeopardy that you're in right now due to our severe ineptitude. So and then they came back to Tim Houston like yesterday.

I think he was out there. And he was just, he was kind of pleading with the public. I remember him saying, I know you guys. want to walk your dog in woods but uh just imagine if if you got out there in the woods and you got lost and you got surrounded by uh wildfire i was tweeting about it i was like yeah okay tim so uh thank you for saving me from getting lost in the park by my house where i might have accidentally walked my dog for eight days to get to the nearest wildfire like just unreal there was this article from Stephen Marr in the Globe and Mail

and he says the people opposing Nova Scotia's ban on accessing the woods don't understand our culture. And I think if we learned anything from the lockdowns during COVID, he's right, but for none of the reasons he thinks he is. Yeah, I mean, we do have a pretty problematic culture. It seems like we've gone culturally authoritarian over the course of the last, you know, a decade or 15 years.

So, and politics is downstream from culture, as Andrew Breitbart once said. So we're living with a very authoritarian politics right now because we didn't take care of this issue when it was in our culture. So, you know, I think some of us out there who want to get active, you know, in the activism space, the political space, whatever, we've got to keep that one foot in the cultural battle space as well. Um, you know, and, uh, we got to make being free, being strong and free, cool again, um, so that, uh, you know, maybe the, uh, the kids will get on board.

I also think it's really important to mock them for how absolutely and stupid this stuff is. I, um, yes, you know, no offense to anybody in the Maritimes, but I tweeted, I said that, uh, you know, if, if all these premiers don't want anybody in the Maritimes to go in the woods, they should just say they're full of jobs. Yeah, I mean, that's a little outfair. The guys out there have to do a lot of traveling just to work for crying out loud. If they would allow us to work in Nova Scotia, then it would be a different story because most of the guys that, you know, I went to school with, they're all journeymen.

They're actually traveling tradesmen. And, you know, they go all over the country. There was Ontario and Alberta, wherever. And, you know, that leads to a lot of problems in the community as well, like family problems, alcohol, drugs, this kind of thing, because the problems of Nova Scotia won't let us work here. Like we have shale, we have offshore oil, gas, we have uranium. They only just lifted the ban on mining, mining uranium in particular. I think it was in April earlier this year.

And I just saw an article earlier this week, I think, where they were saying, well, we lifted the ban, but nobody's interested. And it's like, right. Like, look at the political climate in this place. Who in their right mind would actually invest? in Nova Scotia. So we're in a bit of a catch-22 now, and we're not out of the woods yet. We're going to have to, you know,

we're going to have to work, I think, quite a bit to get to a point where we can even convince people to invest, let alone have jobs here. Any final thoughts before you let you out, Jeff, if you're talking to people out west here, majority where our audience is, but we got people across Canada for sure and into the states. Any final thoughts on what's been going out in Nova Scotia

that you want people to know about? You know, a lot of what I've been saying is I just find it so disheartening, you know, as a veteran to see the way that our political leadership and our institutional leadership is wiping their asses with the legacy of our fallen soldiers for the last several years. Like it was well understood, you know, when I was growing up that these freedoms and these rights are very hard won and an awful lot of Canadians pay the ultimate sacrifice for these rights. So, you know, there's the paternalism and this idea. that we all need to be babysat that I find to be pretty darn dehumanizing, but nowhere near

as dehumanizing as absolutely laying waste to the service and sacrifice of every veteran who ever put on uniform. Well, we appreciate, yeah, we appreciate you coming on and, you know, just given an update on what's been going out out east. And we'll be following along for sure with, I'm sure, the new things that come along in the days to come. Either way, thanks for joining us this morning. Yeah, my pleasure, guys. Thanks a lot for having me.

Thanks, Jeff. All right, there's Jeff from Nova Scotia and all the things going on out there. Tews, did that, well-spoken, I would say, eh? He's incredibly well-spoken, or unless he meant me, but... Definitely not you. Definitely not. No, he's incredibly well-spoken. You mean me? No, Tews, I don't mean... It's because my throat hurts.

Yeah, that's why it is. Yeah, it's because you throw it hurts. We're waiting on her. We got one more guest coming on today. That's right. Jeff's around. That's right. Before we get to the next Jeff,

let's talk some rapid fire in the meantime. All right. How will we start here? Spanish drug maker using Canadian donated blood plasma for products sold abroad. A Spanish drug maker, Gryffles, I think this is what it is, Griffles is selling medicine abroad made arrangements of a Canadian donated blood plasma as part of a complex arrangement with Canadian blood service despite a pledge by CBS that all blood donations would be used for products that stay in Canada. One of the interesting things I learned from this article was that I thought it was illegal to sell your blood at all in Canada.

But apparently it's only illegal in some of the provinces. So, but it's interesting that Canada blood services has a monopoly on this. If you want to donate blood, let's say you just have some really awesome blood and you have lots of it. You know, you got spares. You want to, you're like, I can probably get a few bucks for this. No, there's a bunch of places where it's illegal. But then the only people who are legally authorized, it's a blood cartel. the only people who are legally authorized to get blood from you turn around it turn around and sell it to a bunch of spaniards of all places

well and they're working with the u.s right it gets shipped down to the u.s and then ship back it's i i was yeah it it's a little confusing to be honest it's yeah they're shipped to the supply chain there there there uh is the plasma collected in canada sent to griffles man manufacturing plant in Clayton, North Carolina, to produce immunoglobin, I can't even say it. Immunoglobin. Thank you. Yeah. And byproducts from the manufacturer shipped then to the factory in Montreal to produce albumin.

These products are otherwise discarded, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then they get shipped out of the pain. Oh, okay. That's a really important part. That's not a blah, blah, blah. Okay. Like, if we didn't have a use for them, we'd throw them away. You can say that about literally everything.

There isn't a single thing that any of. that any of us owns that we couldn't say, if there wasn't a use for it, we would throw it away, except for maybe that box of cables that we all have. But until you need that stupid box of cables. Yes. Oh, yes.

Happened to me this summer. Oh, yes. Legault, let's talk Quebec. Lago taking crushing by-election loss to the PQ with humility. Quebec Premier Francois Francois-François, Lago says he's taking Monday's by-election loss to the party, Becois with humility. His coalition Avenier in Quebec finished fourth in the Ardabasca riding with 7% of the vote down

from 52% of the party collected, the party collected in 2022 general election. So from 52% down to 7. Yeah, 52 to 7. I never thought I'd say this in Quebec, but it seems like they finally had enough cack for a while. The increasing momentum for the PQ, which has won the past three by-election. So the last three by-elections have all gone to the PQ. Something for us to pay attention to.

I'm sure Vesper has his thoughts out there, but that'll be an interesting trend to see. They've got a general election next summer, I think it is. Next year anyway. We'll be there for it. We'll be there for it. We should probably cover that, shouldn't we? Yeah, that'd be a lot of fun.

You know, it'll be even funnier as if we didn't invite Vesper. We invite a bunch of Alberta. on to talk a Quebec election. That would be great. We just, you know, because it's funny, because like, whatever we do, the provincial election, we try and get as many people from that province as possible.

And in fact, like, we try and go exclusively with people in that province. Correct. And then if there was, uh, an election in fucking Quebec and we just didn't have any. Anybody from Quebec on it?

Yeah. Yeah. No baguettes allowed. Um, China to hit Canadian canola with nearly 76% tariff. It's 75.8 as the trade war continues. It's interesting. There's a lot of people rightly pointing out that it's bigger than a lot of our mining. It's bigger than manufacturing. This is one of the biggest industries in this country.

But the problem is that it's not in the part of the country that anybody gets votes for. or that, you know, it's not, it's not a battleground area. It's so thoroughly conservative that the conservatives don't really worry about it unless it's, you know, being able to, like, pull out a nice talking point every once in a while. And the liberals don't care about it because they're not going to fucking win anyway. Why waste their effort? All right. We got one more guest coming in, another Jeff. And it would be fitting that Jeff Rath joins us from a vehicle.

Where the heck are you, Jeff? He's in his vehicle. Well, I know he's in his vehicle, too. Whereabouts are you calling in from, Jeff? Hey, you sound like you're underwater, Sean. I sound like I'm underwater. I'm pretty sure that's you, Jeff. Can you hear me?

Yes, again, but you're sideways. But you're sideways. I can barely understand you. Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth? It sounds like you're underwater and you're making bubbles when you're talking. Have you got some sort of... Do you want it? Let me try to reconnect.

I'll come back yet. Sure. Okay. All right. We'll... We'll carry on while we wait for Jeff Rath. I don't sound like I have bubbles. He sounds like he has bubbles.

Aboriginal title ruling raised alarm over property, certainty in Canada. This is British Columbia Supreme Court's ruling August 7th. The decision to Cowich in Tribes versus Canada should be. a wake-up call for anyone who owns property, invest in Canada, or depends on municipal infrastructure. After 513-day trial, Justice Barbara Young ruled that the Cowichin tribes and several allied First Nations hold Aboriginal title over roughly 800 acres of land in Richmond, BC, along with the fishing rights on Fraser River's South Arm. The land includes parts of Lulu Island and areas historically connected to Tynos Village. the court from that certain titles held by the federal government and the city of Richmond were defective and invalid because they infringed on Aboriginal title. And actually, I'd be curious what Jeff, uh, Rath's thoughts were on.

Actually, I was just going to say, I was, if he was on early, I was going to ask him if he wanted to talk about this. Maybe we'll just spring it on. Did you, did you hear any of that? I can sort of make it out. It's, uh, it's not the best audio, though. That's for sure. Um, did, what are your thoughts on the BC ruling? Hang on a second. I'm going to switch devices. I've got my iPad with V. I'll see if my iPad's better. Just hang on.

Sure. Well, I tell you what, how will we skip that for now, twos? And we'll come back to it if we get Jeff. And if we don't, we'll bring it back up again. Obviously, BC and private land ownership is... Jeff's back.

That was really quick. Oh, no, he's gone again. Mayteen Nation of Ontario received nearly one billion in federal funding over a 20-year span data shows First Nations in Ontario, Manitoba, Métis Federation say nearly one billion in federal funding went to a group they allege as fraudulent claiming Métis identity. As long as we keep giving people extra money, consideration, whatever else, based on immutable characteristics,

this is going to continue. And as mad as everybody is about it, I think it's awesome. And you should all check whatever box you, as you can on job applications and grant applications and everything else until this stops. People are people. And if you don't want to say that people are people, that's probably a bit racist. We have coming up here, the by-election for Battle River Crowfoot on this coming Monday.

Tews, you had a picture of some lady. Was there a specific purpose of this? Yeah, okay. So this is, um, this is, um, So this is the main kind of liberal contender running in this. She's running as an independent, but basically for all intents and purposes, she's a liberal. And then Gail Vaz Oxlade, who was like a reality TV person, says why, and just is always taking bad takes on pro-liberal shit.

Why would you ever choose an imported politician when a local representative will actually represent you? bitch you just voted for a guy who moved to from england for the job he wasn't even imported from a different province or a different area he came back from england to take over his prime minister and you voted for him if you didn't say anything then you need to shut up now jeff i can see in the back can you hear us now you can hear us fine yeah much better okay Yeah, we got rid of the bubbles. Sorry about that. That's all right.

Let's start with what's been going on around the question and in courts. Let's start there. And then we'll ask you about BC before you lay you out of here. Bring everybody up to speed with what's been going on in court around this. Just tell the story because I don't know how many people know. Well, I assume lots of people do. But as I told you, when you first told me about it, I didn't even know anything about this. So maybe walk us through it.

Sure. What happened was, as people know, Mitch Sylvester filed a question with Elections, Alberta, on July 4th of 2025. So, you know, back in July. The question, you know, the question was, you know, shall, do you agree that Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province of Canada? So that was filed with Elections Alberta on July 4th. So what Elections Alberta and Gordon McClure, the chief electoral officer, did, was he took that question and sat on it for a week or two. And then he got his lawyers involved, right? And his lawyers and Gordon McClure got the bright idea that they could delay our entire process by filing a reference with the court to ask the court whether just asking that question could offend sections one through three.

35 of the Constitution Act 1982. And there's a provision in the Citizens Initiative Act that allows, you know, or that's permissive, it says the electoral officer may refer a question to the court as to whether the question offends sections 1 through 351 of the Constitution Act 1982. That's what they did. What we think is so obnoxious about it is that in filing this question with the court, They have not even suggested how asking a question could in any way offend anybody else's rights if you follow me, right? So in essence, what we are now engaged.

And then that question went to the court. We were in court last week on a preliminary basis. We'd file the cross application simply to have the entire reference struck on the basis that nobody's identified in any way how that question could be, asking the question and having a process to have that question answered, could in any way offend the Constitution Act, 1982, right? That question went or that application was heard last week, and the court yesterday struck the application to strike and has instead set up this now, you know, three months,

so, you know, August, September, October, November, you know, four-month-long process to have, of intervenors come in and university professors come in and all kinds of people come to the court to suggest how even asking a question to amend the Constitution could somehow offend other people's constitutionally protected rights. So that's the process we're now engaged in, right? The court ruled yesterday that they were not going to strike the case at first instance. and because in the words of the court, the court thinks, sorry, I'm just trying to hold up an iPad while we're talking. The court thinks the court can usefully, you know,

this is sort of what I consider to be the ratio or the decision. Even if all the details of Alberta independence cannot be known, parties may argue and the court may be able to give guidance on constitutionally based on the difference between Alberta being a province within Canada, and being an independent state based on the assumption that Alberta will have the typical characteristics of an independent state. So in essence, and this is kind of what I was concerned about last week, the judge we're in front of, Justice Feesby, is probably one of the best, you know, strongest constitutionalists on the court. He was his law class school medalist. He's a very,

very capable judge. He loves the law. He's, you know, a great judge to be in front of, actually, because he actually reads everything and understands everything, you know, at a depth, you know, beyond a lot of the justices that I've appeared in front of over the years. So he's not a bad judge to have involved. But the flip side of that is that Justice Feesby wants to have a say in terms of what Alberta independence is going to mean for the province of Alberta and is somehow thinking that this is the appropriate role for the court, as opposed to just answer. the narrow question mandated by the Constit—by the Citizens Initiative Act, which is, does this—you know, does the question or the process initiated by the Citizens Initiative referendum in any way infringe anybody's constitutionally protected rights? So that's the process we're engaged in. We see this as a very, very narrow issue, the issue specifically being—how can—how can—how can—you know, a process that ultimately seeks to amend the Constitution of Canada, right?

How can initiating that process be said to offend anybody's constitutionally protected rights when you don't know what the outcome of the process is going to be, right? The judge has some sympathy for that position, and I've yet to hear from anybody how merely asking a question to initiate a constitutionally valid process. ask could in any way infringe anybody's constitutionally protected rights. But that's the argument that we're engaged in, and that's what we're moving forward with. Can I ask you something real quick? Yeah, absolutely.

How many times has the 1982 Constitution Act been amended? Well, that's the whole issue. It never has, right? So all of this is really new territory. I mean, I was on some radio show yesterday. The poor interviewer was getting quite upset with me because I said, look, I mean, you know, I said as an example, I said somebody under the Citizens Initiative process could try to initiate a constitutional amendment, right, to restrict the mobility rights of child molesters to keep child molesters from coming from Ontario to Alberta, right? You know, that would, you know, infringe their mobility rights. but there's a process to do that, you know, through constitutional amendment, right? And I said, so it does, you know, initiating the process and asking Albertans the question,

do you want to amend the mobility rights provision of the Constitution Act to keep Ontario child molesters out of Alberta? You know, is that, does that offend the, you know, the mobility rights of child molesters in Ontario just by asking the question? And of course, this journalist is like, why do you keep talking? about child blusters. And I said, no, no, I said, it's just an example that popped into my head. I said, what we're actually talking about is amending the Constitution. And the real... We may have lost them.

Is it? Yeah. We've, he froze up on us. If we get him back, we'll get him back, too. So, either way. So there you go, though. I'm sure Jeff has a few more things to say. But regardless, they're questioning, well.

whether the question is constitutional, I think, right? Isn't that what I took on that? Yeah. So is it against the Constitution to question the Constitution? Right. Isn't that the confusing part of that? Isn't that what I just heard? Well, if there's an avenue to amend the Constitution, then presumably it should be permissible. I don't know how far. The follow-up question I was going to ask is, you know, how far has anybody gotten in attempting to amend the Constitution? Because if it's never been amended, Well, that doesn't look super promising. But if there's an avenue for it, then it's just that nobody's been down that road before.

Oh, you guys hear me now? I'm back. Yeah, we can. Ask your question. Two's had a question for you. So you said that the Constitution Act, 82's never been amended. What's the furthest anybody's gotten in terms of attempting to amend it? and why did it stop at whatever point it did?

I don't think anybody's ever really tried. I mean, there was the sure, you know, the Charlottetown process. Oh, sorry, there was the Meach Lake process and the Charlottetown process. And both of those processes failed for, you know, for various political reasons, right? You know, nobody, I think, has tried, you know, to, well, nobody successfully seceded from Canada yet, right? So, but we have a process, right? The Supreme Court has set out the process. We're trying to follow the process.

And the process itself, and this is what I find interesting, is we've got First Nations that are intervened in this court case to say, even asking the question or initiating the process, offends their treaty in Aboriginal rights. But the issue is, how can a process mandated by the Supreme Court that specifically calls for the involvement and negotiation with indigenous groups in Alberta as a precondition to secession, right? How can a process that specifically calls for their involvement, you know, infringe their rights? So, you know, those are the questions that are

going to be dealt with and are going to be answered by the court. But at this stage of the process, nobody has provided me any answer or any suggestion as to how it is that, you know, that we could lose on this, right? Because again, you know, the whole idea of amending the constitution within a constitutionally mandated process, you know, how can that process offend anybody's rights? That's the question we're going to be asking the court. So it's a very narrow issue and we want to keep the issue as narrow as possible. Of course, everybody in their dog wants to come in now and argue all these hypotheticals as to how various rights could hypothetically be infringed by what we're doing.

You know, again, let's go back to my silly example of, you know, we can potentially hypothetically infringe the rights of child molesters in Newfoundland and Ontario and the Maritimes and wherever wanting to come to Alberta by, you know, Alberta becoming an independent country and having its own immigration laws that say anybody with a criminal record in the rest of Canada can't come to Alberta anymore, right? You know, that's a potential outcome of Alberta becoming independent. But is that engaged in this stage of the process? I don't think so. So if I'm understanding correctly, they're reaching the point where they're throwing every possible silly hurdle in front of you rather than trying to facilitate an honest discussion about it. Yeah.

And again, I say that the discussion is a very narrow discussion, right? The discussion really needs to be focused around how can a question that initiates a process of constitutional amendment within a constitutionally mandated amendment process infringe any. rights. That's the narrow legal question in front of the court. And unfortunately, everybody, including the court, you know, wants to go off on these tangents. And the court, in effect, has stated in that paragraph that I read from you, the court wants to, in effect, write a treatise on what an independent Alberta might look like, right? That's not the question that's in front of the court in the reference. So everybody wants to, you know, like, you know, it's kind of everybody's shiny new toy that everybody wants, you know, everybody wants to play with and everybody wants to,

you know, wants to kick this, you know, kick this ball around, you know, the field for, you know, with as many different arguments as they can, when the real narrow issue before the court is simply, you know, how can a process of constitutional amendment that seeks to initiate a process of constitutional amendment, you know, offend anybody's constitutionally protected rights? You know, forgive my laughter. I feel like you're like, we've got to cause constitutional process, but now they're putting up whether or not the constitutional process is constitutional. All I hear is, I'm like,

it seems like word mumbo-jumbo. It becomes real, really real circular. And of course, that's what everybody's trying to do, is that they're trying to tie us in knots and prevent, you know, the only legally binding question before the court from going forward. There's been some good things that come out of this process, though, right, so far, right? One of the big things last week, and let me tell you about one of the great things last week, was that I brought up the Lukasek question.

Oh, I was going to ask about him. Yeah, yeah. So, well, little Tommy, we now call him Little Tommy Nothing Burger, right? Because what happened last week was I brought up the Lukasic question. And I said, boy, this is really unfair that the Lukasic question wasn't referred to the court as to how it might offend people's constitutionally protected rights. because, you know, the question is, you know, shall Alberta, you know, should Alberta remain in Canada,

yes or no? I said, if people vote no, you know, doesn't that theoretically offend anybody's rights? And the judge says, oh, come on, Mr. Rath. We all know that that question is a legally irrelevant nothing burger. It's not legally binding. It has no legal effect. It's simply a policy question, you know, that seeks to preserve the status quo.

it's legally irrelevant, right? So in effect, the judge confirmed what myself, Keith Wilson, and a bunch of other lawyers have been saying about Lukasik's question, which is that it's, you know, basically a scam or a sham being perpetrated on the citizens of Alberta. You know, he's running around and God knows why he's getting all these people's personal information because it's not, I don't think, for a legitimate purpose, right? You know, getting everybody's personal information, you know, that can be used for God knows what purpose,

halal mortgages may be and cold calls or whatever. NDP fundraising. Right. NDP fundraising. Communist Party of Canada fundraising. Union fundraising. You know, they're all involved, right?

So, you know, you wonder why they're doing all of this, right? You know, when the court has already said the question is a legally irrelevant, Nothing Burger. And of course, the fun thing about that is

Lukasek is still running around the province telling people that somehow or other, his referendum process is going to block what we're doing and block our ability to have our question asked. Well, if everybody's so up in arms about our question and are saying that our question, oh, my goodness, is legally binding on the province of Alberta and it's, you know, it changed the Constitution of Canada and that this is very serious business. That's the language the court used yesterday, right? Our question is very serious business on one hand, and little Tommy Nothing Burger's question is a Nothing Burger, right?

Then he can't tell the electoral officer, the electoral officer can't make a finding that our question is the same as Tommy Nothing Burger's and use Tommy Nothing Burger's question to block us. So when, you know, when, you know, little Tommy runs around telling people that, he's lying to them. And I think the court has made that really clear that he's lying to the citizen. of Alberta and that he's running a phony petition process that has no legal repercussions whatsoever which is what he's trying to convince people to get them to sign now this is a dumb question because I I for whatever reason haven't gotten around to spending a lot of time in courtrooms in my life it's one of my large failings as an individual um no what kind of you're saying so anyway yeah what uh what documentation is there of that state

Like is there a... Yeah, we're pulling the transcript, so we're going to bring... We'll have the transcript and we'll happily share it with you. I mean, it's pretty funny, you know, and then even yesterday, I mean, you know, it was clear in court that obviously the question that we're putting forward, you know, has legal repercussions under the Clarity Act. The court understands that we're initiating a process to amend the Constitution of Canada. The court wants to have its say on that process, right? And, you know, and there's little Tommy Nothingberger with his stupid question that, in effect, he might just as well have asked, you know, do you agree that the province of Alberta shall remain called the province of Alberta, right? You know, it's a stupid question that only seeks to preserve the status quo and only does that as a matter of policy and not as a matter of law or in a manner that has any legal consequences or that's legally binding on the government.

It's not even a legislative proposal. It's not even asking the government to pass legislation, right? I think when Alberta separates, though, Jeff, we keep the name Canada and tell everybody else to pick a new name. Because as far as I'm concerned, if you're paying the mortgage, it's your fucking house. I like the thought. I mean, I still like the name, Alberta. I mean, Canada's kind of tainted for me, you know, after, you know, Freedom Convoy, 2022. and, you know, the government of Canada effectively declaring war on Albertans, you know,

who are unhappy with government policy going to Ottawa to, you know, to, you know, simply to protest, you know, bad government policy. You know, I think the Canada brand has become so tainted, you know, by fascism and totalitarianism that we can, you know, happily ditch it and, you know, and proudly fly the, you know, the beautiful blue Alberta flag, you know. Jeff, before we let you out of here, I was curious if you'd have a thought or two on BC's Supreme Court decision with Couch and Tribes versus Canada back on August 7th, and what your thoughts on that was. I haven't read it yet. I've got, I had my office printed up for me. It's almost 900 pages long, right? You know, I understand. You've got a tablet.

Yeah, I've been pretty busy to do another stuff. I understand that the government of, uh, of, uh, of, uh, of, BC has already announced that they're going to appeal it. You know, I think the biggest issue for everybody in that case is the extent to which, you know, Aboriginal title lands can affect private property rights. I can't see that the court of appeal is going to, you know, is going to uphold that. I mean, there's a real, it's really, it's really embedded within Canadian constitutional law. The whole idea of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, right? So people that bought land or own land, you know, under the BC land title system, you know, are unlikely to be dispossessed of their land in the face of a prior Aboriginal title claim.

The government may obviously have to pay damages to somebody, right? But that's, you know, it's a government issue more than a, you know, more than a private issue. It's going to be interesting to see where the Court of Appeal ends up on that. But I imagine that that's going to be one of the, you know, one of the hot and heavy issues for the Court of Appeal to deal with. Jeff, appreciate you hopping on and updating us on everything that's been going on, you know, here in Alberta. And appreciate your thoughts on BC too. Yeah, no, it's always a pleasure. But, you know, big takeaway from, you know, from the case in Edmonton, legally irrelevant nothing burger.

So, you know, that's. Oh, yeah. And as far as I'm concerned, that was worth the price of admission. I was in court focused looking forward. So I didn't get to see the expression on little Tommy's face. but he was there oh yeah yeah he was there so he knows that he's bullshitting everybody now like every time he opens his mouth and talks about what they're doing he knows he's completely full of shit so that's what i find so interesting about it you know and then and then my comment

about little Tommy it's like there he is that his little miniature blue suit with his six inches of hair piled up on top of his head um you know trying to pretend to have nice hair i'll give him that trying to try trying to pretend that he's relevant you know if you know i guess if hair products can make you relevant. I guess he's relevant, you know. Jeff Rath, thanks for hopping on this morning. And while we'll pay attention over the next couple months and see what develops here in Alberta, either way, thanks for hopping on this morning. Yeah, my pleasure. Thanks for having me on.

Next year. Okay. Over and out. There you go. Jeff Rath. Colorful as always, twos? Yeah. Yeah.

Little Tommy nothing burger. Yeah. Oh, that was great. That feels like it's straight like Trump could have given. And Trump, that's a Trump-esque name, isn't it? A little Tommy Nuthemberger, that's great. But just the fact that the judge. I know that it came from the judge.

Well, that's the thing. It's not like us saying that Thomas Lekazix just a grifting POS. It's not us saying, hey, he still has a link up to votethomas.ca, which sends you to a conservative fundraising site. It's, it's a judge saying, we all know this guy is a buffoon. And that is wonderful. All right, let's get on to some of the goofy news here. Hamas loyalists have occupied CBC News studio in Montreal.

That was yesterday. Yeah. Yes. So, Hamas, I don't know. I mean, I guess we're going from free Palestine to free CBC journalists. So, of course, there's a band. It's hard to tell which people actually work there and which are there as mass Palestinian protesters. I think this is actually probably more people watch this than actual CBC stuff.

This is probably the best and biggest news they've had in quite some time. Yeah. We also got, okay, here, can add a couple told to rip out their $40,000 landscaping over bylaw violation. So I assume if you see it the the curb edge, I assume that's what they're getting in trouble for twos. You know, if you look right along the roadway,

that's what they're upset about. A neighbor, can you imagine the neighbor called the city and now they have to rip it out? And so that's caused a big stir. Oh, man. Neighbors can be really vindictive. These neighbors I used to have back in the day

when I first got, when I first moved that place, there was like two dozen mature trees, including like a 40-foot-tall spruce tree in the dead center of the backyard. So I cut that big bastard down. And then my neighbor was like, hey, did you get a permit for that? I'm like, no. I didn't even know you could get permits for cutting down trees. Why would I want to get a permit for cutting down a tree?

And they said, oh, he said, well, because, you know, you could get a find or whatever. And I was like, oh, well, I guess I don't really care all that much. He says, well, you got to watch out because those assholes across the street. So what happened was is the assholes across the street. I never really knew them that well. But they were getting the exterior of their house done right before the economic downturn, like 2008, 2009. And then they ran out of money.

And it sat there with like Tevac wrapping, flapping in the wind for like four years. And so then this guy was pissed off and he was calling the city about it. And then they got mad at him. and then when he redid his deck, they actually went and snuck into what was to eventually become my backyard to look at it. And then they called city bylaw

and he had to cut the last six inches off of it all the way down because it was too close to the fence. And so then they just hated each other. So neighbors can be really, as much as like most of them are awesome, there's ones out there that can just really get under each other's skin. How about this?

United Airlines flight canceled after female passenger had biohazard diarrhea that just destroyed a bathroom. And the crazy thing is, you wouldn't expect to chick this hot to have that kind of diarrhea, but like the diverting flight shut down the airport diarrhea. That's what you do. You don't expect to chick that, like, that's, that's not what you'd expect. That's not what you'd expect like a dainty little lady. plop or something like that.

But not this. She was in there. She said for like an hour and a half food poisoning. They had to wheel her off in a wheelchair. If you read the story, they actually had to remove her via a wheelchair because she just had a bad case of food poisoning. And yeah, well, I mean, the story plays out itself. But as soon as I saw the picture of her, I'm like, I know I too is once this, this story

put off. Well, no, it was because it was diarrhea on an airplane and they had to divert the airplane. but like even even just go back to that um that canada um having to tear up their their landscaping the point i wanted to get to with that was that this is ottawa this is exactly what you it is the city of auto who yes who had to get a nightmare to try and convince people that they were actually of fun people and not a bunch of fuddy dutties who were obsessed with bylaws and permitting well this is this is the town that they live in is now the time to over Hall Canada's old age

security. You ever read an article where somebody is exactly right? Like it's like when you're a kid in high school or something like that, you got some complicated math or physics problem and you screwed up a seven somewhere and then somewhere

else you did the math wrong and then you ended up doing it completely incorrect all the way across but you magically got the right answer. This is what they did. They're like, well, you know what, if the really rich people could just deal with a little bit less money, then we could deal with this.

Oh, old age security was supposed to just keep you alive just long enough to give you a little bit of dignity so you didn't die behind a dumpster behind a Denny's or a Humpties or maybe even a McDonald's. That was it. That was just the whole idea was that if you were old and you had lived longer than you were expecting to, it was going to give you just enough cash that you didn't have. to live on the street before you died. And then now, fast forward and government entitlements just keep getting bigger and bigger. And it's become a cornerstone of so many people's

retirement planning. And it should have never been in the first place. But also, I'm totally good with scaling it right the fuck back. But the people who are expecting it as part of their retirement, you need to respect that. You don't just be like some guys turning 65. in a week. It'd be like, surprise, asshole, you don't get any fucking money. You can't do that. You can't. Well, I mean, you could.

But as much as I say, claw the whole thing back, I say, just let people, let the people who are planning on it, have it there to spend. But just scale it right the fuck back for everybody all the way up to, including us, I would say. This Ontario Resort can't find enough employees. Businesses say cuts to Canada's temporary foreign worker programmer. to blame at Totem Resorts, a fishing destination tucked deep in

northwestern Ontario, Sue Narrows. The challenge hasn't been attracting guests. It's finding enough workers to keep the place running. Yes. So they said it's the problem they run into is that nobody wants to move up there for the work. And so then they have to get temporary foreign workers. Interesting thing though.

Oh, shoot, I've got to verify that I'm a human. But here's, they've got a bunch of postings on Indeed. So this is a totem resorts, three and a half stars out of five, happiness below average, satisfaction, below average, purpose low, stress-free high. You know, you're working on a resort.

But light duty cleaner, 1850 an hour. Who the fuck is going to move to a remote village for an $18 an hour? job. Nobody. Nobody. But you know who would? Filipinos. So it's not that they can't find anybody. Youth unemployment in Ontario right now is almost 15%. It's 14.9%. There's a lot of people looking for jobs, but they just have to pay them enough to make it worth their while. And look, if your entire business model is based on hiring Filipinos, move to the fucking Philippines. There's a,

A study here. No, actually, let's do the body cam. Body cam shows lot of winners arrest day after collecting $167 million prize. A newly released body cam footage taken from Florida police officer shows a Kentucky man being arrested after allegedly, not allegedly, he does. Kicking an investigator in the face, police officer, and a physical altercation hours after he collected over $150 million in a lottery and the largest lottery winning in Kentucky history. Mm-hmm. Yes. So in all fairness, if I want $150 million, I would be so drunk that all bets would be off. Like I would literally hire somebody. Let's be clear. Here's a $1,000.

Here's $1,000. You need to stop me when I go off the rails, which is going to happen in about seven hours. In the video, he's definitely intoxicated. Yeah. And so his, where's his girlfriend's name, by the way? Fightmaster. Jacqueline Fightmaster.

You can't date somebody named Jacqueline Fightmaster. And then be surprised when she gets fucking scrappy. AOL. AOL will discontinue its dial-up internet service on September 30th, 2025 after 34 years in operation. The famous dial-up modem handshake sound burned into our memories will now become a relic of the past. That's probably the last time you'll ever hear that sound, Sean. Yeah, yeah, well, I haven't heard that sound in a long time.

It did bring back some memories listening to it. There's a cat call squad in Surrey United Kingdom in the UK. Did you watch this video or did you just? I did. Okay. Okay, I just, I can't put it better than these people do. Undercover police officers taking to the streets and sorry. Johnny Good time.

Trying to stop people cat calling. and harassing female runners. You get honked at, the staring, the hanging out of the window just to look at us and it just, it's so, so, so prevalent. And police teams are ready to intervene the moment the officers are beeped at, followed or shouted at pulling people over. And here it is. Behaviors may not be criminal offences in themselves, but they still need to be addressed. And of course the people that are likely to commit those kind of behaviours, you know, they may then go on to commit to criminal offences. more serious offenses or more serious behaviors.

So it's not illegal, but they're setting up an entire fucking task force complete with fake joggers and then cops to come in and intercept anybody who does any sort of cat calling, which isn't illegal, but it poses a serious risk of being a gateway to doing things that are illegal. If you're at a construction site and you just whistle at some hot chicken a sundress, next thing you know, you're robbing fucking banks. Blacklocks. Former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney will join speakers at a liberal-affiliated Ottawa think tank to discuss national progress.

It's $470 a ticket and, say, organizers. Kenny's host, Canada, what did it say? Kenny's host, Canada 2020 was formerly chaired by Mark Carney, be a part of the conversation. Now, the best part of this is that, Jason Kenny is there to talk about reclaiming social trust. I can't think of a better person. I can't, aside from fucking cardio,

I can't think of a topic he is less qualified to speak about. What fucking social trust does this guy have at all, at all? What has he regained? Fuck all. He is the worst person possible to talk about this. Germany gets zero bids in a zero subsidy offshore wind auction, zero bids. Yep. So that's literally what happened was they said, hey, who's interested in building these?

And the construction company said, well, I don't know. How many subsidies are out there? How much is the government going to chip in? And they said, well, the government isn't going to chip anything in. You guys are on your own. But you can be the guys who build the windmills and, you know, make all the money from that. And they said, nope, we're good. Not a single person bid on it because there was no subsidies.

Fossil fuels are dead. Everything is going to wind and solar. Meanwhile in the city of Calgary, they announced procurement of 120 electric transit buses. And the breakdown of the funding, speaking of funding, funding is 100 million from the city, 123 million from the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and 220 million from the zero emissions transit fund. Wait, how much is that total? I missed that part.

100 million, 123, 220. So what is that? 443. 4.43 divided by 120. These are $3.7 million buses just, just to get them onto the road. 3.7 million buses. It'll be a little less

than that because they do say in the article some of it is for infrastructure for the buses. Okay, all right, fair enough. But how about I'll put it like this? The cost to get these on the road is $3.7 million each. Correct. Correct.

You're not wrong on that. $3.7 million for a fucking bus. Are you kidding? me. What's, what's, um, what do you think the, uh, the fuel savings are going to be? And what do you think the, um, break even point is going to be? Those buses are going to have to be still circling around Calgary after the sun goes fucking super supernova and swallows Mars. And they still won't have broken even. Female pilots may perform better in high pressure scenarios in,

University of Waterloo study finds, the study which matched 10 female pilots with 10, similarly experienced male pilots around participants through three scenarios, including one emergency engine failure. The female pilots were significantly faster to identifying the emergency and landing the plane safely and were better at maintaining the required speed for landing. Now, I put that there and then I'm going to read this. Okay. Interesting. Okay.

Yeah, yeah, sure. Yeah, go with it. Here's, here's, I took a look at the, the study because I was curious. It tested 10 female and 10 male low experienced pilots and a series of flight simulator. exercises, including one emergency scenario. The plane was assessed them. Two women crashed in the emergency scenario while one man did. The crashes were excluded from the analysis, so the studies claimed that females demonstrated

more stable landing approaches, completed tasks faster in the emergency serial, and higher situational awareness ratings has limitations. Yeah. So the interesting, well, I mean, this whole thing is funny because they took, 10 inexperienced pilots, well, 20 inexperienced pilots who aren't going to be set up to do well. So it becomes more of like a coin flip at that point, right? And then they decided that they were going to exclude any of the data

involving crashes, which is basically doing everything they can to set this up. I wanted to read this study too, but it was asking me to pay $10 to read it. And I was like, fuck that. I don't think it's, I don't think having everybody in the, world who wants access to this,

uh, being justifiably $10. And so I didn't, I didn't read it. I just went with the, uh, the summary and I'm taking her word for it. She works for the national post. She's actually quite good. The first female umpire and MLB history, uh,

um, her first game, obviously. And, um, I, I, I found myself just laughing at this, uh, over and over again. So here's the first pitch of the game. It's about six inches inside. And she calls it. a strike. The first

pitch ever called by a female umpire in the major leagues was a blown call. It says she missed 14 calls and had a correct call rate of 90.3%, which, you know, you might go, sounds really good.

But she was ranked 13th of 15 umpires on the day. So she wasn't dead last, right? There was still the worst umpires on that day. But it's funny to see some of the calls. And then to hear the I don't know, the commentators, not say anything, right? Ooh, well, a strike three and just carry to move on, you know, like,

yeah, where they're like, I can't say anything honest about this or I'm going to get fucking fired. Yeah. The best, the best comment I had was about that first pitch where it was six inches inside. And, and the guy basically saying like, see ladies, six inches actually is. a pretty big deal. You know, we've never stared at another umpire that's got in, because I'm sure there's terrible umpires out there.

I can guarantee. We've covered had umpires on this show. We have. We have. Yes. Yeah. But the first pitch of an umpire's career being the first woman and it being that pitch and it being a strike, that's tough.

That's tough. Yeah. I mean, it's it's, it's comedy. Life's really throwing her a curveball. Happy news, Toes. Happy news. Yeah, you betcha. Some random pit bull dragon, an untended leash, came up to a guy and convinced him to follow the dog and took him to what seemed like a methadone overdose of his owners.

Or a heroin overdose. And so, anyway, but it was just like straight out of Lassie. like the dog just being like hey come on you know littlest hobo type thing where they he convinced the the dude to follow them to these people who were in dire straits and managed to get them saved and the dude who found uh the dude who found them is looking after the dog till they get out of the hospital yeah um that's that's pretty much it uh community notes twos we got a couple i think today Yeah, panel construction's charity golf event. It's tomorrow, so a little bit short notice, but it's at Heather Glenn golf course. If you've never been, it's gorgeous, like that last hole going up onto the island. It's a great spot in the southeast of Calgary off like about Glenmore and a hundredth, I think. Actually, fun trivia.

I saw the fattest. What are we doing, Sean? Sorry, I was, it's the kid in question is Michael. was actually texting back and forth. I actually don't know if it's the dad or the mom. I was just asking a few questions on this because he was born, if people were wondering, he was born with a heart. I'm going to call it defect. Apologies, family, if I'm getting that wrong. And it was in May that the doctors didn't like the way it looked, so they had them in surgery. And so I was just saying, if we'd known about this sooner, you never know, maybe me and twos would have shown up and

and whacked a few balls into the woods. Thankfully, it's in Alberta, not Nova Scotia. Me and wouldn't have to worry about fines. But basically... I might be driving by it tomorrow, but not able to go in. But, uh, I saw the fattest coyote I have ever seen in my life hanging out on the, on the back end of that course one time. Fatest coyote ever.

Anyways, if you're, if you're available to, to go, I'm sure they would appreciate that. You can also donate at the top of the page. You can also sponsor a whole. And yeah, if you're interested in helping a family in need, there's all the details. And we appreciate them reaching out to us. They were very thankful Tuesday. We were going to talk about it. So that's what the community knows is all about.

And then you got the Crossfield Elks number 416 demolition derby Saturday, August 23rd. Yeah, you bet you. Which is like the event of the summer for the whole area. Is it? oh yeah it's I mean it's a giant demolition derby what are you expecting it's going to be

Jennifer Joyce McConnell she says please remind me where can one submit community notes you can either put them in the comments here as we're going so if you want one in you probably got like less than a minute to throw it in there and we'll talk about it or you can reach out to either one of us

yeah X or just go on the podcast in the podcast show notes my phone number's there you can text me all the details and we can get the mad at me and twos talk about it in the lead up to the show. So if there's things coming up, shoot us either or no comment. Or Jen, you can just text me or call me. That's right. Yep.

Any other thoughts, twos, other than what's been here. Yeah. Well, I don't know what's going on specifically for me tomorrow, but I tell you what, if I can come by, I definitely will. I'm guessing the dinner is at the clubhouse. But let me know either way. Folks, that's going to do it for mashup 171. Yeah, Tews, we're here every Friday, 10 a.m. Mountain Standard time.

Yeah. It's good to be back. I know I've been back for a few. It's good to see Tews. I feel like the more you're sounding healthy here. You even got a little spunk today. I think you're doing all right. Oh, dude, I just want to go to sleep right now.

It's not even funny. We got. Oh, now he gets a coughing at the end of the show. Yep. Oops, Toos is feeling it. Tews is feeling it. No, we're dog sitting. And the guest dog woke up at like three in the morning and took like basically a shut down an airport plop right in the middle of the bedroom.

And me and Mrs. Tews are arguing like, we need to let more air in. And I'm like, the airflow is just circulating all the poop air around. We just need to let things die down. It just smells. And we're just like, it smells so bad we got to do this. Smells so bad we got to like. It was just this disaster. And I'm like, I'm too sick for this shit.

Either way, folks, MASH-171 in the books. We're back next week. Thanks for tuning in. And twos, we'll catch up to you next week. Sounds good, buddy. Talk to you then. Tell me whether I'm wrong or right. Easter, west, up or downside to side.

to stand if all to fly of all of my impulsive plans pop and locking salsa dances on demand i follow leading off the map but stop the chatter scream happily welcome to the mashup welcome to the mashup welcome welcome to the mashup welcome welcome to the mashup welcome to the mashup