Sheila Gunn-Reid addresses viewer concerns from the G7 Summit in Alberta, where she worked alongside Angelika Toy and Sid Fizard. Jack’s question on the Alberta Republican Party’s motives contrasts with V. Rubinik’s critique of Liberal-NDP policies, dismissed as voter tribalism. Trump’s foreign policy aligns with preventing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while Confederation’s 78-seat allocation to Quebec fuels Western separatism. Gunn-Reid defends lethal self-defense rights amid rising crime but criticizes Ford’s late stance. Indigenous displacement from mass immigration lacks visible opposition, and the proposed capital gains tax targets homeowners’ equity. Parental rights clash with UN CRC-backed school policies, risking biased CPS removals—urging legal action against progressive overreach. [Automatically generated summary]
I got home from the G7 summit late last night, did not have time to put together a show.
So tonight, the guest is you.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Avid Rebel viewers will know that Rebel News had a team of journalists at the G7 Summit held in Alberta this week.
Now, I was one of the team of journalists.
I was also joined by my colleagues, Angelika Toy and Sid Fizard.
Now, they are both based in Calgary, so they had a little bit of a drive to the summit from Calgary to Banff, where the media center for the Cananascus summit was, but I'm like four and a half, five hours away.
I actually spent the last five days living out of my holiday trailer.
First in a red deer because we were hosting a done-getting screwed Independence Town Hall there on the Saturday morning.
It was a full day affair.
And from there, directly, I went to Calgary to pick up my press pass and then to Cananascus to see what was going on.
And then to Canmore to leave my holiday trailer, and then off to Banff to catch up with Sid and Angelika, who were at the media center for the G7 summit.
And so we were busy flat out and I didn't have time to book a guest or put together a show.
And I was going to do it late last night, but I drove home in a series of hailstorms.
So that just didn't permit for time once I got home.
But being the forward-thinking woman that I am, a few weeks ago, I put a call out for letters to Sheila because I was once again traveling, unable to do a show from my home studio.
I filmed that show with your letters from the very same holiday trailer.
In fact, I was in Regina then for another done-getting screwed town hall because you pay for a show, our beloved premium subscribers, and what I'm doing doesn't matter.
You're going to get it.
So I filmed that one in my holiday trailer, but I still had a bank of letters and I still have a bank of letters after I do today's show that I need to get through.
So maybe one day I might even bank a show and take a day off.
But I thought I would go back to the well of your letters, sit down and answer some letters this morning.
Conservatives and Consequences00:05:52
So let's get into it.
Jack asks, is the Alberta Republican Party created to split conservative votes and let the NDP win the next election?
I don't know.
I don't think so.
Like or dislike Cam Davies, the leader of the Alberta Republicans.
What I do know is he is a tried and true conservative.
People might not like his style.
They might not like the threat of division on the ballot in the by-election in Olds that's coming up.
You know, they're worried about a split between the UCP, the United Conservative Party, and the Alberta Republicans, who are a separatist conservative party, allowing the NDP to come up the middle.
I can't ascribe motives, but I do not believe at all that the Alberta Republican Party was created to allow the NDP to win.
I don't think the NDP have a hope in hell of winning in Olds.
It is one of the most conservative voting ridings in this entire province.
Nathan Cooper was the former UCP MLA there.
He was the Speaker of the House for a very long time and he stepped down.
And that riding also a long time ago did elect a separatist MLA decades ago.
It's a very separatist place.
So if you were the Alberta Republicans wanting to test to see if the independence movement requires a party or if it is something that comes from outside the party apparatus system, I think that would be the place to test it.
Right?
You know, if you wanted to win a seat, send a message.
Why wouldn't you try to run in the riding that once upon a time, a very long time ago, elected a separatist Western Canadian concept MLA, right?
Now, I don't know what the consequences will be of running, you know, two conservatives, one a federalist and one a separatist on the ballot will be, but I don't think the threat of the NDP winning there is real at all.
And I hope, hope I'm not wrong.
Okay.
V. Rubinik writes: after 10 years of an incompetent and corrupt liberal NDP government who have created high inflation, created debt for Canadians for future generations, allowed mass immigration and fraud with the student visa programs, taking in fake asylum migrants, which are being supported by Canadian taxpayers, unaffordable housing for Canadians due to uncontrolled migration, sending taxpayers' money to Ukraine when there are more than enough problems at home in Canada that need to be addressed,
electing Carney, who has a history of bad performance and is a mouthpiece for the World Economic Forum, pushing legislation to take away freedoms from Canadians, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I can go on and on enlisting all the reasons why the liberals should not be running this country.
But the biggest question is: what are the people of Ontario and Quebec who voted for this moron getting from this corrupt government, or are they just plain stupid?
That is a question many Westerners are asking themselves right now.
And look, the letter writer does preface this by saying the people who voted for Carney.
So if you are in Ontario and Quebec and you didn't vote for Carney, this isn't about you.
If you are a boomer who didn't vote for Carney, it's not about you.
I don't get up tight when we talk about the women who elected Trudeau.
I don't get offended as a woman.
Look, I know my fellow species did deliver Trudeau to the prime minister's office a couple of times.
I don't get prickly about that because I know I didn't do it.
But, you know, it does make you wonder how I'm not even going to say that these folks are stupid.
I think they're tribalist.
And I think that many of them will just vote liberal no matter what.
And I know that conservatives are different.
We're free thinkers.
We don't do the groupthink thing.
And that's why the conservative movement frequently fractures.
Look at Alberta.
Look how many times we had to blow apart our conservative party to put it back together and try something new.
You know, the reform broke away from the PCs, became the Canadian Alliance, which became the Conservative Party of Canada.
The Wild Rose broke away from the PCs provincially, and then they came back and it became the United Conservative Party.
You know, we've got the Alberta Republican.
So the beauty of conservatives is that we don't groupthink, but it sure helps the liberals get re-elected, doesn't it?
It sure makes for a reliable voting block.
So I guess that's the downside.
Travis writes: Hello, Sheila.
It's nice to host your rebel news staff at the Turvey Center in Regina.
Chris Barber and Tamara Leach, then Rebel Commander Ezra Levant, Sidi Fazard, and also the very lovely Lise.
Very lovely Lise.
I, as the Saskatchewanite or the Reginan, believe we are truly in peril.
Canadians' Right to Self-Defense00:13:40
Trump seems to want to keep supporting Ukraine over the citizens of the USA.
I don't believe that.
I believe Trump is very America first.
Let me keep going.
And Jerusalem over the USA.
I don't believe that either.
I think when Trump gets involved in global dealings, it's always with the interest of Americans first.
I saw a bit of a screed from JD Vance on X reflecting that you go on to say, I love Trump, but something's not right.
You know what?
Let's just go dig up what JD Vance said about Trump and his recent support of Israel while Israel is in an existential battle against an increasingly potentially nuclearized Iran.
JD Vance writes, Look, I'm seeing this from the inside and am admittedly biased toward our president and my friend, but there's lots of crazy stuff on social media.
So I wanted to address some things directly on the Iran issue.
So hopefully this gives you some context about the thinking of the administration.
First, the president of the United States has been amazingly consistent over the 10 years that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
Over the last few months, he encouraged his foreign policy team to reach a deal with the Iranians to accomplish this goal.
The president has made it very clear that Iran cannot have uranium enrichment.
He said repeatedly that this would happen one of two ways: the easy way or the quote other way.
Second, I have seen a lot of confusion over the issue of civilian nuclear power and uranium enrichment.
These are distinct issues.
Iran could have civilian nuclear power without enrichment, but Iran rejected that.
Meanwhile, they have enriched uranium far above the level necessary for any civilian purpose.
They have been found in violation of their non-proliferation obligations by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is hardly a right-wing organization.
It is one thing to want civilian nuclear energy.
It's another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capacity.
And it's still another to cling to enrichment while simultaneously violating basic non-proliferation obligations and enriching right to the point of weapons-grade uranium.
I have yet to see a single good argument for why Iran needed to enrich uranium well above the threshold for civilian use.
I've yet to see a single good argument for why Iran was justified in violating its non-proliferation obligations.
I've yet to see a single good pushback against the Atomic Energy Agency's findings.
Meanwhile, the president has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our military's focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens.
He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment.
That decision ultimately belongs to the president.
And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.
But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.
And having seen this up close and personal, I assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals.
Whatever he does, that is his focus.
So you can analyze that as much as you want, but I agree that Iran cannot achieve nuclear capacity.
I think we can all agree on that.
And if the Israelis are going to deal with it before they do, I think we should all just get out of their way.
And if you unrestrain the Israeli military to do this thing, then the Americans don't have to.
All right, let's keep going.
James says, why is nobody talking about how the fathers of Confederation screwed Western Canada by giving Quebec 78 seats, which takes 115,000 give or take votes to send an MP to Ottawa.
In Alberta, it takes 131,000 votes to send a member.
James, I don't think nobody is talking about that.
I believe that is one of the big drivers of Western separation, Western alienation.
The representation in the Senate that unfairly favors the Atlantic provinces over Quebec, or excuse me, not Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Those are real things that people have been talking about for years.
So even, you know, even the fact that Alberta and Saskatchewan are separate provinces, they were initially proposed to be the province of Buffalo at the last minute.
They severed us.
And one of those reasons was because we could potentially be quite powerful if we were united one day.
So I disagree with your point that people aren't talking about it.
I believe people are and have been for a very long time.
50 years, maybe.
Tim McDonald says: Hello, with the increase of violent crime and theft in many Canadian cities, I find it odd that there hasn't been more of a conversation about self-defense and protection of property.
Do you feel there will be changes in the near future regarding personal protection devices or the laws surrounding protection of one's home?
You know, there just might be.
And I'll tell you why.
Doug Ford recently mentioned that there should be castle laws in Canada.
And this is after a homeowner defended himself using force against some bad guys.
And then the bad guys were arrested, but also the homeowner.
And Doug Ford said this is crazy and there should be castle laws here in Canada, which means a man can defend his castle.
And that you shouldn't assume the benevolence of the thieves, that they're just there to take your stuff and not your life.
And then he went on to tell a story about how he was very nearly robbed.
Like he very nearly had his own car stolen.
However, his protective detail intervened.
Did you hear about the guy that these thugs came up, you know, ready to steal his car?
They're all in their masks and everything.
So I guess he was a hunter or something.
He shot up in the air.
I don't recommend that, by the way.
But he gets charged.
I got to find out this guy's name and number.
And I'm going to hold a fundraiser for lawyer fees for him.
He should get a medal for standing up.
It's like down in the U.S., we should have the castle law.
Someone breaks into your house.
And I know any of these people here, someone breaks into your house and they're coming after your kids and you're coming after your spouse.
You're going to fight like you've never fought before.
You're going to use anything that you have, be it weapons, baseball bats, knives.
You're protecting your family.
I'm going to tell you a story.
Probably get in trouble for this.
You want to hear about stupid criminals?
Have you ever seen that show about stupid criminals out there?
So four thugs come racing down my street, masks on, ready to take the car out of the driveway.
Surprise, surprise, at 12.30, the two police cars are there.
The chase is on.
So they chase him.
One guy runs out, takes off.
They capture him and they catch these other guys.
But just imagine all the unfortunate people that don't have security there at their house with masks on and they had all the tools ready to break in and everything.
You know, and guess what's going to happen?
They're going to be back out.
Why don't you guys come over for a barbecue tonight?
You know, I'll take care of you better than the police.
And thank God the police got you.
And I never did.
Anyways, that's my rant.
I'm sick and tired of the weak justice system that we have.
They have to get a backbone and we start, we need to start throwing these people in jail.
This is turning into a lawless society.
Well, I agree with Doug Ford's points that Canadians should have a right to use even lethal self-defense because I don't believe you should assume that the thieves are just there to steal your stuff and not your life, the lives of the people you love.
But my problem with Doug Ford's statement is that he did everything he could to sabotage the tough, or at least tougher on crime, conservatives in the last federal election in favor of Mark Carney.
You can't complain that, you know, thieves are out on the streets and that crime is out of control when you actively sabotaged the one party that offered a change in the status quo.
The only problem now, I think, for Doug Ford is that it came to him, that he's getting mugged by reality, that the crime wave actually touched his life.
And now he's realizing that crime is bad out there.
So, I mean, I guess sometimes you do have to lead a horse to water to make them drink.
But Doug Ford, you supported the liberals.
The phone calls coming from inside the house.
So, I mean, I wish.
I mean, I wish we had the ability to use lethal force against bad guys.
And I guess at the end of the day, that's a choice everybody has to make.
Would you rather be in jail or your family dead?
I mean, for some people in this country, that's a choice that they have to weigh because of the liberals' catch and release policies and the fact that we have just criminal gangs running the streets of this country.
Let's keep going.
Jacob Wall sends me a very interesting note, which I think is a salient point.
Mass immigration is just as detrimental to Indigenous people as it is to non-Indigenous Canadians.
Do any of the chiefs or members of the Assembly of First Nations have any issue with the liberals' policies regarding the issue?
I haven't seen anything.
And I wonder why they wouldn't.
You know, if you're worried about conditions on reserve, which are so frequently squalid, and you're worried about unemployment amongst Indigenous people, wouldn't, I mean, you really should care about the same drivers of it as everybody else does.
Which is, as you rightly point out, one of them, one of them being mass immigration.
Demi Milar Smiller asks, have you done a deep dive into the proposed unrealized capital gains tax?
My interpretation of this nefarious tax, and from the information I can obtain, indicates you will be taxed on your purchase price against the purposeful, ever-increasing housing costs.
And as it's unrealized, you don't have to sell.
So it's an annual tax to tax you out of your home.
If you have access to clarifying this, it would be greatly appreciated.
As if it's correct, this is definitely something we all need to lobby and educate homeowners, whether your home is paid off or not.
Like our livelihoods and security depend on it because it does.
You know what?
I will check with my friend Chris Sims of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
She's been really sounding the alarm bells on just these liberal tax grabs on your home.
It's just, you know, like you think it's a conspiracy theory when they say you'll own nothing and be happy, but then they do all the things to make sure that you actually own nothing.
If you, by the skin of your teeth and the grace of God, manage to buy a house in this economy in some parts of this country, I mean, Alberta is not as bad as other places for now.
I mean, that could change.
As things get bad in other parts of the country and people continue to migrate to us, it will drive up the cost of housing here.
But if you, by some miracle and the hand of God in your life, and your own tenacity and hard work and frugality are able to save a down payment to buy a house in a superheated housing market, the liberals and your local municipal politicians, who are, by and large, almost always progressives, they're doing everything to make sure that you can't hang on to it.
They're doing everything to make sure you never get into a house.
You'll get into your 300-square-foot Brookfield modular pod.
But if you do are able to just own a little piece of the Canadian dream, they're going to make sure they tax you to death so that you can't hang on to it.
Social Contract and Child Protection00:05:58
It's just atrocious.
And then they tell me, Sheila, that's a conspiracy theory, but Mark Carney is the World Economic Forum Prime Minister.
Okay, but why does everything he says sound like a World Economic Forum X ad, right?
So, so strange.
Next one.
John McGinnis says, Good evening from Vancouver.
Government author, this is a particularly atrocious B2C issue.
I'm a little bit more insulated from this here in Alberta, but it says: government authorizing schools to introduce, teach, and go behind parents' back on the matter of sexual orientation and sexual deviancy.
John writes, I've read many articles on parents arguing with school boards over sexually explicit materials and the parents being ignored.
First, the school boards could not do this without the province's authorization, which could not do this without federal authorization.
I bring to your attention the 30-year-old United Nations Conference for the Rights of the Child, which Canada was an original signatory to.
Article 1 specifies that a child is under the age of 18.
Article 18 states, and this is relied on very heavily in court cases like those brought by the Justice Center on parents' rights issues.
Parents, or as the case may be, legal guardians have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child.
The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.
For 30 years, parents have held the responsibility, authority, and the accountability to bring up the child as they feel appropriate.
And government is only ever to be involved if it is found that parents are not doing what it is in the best interest of the child.
Now, look, this is not a 30-year-ago issue.
This is the social contract of the proliferation of the human species since time immemorial.
It was just sort of codified.
Somebody bothered to write it down.
But this is the social understanding of civilization: children are vulnerable.
They are the responsibility of their parents.
Parents are to instill in them values, religion, so they choose, and care for their physical, emotional, and psychological well-being.
And only in the event that the parents fail in those duties, do other people step in.
Family first, then the government.
It's not just a 30-year thing.
The best interest of the child is a phrase that a family court judge uses to refer to the UN CRC, particularly in custody battles or the child protection issues.
Then, child protection services gets involved.
Point blank.
Parents or guardians have the premier rights over the child, not the government, according to the United Nations.
That is true, but that's also, I think, slightly irrelevant, given that this is the way it's always been.
Having said this, parents, guardians must band together and take this sexual issue to child protection services.
You have to remember you're taking this to a government infested with progressives.
And I'm not sure that that'll work.
I mean, this is the same child protection service that is infested with people that will remove a child from Christian foster parents because they won't celebrate the Easter bunny as opposed to the resurrection of Christ.
This has happened.
So you have to be careful where you're taking these issues.
If child protection services fail to act, then the parents would take both the CPS and the government to court and have a family court judge decide if the UN CRC is to be followed or if that all the children's are wards of the states.
Parents have the rights, they just don't know it.
You know, it's a difficult thing to navigate.
I'm not, I don't want my viewers to see what I just read as legal advice.
But the reason I read it, not only is it because somebody sent it to me, but because this is nothing new.
As I said, this is the social contract.
And this social contract that parents are responsible for everything to do with their child.
And when they fail, the family steps in.
And only when the family fails or is unable to that the state should step in.
That's the way it's always been.
That is the reason the human civilization is around today.
We protect and care for the vulnerable in the most delicate of ways, in the most fierce of ways as well.
Like the mantra of women and children first worked because that's how you preserve the species, right?
The men went to war.
The women didn't.
The children didn't.
Why?
Because they are the future of the species.
And recognizing that they require protection, being the more vulnerable of those of us.
But it was only just codified by the UN.
Letters Show Update00:01:25
That's all.
I guess that was my entire point.
All right.
I think that's my letters show for today.
I will have more letters shows in the future.
So if I didn't get to your letter that you sent me a few weeks ago when we sent an email out calling for letters, I'll do my best to get to them throughout the course of the summer as I require your help to get through a show because really you are helping me get through a show and get caught up on my work because I have more work on my plate than I think than ever I have here at Rebel News right now.
And if you are at home and you search your email from me at Rebel News and you find the letter where I called out for your viewer feedback, you can still send me letters.
That link still works.
So you can still send me letters.
They'll sort of end up organized for me on my computer and I will do my very best to get to them as I can.
Maybe one day, like I said, maybe one day I might even bank a show and take a day off.
Who knows?
I feel like that's wishful thinking, though.
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
Thank you so much for helping me get through this show with your letters and questions.
Thanks to everybody who works behind the scenes at Rebel News to put this mess of a show together for you when you need it, when you want to watch it, wherever you want to watch it.