Sheila Gunn Reid’s Saskatchewan Parents’ Bill of Rights—passed via the notwithstanding clause—now faces a federally funded activist challenge from groups like EGAL and University of Regina Pride, arguing it violates 2SLGBTQIA students' rights. Justice Neil Caldwell’s dissent highlights potential misuse of the clause, while critics like Bronwyn Eyre warn of judicial overreach. Meanwhile, Hamilton Mayor Andrea Horvath censored a billboard opposing minor medical transitions, and Team Nova Scotia silenced female athletes over shared facilities with a transgender male teammate. Alberta’s laws under Danielle Smith stand as a rare counter, protecting girls from competitive disadvantages. International studies suggest gender-affirming care for minors often harms rather than helps, yet WPATH and the Canadian Pediatric Society allegedly mislead parents through fear tactics. Viewer feedback reveals broader frustration with activist-driven policies on climate, gender, and economic trade, clashing with conservative priorities like Alberta’s oil sector and Connor McDavid’s influence. [Automatically generated summary]
We've got a homophobic billboard in Hamilton and a team of volleyball girls who didn't want to change in front of a boy are called hateful.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
I think we should get right into it.
Today's guest really needs no introduction.
If you're a regular viewer of Rebel News and my work here, it's Lise Merle.
She's a Saskatchewan-based contributor to Rebel News.
She's one of our live stream hosts.
You'll know her from almost all of our election night coverage.
She does incredible work in the space of parents' rights, and she's joining me today to discuss the attacks on gender-based reality in this country, starting with what happened in Saskatchewan when the Court of Appeal there sided with the sex activists, all that and more.
take a listen.
So joining me now is, well, as many of you know, if you watch the Rebel News Roundup, the Rebel Livestream, my real life best friend, but also regular Rebel News commenter, commentator, Lisa Merle from Beautiful Regina.
Saskatchewan, beautiful for now.
Saskatchewan's Parental Rights Clash00:15:59
But the longer the liberals are in power, the worse our cities get.
And we are going to break down big news out of Saskatchewan this week, a big win for the anti-family, federally funded sex activist meddlers in that the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has sided with the activists and greenlighting their challenge of the parents' Bill of Rights.
And I know this is something that Lise has been carefully watching.
So I thought, let's have Lise on.
Let's break it down together.
Lise, though, a first reaction, because you and I were glued to our computer screens when these legal arguments were being made.
But maybe before we get into all of that, why don't you give us a quick breakdown of what the Parents Bill of Rights really is?
Yes.
Well, in Saskatchewan in 2023, the government of Saskatchewan proposed and then passed a law regarding a pronoun policy in Saskatchewan schools, which requires parental consent for either name or gender changes for students under 16.
So this is an initiative that's got real strong support from traditional conservatives, from parents, from grandparents, and from the common sense side of the argument and has fierce opposition from the left.
So our government, the government of Saskatchewan, used the notwithstanding clause to pass this law.
And what has then happened is that it has continued grinding through our court system.
So the notwithstanding clause did not work in this case as it was intended because the notwithstanding clause is meant to be a backstop when there are clashes between the federal government or charter rights,
individual charter rights of children in this case and what the legislature says that the electorate is telling them they want to happen.
So there's been a collision of rights.
The notwithstanding clause was used.
The courts decided to keep hearing the arguments from the radical left, from the radical gender advocates, all of them federally funded, you guys, all of them federally funded to fight against parents in court.
And basically the question comes down to this, is who do the children of Saskatchewan belong to?
Do they belong to their parents or do they belong to the state?
And what happened yesterday is an exceedingly rare occurrence.
So there was a split vote in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals.
It was a four to one vote that four judges determined that this should be allowed to be argued within the court system.
And there was one dissenting, one dissenting, one dissenting judge who said, well, just wait a second here.
What exactly is going on?
His name is Justice Neil Caldwell, Justice Neil Caldwell, basically argued that the notwithstanding clause was wielded in this case, that it makes the court's sort of interference in this matter a mood point because the law is going to stand no matter what.
The notwithstanding clause worked as it was intended in that case, but the courts are steamrolling through the notwithstanding clause to keep hearing arguments.
Because let's not forget, in three years, the notwithstanding clause is going to expire in this case.
And what I think the fear is, is that all of the crazy left-wing activists, the NDP, all of the people who came out on side of transgender children's rights are going to look back on this time, point to what the court is determining at this time, and say, but look, the court said that this shouldn't be happening.
So what they're doing is fixing it so that in three years, they'll have the narrative to support the unconstitutionality or appropriateness of this law in its entirety.
Does that make sense?
Yeah.
I mean, and at the end of the day, the aunties conceded that in their legal arguments when we were watching all of this.
What they, they know they can't have the law overturned at least for five years, right?
Because it's in place for five years and then it needs to be reviewed and then renewed.
And so they know their legal challenge will not overturn the law.
The law remains in operation.
That's what the notwithstanding clause means.
The law is operational notwithstanding the constitution or charter rights or whatever.
What they really want is the law to, that's what their legal challenge is intended to do, is to have the law found to be unconstitutional, but operational, which means that it will have that extra layer of barrier to overcome when it needs to be renewed.
And not legally, but I think in the court of public opinion, but not in the court of the court of public policy.
That's right.
That's exactly right.
Yeah.
And at the end of the day, if it's ruled unconstitutional, which I don't know how it could be because the notwithstanding clause is in the Constitution, part of it.
But I think it's an end run around teachers who do not follow this law, do not notify parents.
This is an end run around them facing professional sanctions for breaching the law because they're going to say, I shouldn't have to face professional sanctions.
You're asking me to do something that's unconstitutional.
Yes, that violates their rights, their rights as the teacher or as the professional educator or as the educrat would argue.
And that's exactly what's happening here, Sheila.
Former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the province of Saskatchewan, Bronwyn Eyre, is on record as saying the judiciary or judges or justices should not develop public policy from the bench that is not within their purview.
Pretty much what is being suggested here is that our judiciary and our justice system has completely veered out of their lane.
Their lane is to apply the law.
It's up to our respective legislatures in our home provinces to develop the public policy.
And so in this case, it really shines a light on what we talk about all of the time in judicial overreach, in an ideologically captured judiciary.
How do we move forward?
And in this case, it's such a great example of exactly that happening right now.
Now, let's talk about who's behind the legal challenge because this is not just grassroots.
It's definitely, I don't see a lot of actual normal parents involved challenging this law on behalf of their children.
It's activist groups like EGAL.
EGAL UR Pride.
Is that what it is?
The University of Regina Pride?
University of Regina Pride is who brought the initial challenge to the law using the services and resources provided to them by EGAL.
EGAL is a federally funded non-governmental organization that gets federal funding to fight these battles in court on behalf of people and groups like UR Pride.
Okay.
So there's this humongous sort of conflict of interest where the parents of Saskatchewan are left to fend off this entirely contrived and very well-funded activist group from having, from allowing us to be parents, what the activist group is saying, no, no, your children actually belong to us.
And so here the parents are forced to fend off these misguided, thoroughly misguided activists in saying, no, no, our children don't actually belong to you at all.
Children belong to their parents.
Children belong to their families.
And you are not going to interfere in what we say is appropriate for our children to be exposed to.
That is the crux of the matter.
Well, and again, talk about another group doing an end run around accountability because really these groups are just extensions of the federal government's policy on these issues.
And the federal government knows that they have no jurisdiction here.
Education is the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Yes, ma'am.
And education of children is the jurisdiction, exclusive jurisdiction of the parents.
But the federal government funds their proxies.
Ironically, with the money of the very same parents they're fighting against to advance the federal government's policies in court.
So it is far from grassroots.
It is some of the best funded, best organized attacks on parents in this entire country.
And we have to recognize it for what it is.
Yes, no, you're precisely right.
Not only did the federal government throw away $11 billion in taxpayer funds at foreign 2SLGBTQIA initiatives, but the money that they're spending domestically to fight their own people, to fight parents over whose children they are is absolutely enormous and something that should be unforgivable to the everyday,
regular common sense Canadian taxpayer.
It's egregious what's been allowed to happen here.
It's egregious.
Now, I guess what's next?
Now we have to wait for this to wind its way through the court system because the judges really was that it will allow the challenge to go forward.
So the Court of Appeal has ruled that the appeal will go forward.
Yes, yeah, that's what's going to happen.
And there are more than a handful of potential outcomes to this.
So the court could say that the policy violates the rights of 2SLGBTQIA students.
And it would be a symbolic ruling simply because the notwithstanding clause is in effect.
It could find that it doesn't violate the rights of 2SLGBTQIA students.
Or even in a rarer possibility, it could find that cruel and unusual punishment, this could be considered cruel and unusual punishment,
which is exceedingly rare that it would be argued, but never underestimate the depravity of these leftist gender activist groups to argue that this is cruel and unusual punishment against children, not letting them explore their gender identity completely out of the purview of their parents, completely out of the purview without the consent or knowledge of their parents.
Frankly, I could see Egal trying that.
And so what that would do is, what that would do is force the government of Saskatchewan to wield the notwithstanding clause again.
And this is not outside of the realm of possibility either.
Former Attorney General and Minister of Justice for the province of Saskatchewan, Bronwyn Air, also alluded to the fact that she would not hesitate to use the notwithstanding clause again and also to accelerate this all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
So it's unfortunate that Bronwyn Air is no longer our Minister of Justice or Attorney General.
But what we need to hear, the parents of Saskatchewan and more broadly, the parents of Canada, is Saskatchewan current, Saskatchewan's current Attorney General and Minister of Justice tell us that that's exactly what they're going to do to defend and prioritize and further parental rights in Saskatchewan.
The left, the response of the left is absolutely unhinged and off the hook, but we should not be surprised by it.
So they're doing a victory dance over this, saying, how dare the government of Saskatchewan pay thousands of dollars to argue this obviously.
They're fascinating conservatives now.
Oh, yeah, yeah, thousands of dollars being spent to defend parents to defend parents' relationship to their own children.
To say that that's a waste of taxpayer, I bankrupt the whole place to prove that.
And you know what?
I believe that the government of Saskatchewan, after seeing this decision and seeing how this is unfolding in the wider sort of ecosystem of Canadian education, I can see them doing exactly that and they should.
There should be sweeping announcements by the government of Saskatchewan detailing exactly how they're going to fortify parental rights in Saskatchewan.
There should be announcements forthcoming from Saskatchewan's education minister, Everett Hindley, about how he is going to strengthen parental involvement and consent and transparency within Saskatchewan education.
Because what's not being said is that children are going into public education in Saskatchewan and being abused, abused by the educators who think they know better than the parents, when in fact, anybody, okay, anybody with a lick of common sense knows that telling little kids that they're born in the wrong body, that the solution to all of their problems is puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones,
wrong sex hormones, everybody knows that marching children into a medical pathway that has irreversible and life-changing consequences is insanity, is insanity.
And it is time that Saskatchewan walked it all back all at once.
You know, one of the reasons they are saying that this should be ruled unconstitutional yet operational is that it violates the security of the person.
But is there any more of a violation of the security of the person of a small child than to sever the relationship they have with loving parents by encouraging secret keeping and medicalization?
Affirming Gender: The Potential for Harm00:07:30
You know, Sheila, if we were to look at this exact same question under the lens of truth and reconciliation, we would say, how dare you part children from the cultural enrichment of their own family experience?
How dare you?
How dare you?
Yet, when you consider that children are being robbed of their culture, of their identity, of their very names by rogue educators and gender activists, well, then it's acceptable.
Like, help me square that circle.
I thought that stealing children's identities and cultures was bad.
Was I completely mistaken on that?
Or has this thing just got so completely off the hook and out of hand that we have inmates running the asylum?
Yes.
To answer your question, yes, yes, yes, yes, we have.
And I think there's no more, a better example than what's unfolding in Hamilton right now.
Hamilton mayor Andrea Horvath, who I would be remiss if I didn't mention that she used to be the NDP leader in Ontario.
So obviously gunning for the top job to be the Premier of Ontario.
It actually makes a lot of sense to add that context.
Yes.
And say what I will about Doug Ford, and I have, Lord knows I have, but he is not as crazy as Andrea Horvath, who now as the mayor of Hamilton says that it is transphobic to put up a billboard that says, let kids be.
This is a billboard from letkidsbe.ca, and it's an organization that calls for stopping the medical transition of minors.
They don't even say like stop the medical transition of adults.
Yes.
Their focus is simply on irrevocable medical interventions on gender confused children.
Apparently, according to Andrea Horvath, that's transphobic and hateful and disrespectful, I think she says.
Yes.
And she pressured the private company in charge of the billboard, Astral Media, to remove it because while the city doesn't own the billboard company, they own the public land that the billboard company has leased to erect the billboard.
And because of that, the city of Hamilton has decided they have editorial control over what happens on the billboard, which is absolutely outrageous.
I mean, it's crazy.
This is a perfect example of government overreach.
In this case, it is municipal government overreach because Andrea Horvath, who has a, well, who has a personal life that might explain some of her opinions, put pressure on them from the municipal government, put pressure on the media company to remove this.
She pre-labeled it in the public sphere as homophobic, hateful, and disrespectful.
When it is none of the above, none of the above, there's nothing hateful or disrespectful about safeguarding children and advocating on behalf of families.
Obviously, the group that put the billboard up knew that it was going to be speaking to its local environment and made that distinct choice to put up that board.
And I think when common sense, real normal people, you know, regular normal people see that billboard, they're going to go, there's nothing, there's nothing incorrect about that billboard at all.
And yet, this is the censorship that we are seeing in Canada.
This is an act of government censorship in action right now, saying nothing more than leave the kids alone.
Just leave them out of this.
All of it.
Yeah.
I mean, and it's not exactly right-wing extremism to say leave the little ones alone.
Fine, they're doing it in the United States.
We are doing our best to protect kids from medical transition here in Alberta.
But Denmark, you know, the UK.
Yes, Switzerland, the Netherlands, all of them have backpedaled on their wide embrace of the gender-affirming model of healthcare for children.
All of them have looked at the evidence, have heard the actual experts, and what they all say is that there is no evidence to prove that gender-affirming care actually helps children suffering from gender dysphoria.
As a matter of fact, what the statistics show is it has the opposite effect.
So when you begin affirming the gender of a young person, it actually has the potential to harm them.
It's much, much greater.
The risk of harm is much, much greater than any good it can offer.
And when you hear gender activists, and they are so prolific in their lies, when you hear them say, you know, if gender-affirming health care is withheld from these vulnerable youths, while these vulnerable youths are going to do something, you know, are apt to do something really extreme, like unalive themselves.
What they're doing is ceding to those young, impressionable minds, this is what you must say to get access to your gender-affirming healthcare.
Even though the statistics show that that claim has no veracity whatsoever.
When this gender-affirming healthcare is withheld from children, those children grow out of it.
They grow out of it unscathed.
It's puberty.
They're blocking the cure with their puberty blockers.
The cure is puberty.
It resolves.
But they are training the children what to say to exactly manipulate their parents.
That's exactly right.
And parents across, I mean, really globally across the world are waking up to realize just how deceived they were by, you know, those people that work that are members of WPATH, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
Parents are realizing that they've been lied to by, you know, the Canadian Pediatric Society or whatever it's called, by these professional associations that have been ideologically captured, absolutely ideologically captured, to tell them lies and guilt them or scare them or frighten them or terrify them into making decisions for their own children that had they had accurate information, they absolutely would never have made.
So it's real interesting watching this play out in real time, the way that they're scrambling to double down on this when we all know it is such a futile and abusive situation that is happening in Canada still to destroying cannabis children.
Yeah.
Female Athletes Displaced00:09:10
I mean, it's so sinister how they weaponize a parent's best qualities against them, that desire to protect their children from harm.
And then they say, well, you'll be harming them if you don't allow them to do this.
Yes.
It's that weaponized compassion and it's so pernicious.
Oh, destructive.
It's absolutely destructive to families.
All you have to do is listen to a family that's been that's been through the ringer on this.
And there are families that are going on two and three and five and six years of this with their children, where their entire family life is blown up when one of their kids comes home and says one of these things that they picked up in school.
The levels of destruction just cannot be overstated in this case as it pertains to just the personal loss of security for families and the closeness of families and driving a wedge between children and their parents.
All those people should be thrown in jail, to be completely honest.
Sure.
It is that egregious a sin.
There's nothing worse.
Another great story from our friend Melanie Bennett over at Juneau, who is just doing incredible work.
I want to touch on this.
We talked about it on the live stream, but it's worthy of further discussion.
Girl athletes silenced over concerns about male teammate in the dorms.
Now, this is Team Nova Scotia.
This is their provincial volleyball team.
These are 17-year-olds.
They played at the Canada Cup in Toronto.
So this is Nationals in Toronto.
And the girls came home.
They raised, while they were gone, they weren't told that a trans-identified teammate, so a male teammate identifying as a girl, would be staying in the dorms with them and changing with them.
And then when they took to a Snapchat group, it sounds like, to discuss this amongst themselves and express their concerns about this, they were labeled by their coach, who is a cheater, because he selected a boy in place of a girl to play on the team so that they would have an advantage.
A blatant misogynist, a blatant misogynist.
He called these little girls hateful and disrespectful.
And then he sent a letter.
He told on them to their parents, but he didn't accurately describe the situation.
He said they were basically being hateful to an LGBTQ plus teammate, but he never described to these girls' parents.
You talk about severing the relationship between parents and children.
This coach tried to get in the middle of it because he never accurately described that this was a male player he expected their daughters to change with.
Huh.
Well, I feel like hell has a bunch of places reserved for people exactly like this, Sheila Gunread, because what that coach did was prioritize the mental health issues of a one individual male athlete over the well-being, the rights, and the experience of all of his other female athletes.
Okay, this is what happens when in Canadian law, like we do, we prioritize the gender identity and expression of one over absolutely everybody else.
Canadian girls and women have become accustomed to stories like this.
But what makes it especially egregious in sport, like this is actually really unique to sport, is that these male athletes are displacing female athletes.
So for every male athlete you name to your team, because you want to do really well, okay, coaches, you want to perform really, really well.
And you know that those male athletes have the physical advantage.
You know they do.
That's why you put them on their team.
Whenever you put a male in, you are displacing a girl from your team.
And with that, you are not just enabling her.
You are not just making her lose that singular opportunity in that one match, in that one game, but what you're doing is robbing her of opportunity years down the line.
So Sheila, do tell us how in Canada, elite athletes propel their athletic success into academic success.
Please tell us how that works.
Yeah, we have some experience about this in my household.
Regular viewers, my friends and family will know that I have an elite female athlete under my roof.
She plays at a provincial and national and varsity level.
And she's playing on a scholarship.
And for girls who are, you know, potential prospects to be a varsity athlete playing on a scholarship, it is absolutely essential that they are seen at these provincial and national level tournaments.
That's where the coaches are.
That's where they get ID into the varsity pathway.
That's where they get ID'd into the Olympic pathway and beyond.
So by them not playing at these tournaments, they are not being seen because everybody's looking at the boy in their place.
And so they're being, for some of these girls, this is their vehicle to post-secondary education and they just don't get it because a boy's in their place.
Yeah.
On the academia opportunity side, up until 2015, sport was the great equalizer for girls going into academia, going into post-secondary institutions.
They'd have a boys team, they'd have a boys hockey team and a girls hockey team.
And those players, although treated differently and under a different set of circumstances, often male sports at the post-secondary level are much better funded than the female ones.
often this was the only opportunity that those female athletes would have to compete and also leverage the opportunity of being able to play on an all-female team.
So we're obliterating the ability for girls to compete on the same level as boys by letting the boys opt into their sports.
And outside of Alberta, Alberta, Canada, who passed laws, God bless her Danielle Smith passed laws to protect girls and women in sport in Alberta.
Apart from Alberta, nobody else has taken this.
And this is something we have to unwind on a national scale.
Every single province and territory in the nation of Canada has to protect their female athletes, girls and women, from this kind of gross abuse.
Yeah.
And it's not just contact sports where girls are actually in physical danger.
Like we're not talking about ringette and rugby or the combat sports, martial arts.
We're talking about stuff like volleyball.
David Menzies has covered boys playing at the varsity level on girls' volleyball teams, women's volleyball teams, I should say, where the girls on the other team are being physically hurt, receiving concussions just because they're dealing with the force of a male striking that ball at them.
Well, they're being forced to not only compete against males that have the physical advantage.
We have the stats going back 100 years that show that men, that show that men have a physical advantage over women.
But we're also not divulging to those girls that they're also being forced to change and play against and be lodged with and have their entire experience being viewed through the lens of the sex pretending lawyer who is just thrown in with them.
Like they're not even being told that these are boys that are sleeping in the same dorms.
They're not being told that because gender ID and expression law prohibits that because that would be an act of discrimination, you see.
Because what if what if the what if the young men who are playing on these teams had their feelings hurt?
Well, what then?
Right.
Well, what about the girls who are having their opportunities stolen?
What about the girls that are having their experiences hijacked by this and who are being admonished by people in authority, aka coaches or professional associations or sports associations, that they are hateful and disrespectful and transphobic?
Like girls need protection from their government and they need it right now.
Gender ID Law Controversy00:08:47
Right now.
I hope that volleyball coach never coaches another girl ever again.
I don't know what's more objectionable in his behavior, the fact that he selected a boy to play in a girl's spot, that he didn't warn his girls that the boy would be sleeping in his dorms.
Such a failure.
That he told on them to their parents for simply, he called them transphobic and homophobic for simply wanting privacy and sex segregated spaces for basic safeguarding.
Basic safeguarding.
Yep.
I hope he never works with another girl ever again.
He should not be allowed to.
I hope he never coaches ever again.
I hope he rots in the lowest pits.
That's what I hope.
Yeah.
Lisa, I could talk to you all day.
And honestly, it feels like I have because we just got off the live stream together.
No offense.
But thanks so much for coming on the show.
We are recording this Tuesday afternoon, so this will go live Wednesday night, and I get another afternoon of talking to you tomorrow on the Wednesday Western Wednesdays Buffalo panel over on the Rebel News live stream.
That's 11 a.m. Mountain, 1 p.m. Eastern.
For those of you who don't know, we talk about exclusively Western issues on Wednesday with a panel of four.
So me, Lise, and two other special guests.
And if you're watching this on Wednesday night or anytime after, do choose, do tune in on Wednesday.
And if you're go back and watch the recorded version of the show, because I promised it would be a banger and I believe it will be.
It is going to be.
It is going to be.
Well, Sheila Gunvrie, thank you so much for having me.
And thanks so much to Rebel News for covering these really, really important stories.
God knows the mainstream media isn't doing it.
And we just appreciate you guys so much for sharing these stories with Canadians.
Thank you, buddy.
Well, friends, the last segment of the show is yours because without you, there is no Rebel News.
So I better listen to you guys, right?
That's why I give you my email address right now.
It's Sheila at RebelNews.com.
Put gun show letters in the subject line.
Let me know what you thought about today's show and you just might see your viewer feedback read on air.
Now, today's viewer feedback comes by way of my interview I did last week with Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada.
And he was discussing a recent decision in the United States to overturn the endangerment rule, which resulted in basically dozens of climate regulations because it was ruled that climate change endangered people.
And so the government should act.
And what resulted were, like I said, dozens of expensive and unhelpful emissions regulations and standards.
It's sort of the same idea that calling CO2 a pollutant here in Canada has resulted in carbon taxes and upstream emissions regulations, caps on production for oil and gas.
Now, viewer feedback is from the YouTube comments this week.
All Decat X says, funny thing how nature works.
Life evolved in this rock with carbon as a prime element to it.
All plants absorb carbon.
The absorption of carbon is relative to the temperature of the environment.
Thus warmer equals more absorption.
I guess that's why plants are bigger in equatorial regions.
This is basic elementary education stuff, or it should be for all these academic lotus eaters to teach.
Silly carbon-based life forms need to learn and be more observant that change is always a constant.
So get with the reality of that.
Bob Cajun writes, Carney will double down on their net zero just because actually so much of what the liberals do as far as governing is in response to the things that Trump does.
You know, if Trump cuts funding to U.S. aid because USAID is funding all kinds of crazy things, you'll see Carney replace the funding to the crazy things.
You know, Trump blocks refugees from certain places of the world, and you'll see Canada take more of them in.
Remember, Justin Trudeau's famous Welcome to Canada tweet Was in response to Trump with his ban on immigration from five failed states.
And the media around with it called it a Muslim ban, but it wasn't a Muslim ban.
It was a failed states ban because you can't confirm identities.
And so then Justin Trudeau said, Welcome to Canada and absolutely destroyed our immigration system.
We still have people walking across the border because he invited the entire developing world to just take a shortcut.
And we will see Mark Carney add a carbon tariff to things coming in from the United States because the United States refuses to tax their goods as far as carbon goes.
So we'll see it tacked on to inbound Canadian or inbound goods from jurisdictions without a carbon tax, as if making imported goods more expensive for Canadians somehow will change the weather.
But that's, I guess, the logic or lack thereof.
Bruce Taylor 3241 says, This is wonderful.
Thank God this is happening.
Yeah, it is wonderful for Americans.
Their cars are going to be cheaper.
Their fuel is going to be cheaper.
They're probably going to have to rely less on ethanol additives in their gasoline, so they'll get better fuel mileage and their cars will work better.
I mean, it's just all around a great thing for Americans.
And it's making me pretty envious.
Kurt Forsyth, 1543, says, We love y'all, Alberta.
Bring your oil and Connor McDavid to us.
I guess you're an American hockey fan.
And yeah, we love selling you our oil.
We just wish we didn't have to sell it at a discount to you.
But that's not your fault.
That's successive liberal governments not allowing Alberta's oil to reach export markets that aren't American.
But thank you for your affection to us.
Meg Faber 2 says, Excellent to see truth coming out bit by bit.
Yeah, I mean, in the United States, I don't think they really have time to have a hidden agenda or to move slow.
If the Democrats are going to undo everything that Trump does to make life more affordable for Americans to repatriate American manufacturing, he has to move fast so that people can adjust and also see through the lies, right?
Because the Democrats and the media, which I don't think I should be making a distinction there, are going to say that the sky is going to fall and the earth is going to boil and blah, blah, blah.
If Trump repeals some of these onerous climate restrictions, they need to act now so that before the next election, it can be demonstrated to the voting public: the earth didn't boil.
The only thing that happened was that you paid less for things, which seems delightful.
I wish.
Mark BO5G7 says, Bring sanity back to the world.
That seems like a big job.
I think we should start trying to bring sanity back closer to home.
Now I live in Alberta, so we're a lot closer to sanity than a lot of places are in the world.
But yeah, start a little bit closer to home.
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 next week.