Sheila Gunn-Reid exposes how the Liberal government arbitrarily banned the Sterling Arms R9MK1, a Calgary-made, compliant rifle, forcing 40%+ violent crime since 2014 while spending $343M–$6B on administrative costs—despite 81% of Albertans distrusting federal firearm decisions. Meanwhile, she slams mainstream media for falsely reporting Alberta’s library standards as removing medical content, when only "smut and gay erotica" was targeted, with corrections forced by education minister Demetrius Nicolaitis’ press secretary. The episode reveals systemic failures in both gun policy enforcement and media integrity, leaving gun owners confused and parents distrustful of institutions. [Automatically generated summary]
They followed the rules, they built the gun, and then the government banned it anyway.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
What happens when you follow every rule, design a Canadian-made sporting rifle to comply with the law, and then you build a business around it?
If you're Jared Cox and the team at Sterling Arms in Calgary, well, you get banned anyway, and the government destroys your business.
No warning, no consultation, just a bureaucratic stroke of the pen that labels your compliant firearm prohibited and then results in you closing your business and laying off your staff.
That's the story of the R9MK1, a non-restricted, non-military style rifle that the Liberals suddenly decided looked too scary.
And just like that, workers are laid off, shelves are empty, and another Canadian firearms business is crushed under the weight of arbitrary regulation.
Elbows up, am I right?
Joining me tonight is Tracy Wilson from the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights to break down this targeted attack on legal gun owners and manufacturers and to ask the question we're all thinking.
If obeying the law isn't enough to stay in business, what hope does anyone in the firearms community have left?
Take a listen.
Joining me now is my friend Tracy Wilson from the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights.
And I want to have Tracy on the show all the time for very many reasons, but what I really want to talk about is how the elbows up crowd are destroying Canadian businesses with their unscientific firearms bans and a bunch more.
Tracy, thanks so much for coming on the show.
I wanted to have you on because I saw the destruction of Sterling Arms thanks to basically the stroke of a pen of a bureaucrat somewhere.
Explain this to us.
Yeah, that's right.
So Sterling Arms had come out with a solution that we thought to the Liberals' gun bans.
They had created a rifle that was C-21 compliant.
You know, it complied with the new bans.
It's similar to another firearm that ended up in the same fate.
So they introduced this new rifle to the market.
It was being used in sport competitions all across the country and internationally, actually.
And with the stroke of a pen, it was deemed prohibited.
Now, the problem with this is the liberals keep using the term variant in order to ban more guns, right?
So even if the gun itself should be fine, they're deeming it a variant of one that isn't.
And the problem is we've asked them, the federal court has asked them, the Conservative Party has asked them.
It's been a very contentious issue for years, but they won't actually define what a variant is because then, of course, it would take away the ability to continue to attack these legal, lawful Canadian family businesses.
So, yeah.
And this is the first business that this happened to.
It happened with the banning of the AR-15.
It happened with another firearm that was created to be compliant with the Liberals' very opaque piece of legislation.
Tell us about those ones.
Yeah, that's right.
So the Crusader Arms Crypto was another one that ended up in the exact same place.
So, you know, it was for sale in the Canadian market.
It was literally designed and manufactured to be C21 compliant, to be Canadian compliant.
It was out on the market.
People were buying it.
People were using it.
And suddenly, again, with the stroke of a pen, it was deemed prohibited.
And unfortunately, these firearms, it doesn't appear.
I mean, I've written to the Canadian Firearms Program and to Public Safety for clarification on this, but it doesn't appear that these will even fall under the amnesty or the buyback confiscation program that doesn't actually exist.
But so what does that mean for the people who own them?
Like if you've got one of these and you're not protected by the amnesty, you're in illegal possession of a prohibited device.
So yeah, it's a problem.
It's a situation and it just continues to happen over and over.
And meanwhile, crime and violence is raging out of control from coast to coast.
Yeah, I mean, I don't think people, well, I think the firearms owning community and our friends and allies understand, but this, these sort of bans, you can go to bed with your lawfully acquired material property in your gun safe.
It's not doing anything.
You followed all the rules.
And then wake up in the morning and you are in possession of an illegal firearm because some corner bureaucrat decided this looks a little too cool.
We'll just shuffle that over into the banned list.
When I saw on Twitter the FRT entry, the firearms reference table, which is where classifications of different firearms are listed.
When I saw it floating around Twitter for the Sterling R9, I was like, wow, what?
Like we just were talking about this rifle the day before.
I couldn't believe it.
And I thought, you know, maybe somebody made this.
Maybe it's fake with AI.
Who knows?
And so I took it off Twitter and I sent it to the manufacturer.
I sent it to J.R. Cox, who designed and manufactured this rifle.
And I said, is this real?
And he says, this is the first I'm seeing of it.
It's his gun.
He didn't even know.
So, I mean, it's wild.
And you think back through this whole thing, they started banning guns back in May of 2020 after the Nova Scotia tragedy.
Throughout that, throughout committee, Justin Trudeau has stood at a pulpit and said it.
They said, Don't worry, gun owners.
There are, you know, thousands, tens of thousands of other models of firearms that you can buy.
So as time has progressed since May of 2020, they've routinely banned all those guns that we've been buying to replace the ones we can't use.
And yet, there's still somewhere between 500,000 and a million rifles that are now banned sitting safely in the safes of gun owners who've owned them safely for decades, if not generations, without issue.
And not a single crime is being committed.
So, yeah, I don't know where they're going with this, but it's got to stop.
Well, and there's zero accountability.
Like, you don't know even who's making these decisions.
I guess ultimately, it's the liberals who are accountable.
But these bans are happening outside of parliament as just sort of a bureaucratic checkbox.
You never even really know who's doing this to you outside of the liberals making sure that the RCMP firearms office still has this power.
But from my lips to God's ears, if the Conservatives ever get back into power, these sort of bans must go before Parliament because you are criminalizing people with no proof, no data, no anything, and no way for us to even know who's doing it to us.
Well, and they're not notifying anyone.
So I've got all kinds of friends who own one of those rifles and they don't even know it's been banned.
People are showing up at their local rod and gun clubs to shoot on a Sunday afternoon, not knowing that their gun is prohibited.
What happens if they got pulled over?
And that's the problem when you've got bureaucrats in the RCMP firearms lab who are making these decisions arbitrarily, telling nobody, notifying no gun owners.
You know, there's not even an email that goes out.
They've got our information.
I send mass emails every Friday afternoon.
It's very simple to do.
They don't notify a single person.
So people don't even know it's been banned.
The guy who designed the rifle didn't even know it was banned when I sent it to him.
So, you know, this isn't the way that it should work in a society where we respect our citizens.
Gun owners are Canada's most vetted, trusted people, and yet we're treated like simple criminals, while actual violent criminals are being let out of jail the same day they're committing their crimes.
Yeah, I was looking at the crime stats the other day because my mother-in-law was fighting with somebody on the internet.
And violent crime has gone up 40% since 2014.
And yet, instead of actually directly addressing that, dealing with bail, by the way, instead, we continue to target Canadian gun owners.
And low estimates put the cost of the gun grab at $343 million, like a third of a billion dollars.
I think it is closer to Gary Mauser over at the Fraser Institute, his estimate.
I don't know if you saw that.
He said it might reach $6 billion.
I think that's probably more reasonable when you factor in the cost of policing, when you factor in the cost of identifying firearms and you don't have a clue where they are because you've decided to move them from non-restricted to prohibited.
Think of what could be fixed with $6 billion.
Yeah, well, and there's a couple of factors there that nobody's talking about.
When the government came out with their, you know, $343 million or whatever, that didn't include the cost of administrating the program, which will far outweigh the cost of any kind of compensation, which they're also lowballing.
I think Bill Blair said there's 178,000 rifles out there that have been banned.
Well, 97,000 of those are AR-15s.
It is impossible that all the other 2,000 plus models and variants only equal up to, you know, 70,000 rifles.
Like it's impossible.
We are talking anywhere, like I said, between half a million to a million guns.
And the cost of administrating this, like right from the very beginning, I've said it's virtually impossible because Canada is such a wide and vast and massive country.
They're in every nook and cranny of the nation and they have no idea who's got them or where they are.
And they just continue to ban more.
People have given up even checking if their gun is banned.
People don't even care.
You know, it's a total mess.
It's impossible to do.
And here we are five years later, and they still haven't managed, thankfully, to confiscate a single rifle from any individuals.
So it's obviously not an actual public safety issue.
This is, you know, leftovers from the divisive Trudeau era policies.
So yeah.
Yeah, I'm, I mean, this is one of those times where I cheer for government ineptitude.
Yes.
Like, go, go be crappy, government.
Make sure you don't do anything efficiently.
This is one of those times where I'm strongly in favor of that.
But, you know, when you just listening to your numbers there, if we were a problem, you'd know it.
Oh, yeah.
We're just not reflected in the crime stats at all.
I wanted to talk to you about this recent La Presse article.
And it's pretty clear that La Press is catching up to the gun blog's previous reporting on ecos polling data that was, I think it was done out of the Privy Council.
They conducted a 148 question deep dive into the minds of lawful gun owners because I guess they're trying to pull a psyop on us.
They want to know why we won't comply or what our problems are.
I'm so angry.
Why?
Why?
And so I to get better buy-in into the gun grab and cost $100,000.
And what they found was gun owners don't trust the government.
Wow.
I could have told you that.
But I could have saved them some money there.
Yeah.
One of the things that I found a great source of pride for me was more than two-thirds of the respondents said they don't trust the feds to make good decisions about the fire about firearms in the public interest.
But in Alberta, that distrust jumps to 81%.
Unsurprising.
Yeah.
And then over, they could only find nine people out of the 1,700 plus people that they polled who actually thought that firearms owners would 100% comply with the gun bans.
I'm surprised there's nine people out there.
They must be.
I know, she's right.
Yeah, older elbows up boomer gun owners or something.
I don't know.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Go ahead.
I mean, gun owners have good reason not to trust the government, right?
I mean, I always talk about the social contract, so to speak, between gun owners and the government and gun owners and law enforcement.
And the deal was you go and take the courses and you submit yourself to all those background checks and the application process and you include your spouse in that information and they contact them to make sure that it's okay.
You have guns.
If you're not married, you've got to divulge anyone you've slept with over the last two years.
Like it's really invasive.
And then you're subjected to a 24-hour background check through CPIC.
And the idea was if you go through all this and you go through the vetting and you're trusted, you're trained, then they would leave you alone.
And apparently that's not true.
So some of these guns we've owned for, you know, for decades, if not generations.
And all of a sudden now the government's moving the goalposts.
So if the idea here is we're going to have strict gun control regime, which Canada has, one of the strictest in the world, but you're going to have buy-in from gun owners after everything they've subjected themselves to just for the simple fact of wanting to own a firearm and be a hunter or sports shooter.
And then you come back and say it's still not enough.
We're still going to take your stuff.
I'm surprised there are nine people out there who think that there will be 100% buy-in because I don't think there will be at all.
I think it'll be extremely low and extremely poor.
And eventually I think they're going to have to abandon the idea altogether.
For sure.
And there's a cultural divide in that data.
They said 56 of Albert, 56% of Albertans, again, this is the highest number polled, said that firearms ownership is an important part of their identity and their culture.
I think the gun grab fuels Western separatism.
When you look at the numbers out of Saskatchewan, they said that for them, it was the highest number of people who said that they are unfairly targeted by federal policy at 88% in Saskatchewan.
Liberals And Gun Bans00:14:52
This is for firearms owners.
You look and you say, well, these people don't understand who we are.
And we're being unfairly blamed for rising crime in Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver.
And it's a slap in the face.
Yeah.
Well, it is.
And I mean, you know, a lot of people say to me, I'm an old grandma from the suburbs, right?
And people say, why are guns so important to you?
Like, why do they matter so much to you?
And for me, it is part of my identity.
It's my entire social circle.
It's my extracurricular activities after work or on weekends when I travel throughout the summer.
My circle of friends, everybody I know comes from the firearms community.
And we've built this massive network across the country.
We've got, you know, all these shooting disciplines.
People are really invested in it.
And when you've done something for decades and decades and built this whole life around it, and then for somebody to say, go do something else, nobody else is treated this way in this country.
And what happens is you're going, you know, for the most part, we've had really good compliance.
Gun owners have followed the rules and regulations in exchange for being able to own the things that they do.
So when you move those goalposts, you're going to see less and less compliance.
And nobody wants that.
You know, I want a safer country and I want things to be fair and equal.
And they're not.
So, yeah, this will be an interesting thing to watch with the new prime minister and see what direction he takes it in.
But so far, just like Trudeau, he's failed on this too.
Yeah, I think when he chose the former head of Paulises Suvion to be an MP, I think that was a harbinger of things to come for the rest of us.
In this federal government data, too, I see they discovered something that they probably wish they hadn't.
And that was that I think it's roughly one in three respondents own more than five firearms.
Yeah.
And most said they use them for target shooting, not hunting.
So the thing the liberals always say is, what do you need this to shoot a deer?
But that's all what people are doing with the firearms anyway.
Yeah.
And it's not the government's business.
That's right.
Well, there's 2.4 million licensed gun owners in the country right now, but there's only 1.3 million hunting licenses.
Great.
So to me, that, you know, we're about a 50-50 split.
Now, there's lots of people like me and you who do both.
Right.
But yeah, there are a lot of people who are gun owners who do not hunt at all.
And I think that's, you know, those are the people they've targeted most.
Those are the people who probably spend the most money on this lifestyle and this sport and collecting.
So yeah, I don't know where we go from here with these guys, but I think they it's a it's pretty clear that they're trying to hang on to this, but I don't think they're going to get it done.
You know what?
Again, I'm cheering so hard for government ineptitude.
You know, like Mark Carney's considering austerity, whatever that looks like when you're a liberal.
But I think this is one of those big places that he could start.
And if he cares about the harmony of confederation, he better not try to pull this stuff with Western Canadians because he's going to have a fight on his hands from our premiers and then he will be stoking the flames of Western separation.
I wanted to ask you about the issue of grandfathering because it is divisive in the firearms community.
Some people will say it is a concession to the other side when people find themselves through no fault of their own with banned firearms.
Tell me what you've been up to on this issue.
Well, if you would have told me three or four years ago that I'd be advocating for grandfathering, I would have told you you're crazy.
I've always rejected it entirely because it is delayed confiscation.
The reality check of the situation that we find ourselves in now is you can have delayed confiscation or you can have immediate confiscation.
Now, I look at it as a temporary solution.
It's something that I have been lobbying for, both with the liberal government and encouraging conservative lawmakers to suggest to their liberal colleagues.
And this is the normal traditional way that bans of guns were handled.
You'll remember back in the 70s, the actual assault weapons ban.
People who owned Full Auto were, they didn't have their doors kicked in and their guns confiscated.
They didn't have any of this.
What they had was they had a special permission added to their license.
They were allowed to keep their firearms.
They were allowed to use them at ranges.
They could buy and sell amongst each other and they could leave them to their heirs.
So, you know, upon their death, it wasn't a total loss.
And naturally, through attrition, eventually these things kind of, you know, go away.
Yeah.
But I mean, we've, we're kind of up against a rock and a hard place here.
We've got either immediate confiscation by some kind of liberal program that they slap together.
That's going to be a huge mess, cause big problems for law enforcement and gun owners alike.
Or alternatively, and be really expensive.
I mean, for a government that's looking to cut 7.5% from every department, where are you going to cut in public safety other than this, right?
So you can save the taxpayer billions of dollars by foregoing this whole idea of collecting people's guns that they use safely and then using taxpayer dollars to pay them for them.
In some cases, these would be tens of thousands of dollars per gun.
So the idea here is everything you own now that's been recently prohibited since May of 2020 would stay prohibited, but you would get a provision on your license to allow you to go to the range and shoot them.
You and I could buy and sell between each other, you know, and other people with that same provision on their license.
And then, like I said, I could leave them to my girls upon my death.
So, you know, and it also kicks the can down the road a little bit.
You know, if and when we have another election, if we have a different outcome, a more positive result, then you can look at repealing stuff.
But for now, I think it's a good solution for everybody, including the liberal government, who, as I said, is looking to put in some austerity measures.
And instead of cutting funding to law enforcement or border security or, you know, stopping the flow of illicit guns across the border or fentanyl or CBSA or all of these things that need to be looked after in order to get our country on the safe track again, the money that would have gone to anger and gun owners can go to those places instead.
So I think it's a better use of resources.
I know some people may, you know, reel in horror at me saying that, but at the same time, take a hard reality check on where we're at.
And this is what we're up against.
So yeah, it's something I'm working very hard on right now with my colleagues.
And like I said, I think it's a temporary measure and I think it's palatable to most people.
Yeah, you know, you're right to say that we need to deal in reality.
And I understand the other viewpoint on this, that you should not compromise on a bad law.
But the reality of it is it buys conservative time to repeal these because you cannot uncrush somebody's family heirlooms.
That's right.
Once they're gone, they're gone.
So this keeps these guns where they belong safely in the hands of their law-abiding owners until such time as a future conservative government is able to make those changes.
And it is a good escape hatch for the liberals optically to say, like, look, we are proceeding with our gun bans, but we are taking the financially responsible way out of this by allowing these to stay in the hands of the people who already have them.
I think it's a solution that works for everybody for now.
Yeah.
Like I said, it's a for now thing.
I don't love it.
Who does?
Yeah, I mean, we're not in a position to bargain for anything else.
To think that Mark Carney is going to repeal all these gun bans, that is not going to happen.
However, I do think there's an avenue here for a compromise, a temporary compromise.
And I think if gun owners could continue to use the stuff that's been locked up for years now, I think that would be a win.
People could go back out and hunt with their hunting rifles again, use their sporting rifles.
Competitions could ramp up.
Retailers, although they may not be able to stock new firearms that fall into those categories, they'd be able to stock all kinds of accessories and implements that people would buy.
Like it would not be a 100% solution, but it would be a heck of a lot better than where we are.
And at the end of the day, if they don't do this and they go ahead with confiscations, the moment those guns start getting confiscated from gun owners, it doesn't matter who the leader is or which party is in power.
Nobody's ever going to reel it back that far again.
So, you know, that's my reality check for people who may be listening to this and saying, what?
Is she nuts?
No, I've thought long and hard about this.
And, you know, it's kind of, you know, I've anguished over it.
But I have to be realistic and do the best thing for gun owners.
So that's the direction that we are moving forward in.
Yeah.
Yeah.
This keeps the guns in the hands of the people who own them.
And it, as you said, it kicks the can down the road.
I think it's a good out for everybody.
It's not ideal.
Nobody wants to live in like the one of the most restrictive gun regimes in the entire Western world, but here we are.
Yeah.
But and that is thanks to the voting habits of this country.
Now, Tracy, I heard because of through an investigative journalism project that you are working very hard on behalf of gun owners.
I believe the other side of it would say, oh my God, look at the gun lobby.
And I'm looking at it thinking, look how hard that woman is working.
11 lobby meetings in two days.
You're working hard on behalf of people like me and the gun owners across the country.
What's next for you guys at the CCFR?
Well, it's tough with the summer here.
Of course, you know, just when things were kind of ramping up and we had an election and, you know, the country is supposedly in crisis, of course, there's a giant summer break.
They're off till mid-September.
Now, I know there are some meetings going on and some reconvening of different committees, but we're using this summer to sort of gear up.
We've got some projects around the grandfathering issue and meetings will continue, but sort of ramping up, getting ready for them to come back because the amnesty that protects gun owners from the first two gun bans, of course, is going to expire at the end of October.
So there's going to be a short runway there to get something done because one of two things is going to happen.
Either they're going to have to extend the amnesty and all the bad press that comes along with that, it looks bad, right?
These are, you know, weapons of war, you know, meant to kill the most amount of people or whatever it is that liberals say.
And yet here we are, it'll be going on six years.
They just keep kicking their own can down the road.
So that's going to look bad for them and upset the anti-gun lobbies.
Or they could take the avenue that we are suggesting, which will also be a bad news day for them.
You know, it'll, they'll look like they're kind of uh flip-flopping on the issue, and they will also anchor the anti-gun lobbies.
But there will be a lot of wins in that, right?
It'll have some finality to it, it'll make it a dead issue, it'll save taxpayers a ton of money, it will be encouraging to law enforcement, and it'll be supported by most Canadians.
So, our focus is, of course, making sure that message is palatable.
If we got to put TV commercials on legacy TV, that's what we'll do.
We'll do anything that we can to make sure that this message gets out and we can get that somewhat of a little bit of a reprieve.
So, now that sort of hard work and information campaign does not come cheap, so how do people get involved in the CCFR and support this important work that you're doing?
Yeah, well, you can read all about us and check out everything we're doing at ccfr.ca.
We've also got a free mobile app for both Android and Apple, and that's really important.
Go to the App Store and download the CCFR app.
It's free to download.
You can get news alerts on there.
Every Friday, we update all the news stories.
We're not going to spam you with stuff that's not important.
We send one email out a week, but that app is like a direct link to the CCFR that isn't reliant on social media that may not be friendly.
We've also got the bi-weekly podcast, CCFR Radio, and the TV show on Wild TV, CCFR Radio on the air.
So, you can find us anywhere you're looking.
If you can't find us, then there's something wrong with you.
But, yes, we are everywhere.
We need all the help we can get.
It isn't the time to slow down, it's the time to ramp up, and that's exactly what we're doing.
We also just two weeks ago applied for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada in our court challenge against the gun ban.
We haven't heard back yet, but I'm hoping that they agree to hear it on the basis that it is of national interest to the citizens.
So, you know, we're still fighting it that way, too.
I'd rather have it overturned than accept grandfathering, but we're going to work for both at the same time.
Yeah, I mean, you have to fight on every single battlefront.
And you also have one of the best firearms merch stores in North America, and I'm including the NRA in that.
And I like their merch.
So, it's great, it's cheeky, but very well done.
Thank you.
Yeah, I take great pride in the store.
I think it's a lot of fun.
There's tons of stuff on there for girls, guys, whatever you're into.
There's really good drinkwear on there as well.
And yeah, great swag.
I love wearing it.
Yep, me too.
Tracy, thanks so much for coming on the show.
It's been too long in between.
I plan to correct that in the future.
Facts In Advance00:06:31
Thanks so much for the hard work you do on behalf of families just like mine.
We're going to keep at it.
And thanks for the opportunity.
Well, as always, I turn over the last portion of the show to you because without you, there's no rebel news.
You've been with us for 10 plus years, supporting us in a time of intense censorship.
While the federal government has been trying to break us, you've helped us live on.
And so, I believe you should always be able to have your say.
So, last portion of the show, it's the comment section.
It's the mailbag.
If you have comments to me about the work that I do, you can email them to me at Sheila at RebelNews.com.
Super easy.
Sheila at Rebelnews.com put gun show letters in the subject line so I know exactly why you're emailing me.
Or I encourage you to leave comments wherever you might find our work.
So, if you're watching us on YouTube or on Rumble, leave comments there.
I do read them.
And your comments help us get higher up in the algorithm, which means that more people will see our work.
So I know many of you, most of you, if you're watching this, you're a premium subscriber.
But and a way that you can help us that's free, because I do appreciate your financial support, a way that you can help us that's free is to just go and leave a comment on those other platforms and share those clips with your friends so that they might become a premium subscriber also.
Now, today's comments come on my expose that I did late last week on how the media in this province completely botched the library standards announcement coming out of the provincial government.
So, by way of background, the provincial government has announced a series of standards for libraries in school.
And basically, it gets the smut and gay erotica out of the elementary school libraries.
If you are arguing that there's a place for that stuff in elementary school libraries, I would like to see your hard drives.
And stay away from me and my children.
Everybody's children.
Stay away from playgrounds too while you're at it.
And the media, even though they had an embargoed copy of the announcement, a full fact deck given to media, and access to the politicians in advance to be able to ask questions to clarify.
They all reported that it removed medical content from the libraries, like stuff about puberty and all those things, as well as handholding, kissing, all those sorts of things removed from the libraries too, which was definitely not true.
And it was very clear in the information deck that we all got.
You see, I didn't get the story wrong.
They actually had, I want to reiterate the announcement three hours in advance to write a proper story, to read it, to write a story, which is what I did.
And I didn't get it wrong, but they all got it wrong.
Global News, I think Globe and Mail.
There was another one, The Breakdown, who regularly have, I believe, mental breakdowns.
But they got it wrong too.
And it just spread like wildfire.
What's the old saying?
The lie can go around the world before the truth even gets its pants on.
Well, that's exactly what happened.
It was so bad that late in the day, on the very same day, the press secretary for the education minister, Gary Kohler, I believe his name is.
Our education minister is Demetrius Nicolaitis.
He had to issue a statement to the media saying, get it right.
This is what it says.
And so then they updated all their reporting.
Anyway, I documented how they got it wrong and I peeled back the veneer.
I wanted to show you the embargoed documents that we got shortly after 9 a.m. when the announcement would go live at noon.
And I wanted to show you that the media got it wrong purposefully because there's no way they could have fudged those facts.
They had the facts in hand.
They just reported something entirely different.
And I, so I showed you copies of the embargo documents.
I showed you the time stamps on my emails.
I showed you what the media reported.
I also showed you how it was, the lies were so bad that the press secretary by four o'clock in the afternoon had to send out another press release demanding that the media correct their misinformation.
I showed you it all because I thought it's important for you to see that this wasn't an innocent mistake, or at least that you could make up your mind with the facts at hand.
Like, I don't think it was an innocent mistake, but you could look at it and say there's no possible way that's an innocent mistake, or you know, maybe you maybe you would write it off the other way.
Maybe you just think they're idiots.
I mean, that's a strong possibility, too.
I think both things can be true.
I think the mainstream media can be both idiots, but also sinister.
Anyway, you guys had some strong reactions to that reporting because I did.
I pulled the curtain back so you could see what a government announcement actually looks like for journalists on the other side.
You guys just see the announcement and the reporting.
I wanted to show you what happens before the announcement, before you hear and see our stories or read our stories.
We get the announcement in advance.
Now, we can't talk about it because we're under an embargo, but we get it in advance.
Victor J. Adams 4220 writes: Reporters who misrepresented the story should be penalized, their employers fined, and both prohibited from news briefings for a period of time.
It's called accountability, old-fashioned, I know, but it worked back in the day and should be brought back.
Why We Want Censorship00:04:28
Look, I don't even want that.
I don't want that.
Why do they think if you want to report misinformation?
That's your business.
If you want to damage the trust you have with the public, that's fine because I think I serve as a counterbalance.
I don't think many of you understood before I did that piece just how much work goes into making sure the journalists get the story right, that they have the ability to ask questions and they have all the facts in advance and they get time to read it before the announcement goes live.
And they wanted you to know that they're getting it wrong on purpose.
And what I want, and that's their business.
If they want to damage their credibility, that's okay.
What I want is for you to not have to pay for it because all of those outlets are subsidized in one way or another.
And they can lie.
I just don't want them to do it with your money.
That's all.
S. Jambler says, This is a long-standing problem in Alberta schools.
I was at elementary school in Calgary in the 1960s.
No Playboy, no hustler on the bookshelves of the school library.
Clearly repressive.
I've never recovered from the trauma.
Yeah.
I mean, the argument I see from the crazy people who are not in favor of library standards, they're generally a bunch of childless weirdos, by the way.
The kind of people who self-sterilize through cross-sex hormones or who think that children are some sort of plague upon the face of the overpopulated earth.
And so, out of responsibility to the climate, they've decided not to have children.
Whatever.
You know what?
I think children are always a net good in the world.
And you should have as many of them as you want as you can care for.
And you can probably care for more than you think.
But a lot of those childless freak shows are saying, well, kids can get access to it on their cell phones or whatever.
That may be true.
But once again, I don't want it in the school library.
If kids want to look at smut, then let them find another way that isn't at the school.
Of all the places in the world where smut shouldn't be, I believe school is that.
And yes, they can access it in other places in the world.
Okay, that's not an argument for it to be in the school, though, right?
Because what if they're like me?
A parent who is responsible about their children's cell phone use.
And then they're, but that stuff is available at school where they're for seven hours a day without me.
I can deal with the cell phone stuff.
I can deal with the internet stuff.
I'm pretty savvy.
But there's seven hours a day that they are without me.
And I don't want the gay erotica at them.
Right?
Again, saying, well, they can get it on their cell phone.
That's not exactly an argument.
That's actually giving up.
And it makes you wonder why they're giving up, right?
BXBA4583 says, why does Canada have to be so odd?
Look, don't lump us in with the rest of them.
In Alberta, we're trying to do the right thing.
I believe Saskatchewan, now inspired by the bravery of our Premier Daniel Smith, is considering much the same.
Get the smut out of the elementary schools.
Like in the original announcement a couple of months ago for the library standards, they included copies of some of the stuff that they had found in the libraries and whew made me uncomfortable.
I'm a prude, but it was still nothing, nothing a nine-year-old should see.
Jenny, G8923 says, the information was poisoned indeed.
In my workplace, my big team was discussing how absurd it is that Alberta government banned literature in libraries educating kids about sexuality, etc.
That is not what they banned.
Weirdo Bans Debate00:00:58
I thought to myself, it sounds weird.
Well, here you go.
Next time I have to ask what source provides the information.
Yeah.
Yeah, they didn't ban that.
They didn't ban coming of age books.
They didn't ban teen romance novels, even with implied romantic situations.
What they did was they made those age-appropriate and they banned the graphic erotica from kids.
And anybody arguing against a government doing that is a weirdo.
And I don't want you anywhere near me.
Let me reiterate.
You're a weirdo.
I don't want you near me or my lovely, well-adjusted children.
You can just die alone and your cats can eat you.
Okay, well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time, in the same place, perhaps.