Sheila Gunn Reid critiques Justin Trudeau’s January 2019 cabinet shuffle, where Scott Bryson quit amid $700M Navy procurement cronyism claims, Jane Philpott—plagued by expense scandals like a $3,700 limo ride—replaced him, and Seamus O’Regan moved from Veterans Affairs despite controversial remarks equating media coverage to military trauma. Jodi Wilson-Raybould’s shift to Veterans Affairs follows her biased handling of the Gerald Stanley case, raising doubts about David LeMetti’s competence as her replacement. Reid and Andrew Lawton also examine Saskatchewan’s Keegan Muxlow, charged with second-degree murder for shooting a home invader with a low-power .22, contrasting it with past leniency for rural self-defense cases, while warning of urban-biased policies eroding civil liberties—like random breathalyzer testing—exposing Trudeau’s government as out of touch with rural realities. [Automatically generated summary]
I'm going to bring you the good of it, if there is any, and of course the bad of it.
It's January 15th, 2019.
I'm Sheila Gunread, and you're watching the Ezra Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's maybe 500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government.
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
So Liberal MP Scott Bryson is quitting with an election coming up this fall.
I guess he couldn't even stick it out till the end of his term.
Bryson was the president of the Treasury Board, so what's the urgency here?
Why quit now?
Well, some people are speculating, and that might include me, that he is quitting now to avoid embarrassing the government as he's probably about to become implicated for serious wrongdoing in the Vice Admiral Norman trial.
Now, Norman is facing a criminal charge of breach of trust for allegedly leaking cabinet secrets about a $700 million Navy supply ship procurement deal.
His trial starts in August, and evidence already filed in court shows that Bryson urged his colleagues to hit pause on the project with Davies shipbuilding until more study was done.
The defense alleges that Bryson intervened in the project on behalf of a rival shipbuilder with whom Bryson has long-standing ties.
That shipbuilder is Irving.
It looks like classic liberal cronyism, the likes of the sponsorship scandal, and Vice Admiral Norman is just the fall guy to blame for the information finally coming to light.
But time and a trial will tell if this all is the case.
Bryson says he's quitting for family reasons and he just became a father of twins, so that's probably as believable a reason as any, if that really is the reason.
Again, time and a trial will tell us these things.
But Bryson quitting has prompted a cabinet shuffle.
There's a vacancy at the Treasury Board, which now needs to be filled.
So the Liberals are changing Square Dance partners, so to speak.
And this is Trudeau we're talking about.
So, you know, don't expect him to put anybody who can actually do the job of their portfolio into a portfolio.
That's not how things work.
Somehow, a lot of these shuffles almost always have a bit of an upside and then a big downside.
An upside because a failing minister is suddenly shuffled out of their portfolio and a downside because they're usually shuffled into a new one where they can continue to be as out of their depth as they always were.
Now let's take a look at a few of the shuffled cabinet members.
First off, Jane Philpott is being shuffled out of Indigenous services and that's very good.
She's moving over to fill in as the president of the Treasury Board and that is very bad.
Now look, I'm very glad she's out at Indigenous services because she barely moved the needle on very basic things like clean drinking water for First Nations on Reserve and she made herself famous in Ottawa by spending $110,000 in legal fees fighting a First Nations girl over $6,000 in dental work.
Now maybe, just maybe some of that misplaced fiscal conservatism would better serve Philpott over at the Treasury Board, which is basically the secretive panel that oversees government management, but I highly doubt it and here's why.
Philpot only pinches pennies when it comes to Canadians, but she doesn't pinch them for herself.
She spares no expense on herself.
Who could forget how she tried to pass off a $3,700 limo expense, which was especially sleazy given that the limo company was owned by a Liberal Party supporter.
But that wasn't her one and only time she tried to take advantage of her expense account.
Philpot also tried to charge the cost of a suitcase and her nexus card to the taxpayer, and she almost got away with it until an internal audit flagged her $381 in nickel and diming Canadians.
Philpot's definitely not the person you want overseeing government spending, if you ask me.
Philpot leaving Indigenous services means now there's a vacancy over there.
Seamus O'Regan Out00:06:49
Seamus O'Regan is being shuffled out of veterans affairs, which is good, but he's ending up at Indigenous services, which is absolutely horrible.
Seamus O'Reagan is most notable for being a talking head on TV and Trudeau's groomsman in his life before politics, which of course made him utterly unprepared for his role at Veterans Affairs and his performance.
It showed as much.
Just a couple of months ago, O'Reagan told a room full of veterans that he understood what they were going through, the pain and the confusion that soldiers can feel when adjusting to civilian life because he once had been a TV journalist who then transitioned into government and he experienced what he thought was a similar shock to his system.
Yes, yes.
Canada AM was just like Fallujah.
Thanks, Seamus.
Under O'Reagan, it was uncovered that Veterans Affairs paid for the PTSD treatment of a convicted murderer who killed an off-duty police officer and stuffed her body in a garbage can under a bridge because the murderer had a father who was a veteran.
The murderer had never been a veteran himself.
Oh, and the PTSD treatment the murderer was receiving?
Well, that's the PTSD he gave himself when he was killing the police officer.
O'Reagan spent much of his mandate at Veterans Affairs fighting veterans in court over their pensions, wasting their resources on non-veteran convicted murderers, and not understanding veterans' issues whatsoever.
And now he's moved on to mangle the ministry meant to aid another underserved, vulnerable group.
What have Indigenous people ever done to Justin Trudeau to deserve someone like O'Reagan?
Why does someone so inept and so terrible and so disrespectful to the very people he serves keep getting these high-profile files?
Well, it might have something to do with this photo here.
That's Justin Trudeau's wedding photo.
And probably this here, this weird, gross tweet, my captain, my captain.
He's Trudeau's good buddy.
This is run-of-the-mill liberal favoritism.
This is Trudeau rewarding those who elevate him to godlike stature.
And it's weird.
Frankly, it's a little bit like what cult leaders do.
But O'Reagan being shuffled out of veterans affairs, of course, now leaves a vacancy there.
Jodi Wilson-Raybould is being shuffled out of justice and Attorney General, which is fantastic, but she's being put into Veterans Affairs, which is, it's not terrible, but it's not great.
It's the least bad cabinet shuffle here.
Being shuffled into justice and Attorney General is a backbencher named David LeMetti.
I guess we'll see what he makes of his portfolio in the short time between now and the election being called.
But I'm happy to see Raybould Wilson and her personal opinions and SJW influence on our criminal justice system being shown the door.
We know how Jodi Wilson-Raybould feels about those who choose to defend their own lives, who choose not to be victimized by criminals, who then defile the sanctity and safety of another person's home and private property.
We know how Jodi Wilson-Raybould feels about people who refuse to become just another crime statistic.
Don't take my word for it, though.
Let's take Jodie Wilson-Raybould.
When a jury found Saskatchewan farmer Gerald Stanley not guilty in the death of Colton Bouchy, a trespasser who was shot after he and a group of other people drove onto Stanley's farm, tried to steal his truck, and punched his wife in the face.
Justin Trudeau tweeted about his grief and his sorrow.
Now, not for the Stanley family, who was absolutely devastated by having to fight a criminal charge after possibly saving their own lives that day.
But Justin Trudeau sympathized with the criminal who was killed, and Raybold Wilson agreed, also tweeting, thank you, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
My thoughts are with the family of Colton Bouchy tonight.
I truly feel your pain and hear all of your voices.
As a country, we can and must do better.
I'm committed to working every day to ensure justice for all Canadians.
Yes, Raybold Wilson blamed the real victim for defending himself.
She questioned the integrity of a jury verdict while never hearing a word of testimony in the trial.
Even after she was barraged by people saying it was not her place to weigh in on whether or not a jury was correct or not, and that her comments revealed her extreme bias and a lack of judgment and independence, and even lent to interference.
Wilson Raybould doubled down, saying her comments were not on a specific verdict.
Yeah, that's a really weird excuse when Wilson Raybould invoked Colton Bouchy by name in her tweet.
What other verdicts could she be talking about with Colton Bouchy involved?
So yeah, I'm pretty glad Wilson Raybould is gone from justice and Attorney General, and it may be that her empathetic nature might better serve our veterans who have been shafted time and time again by this liberal government.
The problem with Justin Trudeau's cabinet shuffle and really his cabinet in general is the problem we've always had with his cabinet and his government.
It's based on cronyism, on unwavering and uncritical loyalty, on extreme sycophancy over merit, and on meeting an arbitrary gender quota because in liberal land, looking hip at all times is far better than being effective in your job.
And the message here to other liberal MPs looking to make a name for themselves in cabinet is not to actually do your job.
It's pretty clear.
That does not matter here.
The message is to get much better at sucking up.
Stay with us.
More up next after the break.
Well, welcome back, everybody.
There's a Trudeau cabinet shuffle.
David LaMetti is in at Justice and Jodi Wilson-Raybould is out.
And I think that bodes well for the next story that I'm talking about today with someone I'm very excited to talk to.
Overcharged Self-Defense Cases00:11:19
He's a former colleague that I've never actually met in person or talked to in person.
And he's also a fellow with the True North Initiative.
Joining me now is Andrew Lawton.
Hey, Andrew, thanks for joining me.
Hey, it's good to be with you.
I thought you were about to introduce someone else when you said you were excited to talk to your next guest.
I'm very honored in that case, albeit surprised, but thank you.
Well, I think you're great.
Now, I wanted to talk to you about a video that you just did regarding a self-defense crime, I guess, in Canada, which in Canada, defending ourselves can be criminalized.
Why don't you tell us a little bit about it?
Yeah, so this case actually takes place closer to your neck of the woods in Saskatchewan, actually, Weyburn, where a 23-year-old named Keegan Muxlow has been charged with second-degree murder after he shot at and ultimately killed one of three home invaders.
So three young guys were breaking into his home.
They themselves were armed with at least a shotgun, but there may have been other weapons as well.
And he had a 22 gun that he used to defend himself and defend his property.
And ultimately, one of the three home invaders died.
And while the two living home invaders allegedly have been charged, Mr. Muxlow has also been charged with second degree murder.
And even though he was doing what the criminal code specifies is allowed, which is defending yourself with reasonable force.
They charged him with second degree murder.
Why do you think they charged him with something that was so like this feels overcharged to me?
This feels like there are other charges that they could have tried to stick him with.
For example, Eddie Maurice here in Alberta, although the charges were dropped against him for doing something similar, he winged a home invader in the arm and he was charged with aggravated assault and careless use of a firearm.
Now, thank God those charges were dropped.
But this just feels like they're overcharging him for defending his life.
Well, self-defense cases in Canada, while supposedly legal, oftentimes flip the burden of proof onto the person who defended themselves.
And this is something we've seen in a number of cases where even though you're ultimately acquitted, you have to go through the trial and the ordeal and the tens of thousands of dollars to defend yourself to prove that you are in fact innocent.
And the one case that comes to mind is that of a man in Port Colborne, Ontario, a very well-known case now a few years ago, who had his home firebombed with Molotov cocktails.
He fired a warning shot and was ultimately charged because the police assumed that, oh, well, there's no way he could have gotten his gun unless he was storing it illegally and shooting it was careless and all of that.
Now, the one thing that is important to note about this case is that it may well be that the man who's been charged with second degree murder was undesirable.
We know that a lot of home invasions take place in situations that most people would not themselves want to be in, where you have crime relationships, a lot of stuff like that.
I don't have any rationale that suggests this particular case is one of those.
I'm just saying that's the possibility.
And we do know that the intruders were known to the person who shot back.
So there may well have been other things going on here.
We also know that the firearm he used to defend himself was illegally owned.
And my position on this is that police were right to charge him with having an unlawful gun.
They were right to charge him with careless storage.
But when you chip away at the self-defense right, even if there are all of these other mitigating factors, you're taking aim at a right that ultimately you and I may need to at some point in our lives rely on.
And I know you live out in a rural area.
People in the city don't realize that you defending yourself is in rural parts of the country the only way you will have any help.
And it's easy for these people in these Toronto condos to talk about how terrible guns are.
But quite frankly, police do not have the response time in places like where this took place.
Right.
Where I am, the police are half an hour away when seconds count.
Now, you did mention that the firearm was unlicensed.
I'm a firearms owner.
As am I?
Yep.
And we follow the law.
We know the law in some instances even better than the police.
But it feels as though a lot of people are making the argument that you cannot save your own life if you don't have a piece of plastic from an RCMP bureaucrat in Miramichi.
And I think that's problematic.
I worry that this person, here's my problem.
I think that they probably overcharged him because he used a gun.
I wonder if he would not have been charged quite as harshly if he had used a baseball bat or a pipe to stop these people from coming into his home.
I think there's a strong anti-gun bias in all of this.
But you're the guy following the story.
What do you think?
No, I think you're very much correct.
There's an anti-gun bias in police.
There's an anti-gun bias in the media.
And there's an anti-gun bias certainly in the halls of power in provincial legislatures and the federal government.
And you mentioned the changeover at the top of the segment here of the Attorney General, now someone else who I don't know much about.
I'm assuming that the government's approach on guns, which is mostly being spearheaded by Ralph Goodale as public safety minister, will probably be pretty similar.
But we don't realize necessarily as average Canadians that a lot of these decisions as to whether or not someone is going to be charged come down to attorneys general, not to the letter of the law.
So it may well be in this case that the Saskatchewan Attorney General should make a determination here or perhaps did make a determination.
We don't know.
But the fact of the matter is, regardless of whether a gun is legally or illegally owned, you have a right to defend yourself.
And the defense does not specify tools.
The defense laws in Canada specify it has to be a reasonable amount of force, which means if someone is coming at you with a BIC pen, you're probably not right to take an AR-15 and pop 20 rounds into them.
If someone is coming at you with a gun, you're justified to use a gun.
And it's not that it needs to be matched.
It's that it needs to be proportionate.
And there's no doubt that when someone, three people actually come into your home with a shotgun, you using a gun is legal.
And it's important to note we're talking about a.22 caliber, which for people who aren't familiar with firearms is pretty much the gun you'd use to go and hit a squirrel.
And even then, the squirrel might have a fighting chance.
My 12-year-old daughter has one.
Just look at that.
Exactly.
And I've got them as well.
They're great guns, but they're not the guns that, you know, the badass gangsters are walking around with in Toronto.
So the fact remains that this is not someone who used a disproportionate amount of force to defend himself.
Yeah.
And, you know, you brought up Ian Thompson.
He's the Ontario firearms owner who was charged.
And really, he was put through the ringer because people firebombed his house and he fired some warning shots.
It took three years for him to finally be acquitted on all charges.
In Alberta here, Eddie Maurice, it took nearly five months after he winged a home invader who came onto his property while he was home alone with his baby daughter.
And even Gerald Stanley, in, again, in Saskatchewan, he shot and killed a home invader.
His wife was punched in the face.
They attempted to steal his vehicle.
These are people who are, by and large, rural folks, and the government is truly asking them to assume the benevolence of home invaders.
Oh, they're just there to have a peek around inside your vehicle and not possibly rape your wife, murder you in front of her.
And in the end, the process really becomes the punishment.
These people are left financially ruined.
Their reputation is in tatters, and they really have to put their lives back together after the government has really destroyed them simply because they assumed the worst the way we tell everybody to do.
We tell everybody, assume the worst to save your own life.
And yet when rural folks do it, it becomes something that ends up being a chargeable matter.
Yeah, it does.
And I'm glad you mentioned the Stanley case and the Maurice case, because this is not an isolated incident.
And obviously in a country as large as Canada, there are going to be individual cases where maybe police overstepped or a court got it wrong.
But this is generally speaking something we see in a sequence in Canada.
And I know that the McKenzie Institute has done a lot of research on this.
And one report that I cited in my video actually looks at the fact that despite the clarity in the criminal code that self-defense is allowed, in judicial rulings, that clarity hasn't always been there.
So sometimes courts will not side on self-defense.
And it's not just about guns, by the way.
There was another case, and I can't remember the name, unfortunately, but a Chinese restaurant owner in Toronto or an Indian restaurant owner who used— Lucky Moose?
Yes, that was it.
Who used spices to defend himself.
So not even a gun.
I think it was like Gara Masala he threw at the invaders, the invaders' face.
And then he got charged with administering a noxious substance.
And I mean, Gara Masala might not be your thing, but noxious is it isn't.
And this is, again, something where defending yourself, even if you're ultimately exonerated, the process becomes the punishment.
And, you know, in civil cases, Sheila, we have in many jurisdictions, including my province of Ontario, anti-slap laws, which means that if someone files a lawsuit against you that's a nuisance lawsuit, you can get it dismissed right out of the gate if it falls into that category because the anti-slap law says that this doesn't belong in the court.
And self-defense needs to be treated very similarly, where you should be able to get these things dismissed very early on by saying right out of the gate, look, it's clearly self-defense.
I want this dismissed.
And in this case, the case has been adjourned.
That hasn't happened.
He may find himself having to defend himself on trial for doing what anyone in a situation like that would have done.
You know, and I'm happy to see that Jodi Wilson Raybould was shuffled out of her position at justice.
Now, like you pointed out, we don't know anything really about David LeMetti, who's coming into justice, just that he was a law professor.
So maybe that's good.
Maybe it's not professors, am I right?
But Jodi Wilson-Raybould has a history of expressing her own bias, especially when it comes to this exact sort of case.
I'm just going to have a peek here on my computer because after Gerald Stanley was acquitted of shooting Colton Bouchy, she weighed in and said, my thoughts are with the family of Colton Bouchy tonight.
I truly feel your pain and hear all of your voices.
Want Clear, Better Job for Police00:07:26
As a country, we can and must do better.
I am committed to working every day to ensure justice for all Canadians, which implies that justice was not served.
And that's just her personal opinion.
I would argue that justice was absolutely served, especially for the Stanley family, who were really just hammered.
Their lives were destroyed because they didn't allow themselves to be victimized that day.
Yes, and I think that when we look at the broader context here, this is a civil liberties issue.
Yes.
The self-defense is a civil liberty, just as being able to drive down the street without police demanding a breath test for no reason is a civil liberty.
And this particular government has shown itself to not really be all that interested in protecting civil liberties, which is quite a shame for two reasons, Sheila.
You know, as a Canadian, it's shameful because it's supposed to be a free country where these fundamental freedoms are protected.
But it also is a bold departure from what the Liberals used to typically get right.
The Liberal Party federally has always been the party that has typically been more likely to stand up against overzealous policing and the party that's been more likely to stand up for people whose rights are being violated by law enforcement.
But now there's been a flip there, and you have the conservatives are the only party that's really standing up on these issues.
And the liberals are happy to embrace these police state-type policies where, for one, if you're shooting yourself or shooting someone in self-defense, you have to prove your innocence.
And where anyone driving down the road at any time, anyone who's sitting in their home, if they drove in the last two hours, can be subjected to a breathalyzer.
I mean, these are not good stories for anyone who's interested in charter freedoms.
You know, that's such a fantastic point to make to link this to the liberals' new breathalyzer laws.
That even after you've been sitting in your house for two hours, they can knock on your door and demand a breathalyzer.
Now, I would, I think this is because somewhere along the line, the liberals have made this switch from caring about liberal values to being the proponents of larger government.
And I think, especially with people like myself, who I don't have the luxury of outsourcing my protection and my personal safety to the government and to the police.
And I think the liberal government resents that.
Yes, because government never wants to legislate itself out of business.
So when you have governments that are going after people defending themselves, they don't want word to get around that you can do a better job with your nine millibra.
Heck, you can do a better job with a 22 than apparently the RCMP can.
And government doesn't want that getting around.
Like, look, I just got last week an SKS, which for people who follow firearms is this really like terribly made, but really cool-looking and fun-to-shoot Soviet surplus gun.
And these are very popular and very powerful, relatively speaking, as far as non-restricted rifles go.
And these things are getting sold to people for $200, $250 because they're so popular.
And anyone can do a better job if you live in a rural area protecting yourself with the $250 Soviet gun than a call to 911 will protect you in some of these parts.
And this is not an indictment of police, by the way, by and large, because quite frankly, it is not meant for the rural parts of the country to be connected.
Police are never going to be a block away or two blocks away like they're supposed to be in cities.
So you have an obligation and a right, if you are in one of those parts of the country, to protect yourself.
But government doesn't want that to happen.
And there's a broader issue here in that the government doesn't really care about life outside of city life all that much.
And this has been, I think, pretty clear in terms of the Liberals' voting coalition.
They get their support from Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, and all of these urban centers.
And if you live in Wayburn, Saskatchewan, if you live in Fort McMurray, if you live in these parts, you're not part of the group that they care about.
So they want to make sure that these people are told self-defense is not really a Canadian value because they don't want people in Toronto and Ottawa and Vancouver to think that they can do a better job than the police can.
You know, and if I were in Toronto these days, I'd be pretty interested in finding new and exciting ways to defend my own safety because they've got a real rash of gang violence on their hands and they don't know what to do with it.
I do think it has been a calculated risk taken by the Liberals to deal with personal defense and gun rights, as we've seen lately, in the way that they have, because they've all but written off rural Canada.
They've all but written off, you know, the parts of the country that do own firearms for self-defense or fun.
There's nothing in it for them to lose if they proceed with these bad gun policies.
Yeah, and I want to be clear here that this is not something that we can draw a line to the Liberal government on.
I mean, these issues with police laying charges against people that have defended themselves is a longer standing problem.
Yes.
But we want a government.
I certainly want a government that's going to stand firm.
And not that I put much power into Twitter, but if Jodi Wilson Raybold sent out a tweet about the Colton Bushy case, where's the tweet now of, you know what, self-defense is important.
I think we as a country need to make a better point of that.
And the government may not be responsible for the charge, but the government could be responsible for a solution.
And I'm not seeing that.
Right.
And, you know, I do want to make it clear.
I'm pro-police.
I'm as pro-police as they come.
The police's bosses, not so much.
They are usually political, politically invested bureaucrat types making decisions for the boots on the ground cops somewhere in a cubicle in Ottawa.
And they really don't have to deal with how the police have to enforce these laws in the communities in which they work.
I generally think rural police are pretty freedom loving and they know the constraints with which they have to work.
And I just want to be clear.
There are no better public servants, I think, than the RCMP who serve rural Canada.
And I think it's a real shame that they are forced through bureaucratic decisions to lay these charges that I think a lot of them are resistant to lay.
Yeah, like I said earlier, I mean, a lot of these really contentious charges go up to the Attorney General.
And this is when it's politicians who take the power out of the hands of police.
And typically that's when the problems are going to come.
So I agree with you that the boots on the ground are tremendous.
I mean, they put their lives in harm way every day.
And they need to be equipped to deal with these situations.
And there needs to be an understanding because the local detachment of Weyburn, Saskatchewan, the guys and ladies who work there know that they're not getting to a house in minutes.
They know they're not getting to a house in seconds.
They know that.
And I've spoken to police officers who are aware of that.
And they wish there was actually a better job at communicating those expectations in areas, which would mean standing up and clarifying where self-defense rights really are.
Kian's NDP Journalism00:03:06
Well, Andrew, I want to thank you for coming on the show today.
And I know that you'll probably be following this story right through to the end, which means that we'll be obviously checking back in with you as this story develops.
I want to give you a chance to let everybody know where they can find some of your tremendous work.
Yeah, so lots of my work is at the website that I have, andrewlawton.ca.
And of course, I'm a fellow at True North, which means all of my videos and commentaries on issues like this can be found there.
So TrueNorth on Facebook or online at www.trueenorthinitiative.com.
Awesome, Andrew.
Thank you.
I'm just sorry that it took this long to talk to you.
And I hope we can talk again.
Yeah, anytime, Sheila.
Thank you.
Stay with us more up next after the break.
Now, usually this is, of course, the portion of the show where Ezra gives his closing remarks.
He reads some viewer feedback and maybe even a little hate mail now and then.
But since I'm in charge today, I'm doing something a little bit different.
I want to give you a heads up about a brand new project by my friend and rebel colleague from Calgary, Kian Bexe.
Kian is doing this incredible piece of journalism of cataloguing.
And I think it's absolutely necessary.
Kean's going through the NDP extremists in Alberta one by one to maybe help you learn something new about them or maybe just refresh your memory about exactly who they are because you know the mainstream media isn't going to do this work and even if they did they wouldn't tell you.
Kean's series is called Meet Your Destroyers and he's already knocked off two of them.
The first one details the comical communist lover NDP MLA Rod Laiola who is quite literally the full hammer and sickle and Kian's second story was detailing how the CBC whitewashed an NDP candidate named Anne McGrath who has run for public office under the communist flag before.
What Kian is doing and hopefully I can jump in and help him a little bit when I can is chronicling exactly who the NDP are, the radicals they not only allow into their party but have embraced as thought leaders within their party.
You'll see a level of scrutiny for these candidates that the mainstream media just absolutely refuses to do.
We're looking past the polished matronly smile of Rachel Notley to the dark collectivist underbelly of the NDP.
I think it's valuable work and valuable information for Alberta voters as we approach a springtime election.
You can find all of Kian's work on this project at a dedicated website called albertasdestroyers.com.
Well everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thanks so much for tuning in as I fill in for the boss.