When will truth trump deceptive policies?

[00:00:00] Jim Chek: Welcome to The Really Big Show with Jim Chek and Ian Burns. I'm Jim Pack. Wow, it's been three days and I forgot my name. I'm Jim Chek, by the way, and that young man over there is Ian Burns. And welcome back from the long, long weekend. It is August 4th. We've got lots of truth and even our YouTube channel didn't know how to go without us there that long because it didn't want to boot for us. So if there's anybody over on the other stream, maybe you can welcome back over here because, I don't know, for some strange reason, it didn't like us this morning. Our headline this morning, when will truth trump deceptive policies? We've got a lot of that to go through for sure because the truth is starting to shine through because it's only so long just like anything in life. You lie and lie and lie and then pretty soon it's all tangled up and the lies just need more lies and then more lies and all of a sudden people say like, hey, wait a second here. This is not making any sense. We're starting to see that come through and the harsh reality of that truth. And there's been a lot of it, right? A lot of it on narrative and always under the guise of it's better for you because you don't know any better and that you should trust the government because the government only lies in your best interest. Do you believe that, Ian? Only in your best interest? [00:01:28] Ian Burns: I do, yeah. Vote liberal. [00:01:33] Jim Chek: I do want to recap something that Ian and I did at the beginning of the year. We did our 20 predictions for 2026. And I just want to recap where we're at here. We said there'd be massive layoffs and banking insurance. We're starting to see that. Trades, engineers, energy workers become the most and demand jobs. I think we're pretty much bang on there. U.S. economy booms while Canada stagnates. I think we basically nailed that one as well. A growing brain drain in Canada, especially among youth and skilled trades. Pretty much bang on there. Mark Carney secures power through political maneuvering, maneuvering, not unity. What do you think? How'd we do there? [00:02:14] Ian Burns: I mean, it's frighteningly accurate, isn't it? Independent. When we did this, we did this in [00:02:23] Jim Chek: January. This is before all the floor crossing and all that stuff. This is, remember that. Independent media rises as trust and state funded media collapses. Pretty much nailed that one as well. So we're six for six so far. Canada becomes more divided than ever with real separatist momentum. We're seeing that in two provinces right now. Canadian capital and investment flees south. Trillion dollars. Pierre Polly have survives leadership. He did survive that leadership. I mean, they're still, they're still campaigning against them. BC becomes one of the most economically uncertain provinces. That's bang on. David Eby out as leader. So that one's still out, you know, David Eby is still hanging on there. Alberta, a band is national pipelines go south. Well, they are going south and they're still talking about these, uh, Western and Eastern pipelines. Carbon capture becomes climate religion 2.0. Pretty much nailed that one. And we're, uh, goose egg on this one. Peace deal emerges in Ukraine. Well, we still got, you know, six months or five months to go. A global shift to the right accelerates in the world. We're seeing that AI drives the biggest stock market opportunity of a lifetime. That's more than ever true. Autonomous driving and robo taxis take off in the US. I mean, that's lukewarm. It's starting. Personal AI assistance and smart glasses become always on companions. I can, we're going to share some information on that. SpaceX goes public as the biggest IPO ever nailed that one. Okay. Nailed that one. Those with means will leave Canada and those left behind will destroy the wildlife. The first part is already happening. And the, I'm sure, pretty sure the deer and then are looking around the trees right now. Um, so that's, that's our 2026 predictions pretty much bang on pretty close anyway, but we're [00:04:27] Ian Burns: going to start off. You haven't included anything about, uh, the climate apocalypse that we're experiencing now because suburban mothers have been driving their children to school in a minivan. Therefore fires in the Okanagan. You haven't, you didn't talk about that. Well, we're going to get right into it right [00:04:47] Jim Chek: here. We got some air there. We're going to start with Spokane because that, that fire in Spokane, like a whole community basically wiped out. We're going to a little aerial footage. They're showing the devastation after a massive fire in Spokane, Washington, just to show you. I mean, we've experienced this in the Okanagan. This is on a, like another level here in Spokane though. Go ahead and run that clip there. We can probably talk over that. Look at that absolute devastation. One of the things that stands out though, you know, I had a couple of chats with, uh, text messages with Murray Wilson this weekend too, because, uh, they're sponsoring our show right now. Uh, BC is burning wildfire mitigation. If you look at this, this, this, this community here nestled in trees again, right? Like when are we going to start taking wildfire mitigation seriously? This whole community. Um, [00:05:35] Ian Burns: it's also about the species of tree, isn't it? But you can, you can be surrounded by trees, [00:05:40] Jim Chek: but you got to make sure it's the right kind of tree. Yeah. Deciduous trees are fine, but the, you know, like the pines and that, the ones hanging over your roof, like basically. And then once you get, like, if you look at the forest in the background there, once that, that wall of, of flames is, [00:05:54] Ian Burns: and the winds are pushing it and then crazy. That is, um, brutal to see, but I don't know, I don't know if you've been in that neck of the woods, but, um, and, and east of those, oh, it's, what do they call it? High desert is, I mean, that really is a desert that it's very deserty. [00:06:14] Jim Chek: Well, the Okanagan is in that too, that Mojave Desert, the finger of the Mojave Desert runs up into Canada there. It kind of ends in that, in that Vernon area there. So, um, and there's another clip here, as this person walks through their, their neighborhood here. That's good. That's good. I mean, this is all too familiar with what we saw in the Okanagan here. And I did some of those walkthroughs when we lost all those homes in the 03 fire as well. And then, um, they, they say that this, this next one, the Spokane fire complex now confirmed to be the most destructive wildfire in Washington state. And, um, and of course the climate change and the governor, everybody getting up there talking about climate change and all that stuff. It turns out the daily mail even did this article here, arson suspect arrested here. And then, so setting these fires. [00:07:14] Ian Burns: I was just reading about in the Washington post, he had waterproof matches and a butane lighter. So he, he was committed and he also has a 2012 conviction for manslaughter. This individual. [00:07:31] Jim Chek: Yeah. So, you know, like everybody use these in the podium to get up there and talk about climate change. We're going to see the same thing here in the Okanagan. Some people use these things. You see it all over X right now. Climate change is real and all that. Yes, the climate's changing, but these, many of these fires are either accidentally caused or, or intentionally caused. And, uh, especially interface fires that are near homes. Right. And, and more has to be done with wildfire mitigation. I, I, again, advise a bit, go watch BC is burning. Uh, we're going to have Gavin Dew on later here to talk about, um, some of the jobs in the forestry sector. 23 mills gone in British Columbia right now in the last is 2023. 23. And, and if there's no mills operating in British Columbia, I'm not know, but less mills, 23, less mills operating in British Columbia since 2023. That means that much less wildfire management is happening here in British Columbia. We had Ravi Parmar on. Ian and I interviewed him. He's the forest minister. We asked those questions. I recommend people go go watch those interviews as well. We talked about forest management and we even brought up like what's being done in the provincial and national parks. And, you know, the carny liberals right now want to basically set aside 30% of Canada as a national, um, park or I guess a national, uh, refuge so they can't be touched. Who's going to do the wildfire management in those parks? Uh, Murray Wilson brings up that question. Who's going to do it? Like, are we just going to let it burn? Because, you know, like as these forests get old, young for the best place to be for forest fires, like for risk of forest fires is, is where an old fire was because those, those, uh, new forests don't burn that easy, right? It's, it's the dry old forest, the really old ones that have, you know, like, like needles piled up and just old, uh, old growth dried out. And that's where you're seeing a lot [00:09:22] Ian Burns: of that fire. Fuel, they call it. Fuel. That's right. Fuel. The professionals. But I was, um, quite intrigued. I mean, I'm not surprised at all. Talk about predictions. We predicted, and I can remember waffling on at length about this, that the climate change, um, fanaticism, the sort of left environmental political extremism that colors itself with climate change, that that wasn't gone. A lot of people were talking about that as a, as a, a dead donkey. And we'd moved on from that sort of thing. I knew in my bonds, I knew that was wrong. I knew, I knew it would come back. And I seem to think, I can't remember exactly what I said, but I seem to think I said, once there are massive fires, it'll be back. And if you check out the latest polls from the big, um, Canadian polling companies, it's back, it's back. It's back. Like they're, they're talking about it. Like they they've, that is how, um, it, it, it hurts me to say it. It's painful to say it, but that is how simple-minded the average voter apparently is. They'll just drop it for ages. Then they'll see CBC reports and CTV reports about, um, wildfires somewhere and hear the words climate change said over and over again. And then the next time a pollster forms them up, they'll say, yeah, I'm really concerned about climate change. It's lit. It's literally that easy. There's nothing else. There's nothing else involved in it. There's nothing else to it. It is literally just create this, um, very unserious unscientific link between those two things or between, you know, CO2 emissions in Canada and wildfires, just create that link. And then suddenly people are back on it and you've got Elizabeth May coming out. She's overjoyed. She's, she thinks that she can win the by-election in BC just based on this. So it's back. It's all it takes is this kind of thing. So then you might ask yourself like, what you just said, what are they just going to let them burn? I don't know. I mean, it's awfully cynical to even, um, suspect this, but it is possible. Is it not that some people have lined up their, um, their motives with things like this and they've thought, you know what, maybe we can get what we want if this happens. And it's just some [00:11:47] Jim Chek: fires up in the brush. They fail to mention every time why, you know, like they even did say, oh, there's more wildfires in, in, uh, British Columbia or wherever they failed to mention that. Yeah, there's a lot less wildfire management too. There's a lot less fire breaks because there's less mills operating. And if you watch Ravi Parmar, that interview with Ravi Parmar and us, it's not all Donald Trump. It's, it's China. We can't compete with China. They're foresting their, their, um, lands and they're using a, a faster growing tree and they're undercutting prices. And the same thing's going on in South America. We can't compete in the United States. They can compete better because they have private lands right now. They, the timber and in all the uncertainties and just getting permits and all that. We have a major problem here in British Columbia and in Canada in general, especially in the uncertainty of the land base. And a lot of it has to do with, with forestry management. And then, you know, like they blame the lazy media, the lazy media. I don't know if they're just lazy or they want to drive narrative. We'll just go to climate change. Like the climate started the fire, nothing to do with, with mitigation. Well, the reality is going to hit a lot of people too, is because the insurance companies are going to stop insuring places. I've talked to insurance companies. They're going to literally take a look at your house and going to see if it's surrounded by pine trees. And they're going to say, either you're going to pay like a ridiculous premium or they're going to say no. Then here it is, this other one here, and this is the Spokane police, you know, you know, they, they would like, a lot of the people would rather go without, you know, nobody ever being arrested for this kind of stuff. Like Ian said, they, you know, he's had lighters and everything. And, and, you know, like people lost their homes and everything. And then these people, I don't know why, you know, like what this person's motivation was, we don't know the motivation yet, whether he's driving climate narrative, but we've seen some of those fires driven by people that are really, I mean, maybe anti-government or really trying to push a narrative. But I mean, a lot of these fires, especially interface fires, purposely caused or accidentally caused interface fires. And then we can do more, we can absolutely do more. [00:14:06] Ian Burns: They might be anti-human as well. There are a disturbing number of people whose primary motivation is just to hurt people, especially if they feel like they're losers and other people around them are winners, you know, that sort of connects to what Marco Rubio said. Though he blamed that all on the left in general, but there are people, not even necessarily political people who just, I mean, you look at these streets here, you look at these neighborhoods in Spokane, and they look very nice, don't they? They look like very nice suburbs. You can imagine if you're a complete freak, swallowed by bitterness and hatred of everyone else, and you blame everyone else for your own failures. If you're walking around somewhere like that, and everywhere, signs, TV, radio, everything is sent, it's really, really, really dry. Don't even think about lighting the match anyway. Don't, don't have a campfire, don't do anything. Don't even have a barbecue because otherwise you'll burn the town down kind of thing. You can imagine a really, um, bitter loser walking along saying, you know what? I think I might light a match. [00:15:12] Jim Chek: And then we got some local ones here too. This is along the lake shore here. Um, taking a look at this as the boats are watching, you know, houses burn here in the Okanagan. This is in the North Okanagan here. Just what about, uh, 60, 70 kilometers north of us here up the lake. [00:15:34] Speaker 3: Wild. So sad. Our friend's place is the only place right here that's not on fire yet. We've got a pump [00:15:54] Jim Chek: going. Soaking it down. That's good. I mean, I've raised this concern several times and, uh, you know, I said, why, why does it not the Okanagan invest in a like giant pumper boat or a big barge with big pumps on it? Like you see them in the New York Harbor there. And I raised it with Murray Wilson and I've raised it in the past with Colson Aviation. I've raised it in the past with, with tons of people, because a lot of times, obviously along the lake shore, people want to put their homes along the lake shore. And, um, you can see that and the trees are covering it. And another thing with the forestry, why not give offered free timber to the forestry companies, just take the timber off away from the homes and then plant deciduous trees around those homes instead of having all these massive pines laying right on top of homes. And all that would be fire mitigation. And that massive pumper boat could just pump streams of water. You see them in, like I said, in the New York Harbor, and they got like six, seven streams coming off them when they're fighting fires on boats and stuff like that. Why doesn't the Okanagan, uh, invest in one of those pumper boats? I think Tolko used to have one when Tolko mill was operating here, but you could put them literally on a barge. You could put a bunch of pumps on there with a big diesel generator and just tow it up and down the lake. Anyway, go watch the, uh, interview with Murray Wilson that I did as well. Mitigation. What are we doing? What are we doing to mitigate wildfires and their effects on homes that are burning down? We got another one here from, uh, this one is really scary as they drive through the fire. [00:17:35] Speaker 4: Okay, TikTok. This is me, Dimples. I'm using Louie's TikTok to take a picture. Our reserve. I was posting this morning and our power lines are down. We lost our house, our neighbor's house, our niece's house above us. It's all on fire and we're, we're trying to go around all these power lines that are down on the road. Kathy Lawrence, or Marchand's house is gone. Kathy G, her house is gone. You guys said we have to go in the arms. That's weird. Ooh. I'm sorry, I'm cringing because we've got to go duck under these power lines and everything. Oh my goodness. Raymond's hay shed and hay is all burnt. Kathy's house down there where the red vehicle is, her log house is gone. Hay shed. Oh my goodness. Up here, this trailer up here is gone. [00:18:50] Jim Chek: Right there. There you go. That's, that's good. That's good. It's a longer video. If they get later, you can go find them. You go later in that video, they're actually driving through active fire. And, um, I mean, I can, I've experienced that myself when I worked for Alberta forestry as a youth, as a youth way back when. And, uh, it's scary when you're driving right through active fire because you can't see sometimes. And, uh, when the fire is hot, like when it's hot, when it's a wall of flame, like there's no fighting it. Right. Because you know, like the helicopter is dropping, it basically turns to steam as it's dropping on there. Right. So you got to put something in front of it, right. You got to put a break in there. And it's just, um, when it's, when it's hot like that, like, you know, when they say in the category, I think I'm in the category five or whatever, like, if you just, there's no putting it out, it's removing the fuel. So we could British Columbia or in a lot of places could spend more time mitigating. Again, watch the interview I did with Murray Wilson. Do we, can we put that one in there, Nick? Can we find that one that Murray Wilson interview I did with them? And then when the fire shows up, we've done some work here in Kelowna and we had a fire up on Knox and it just basically put it out right away because of all the mitigation work they've done. You got to remove the fuel. Fire needs two things like fuel and then air, right. And wind obviously whips up a fire, dry heat and stuff like that. But if you remove the fuel, can't burn, right? Especially around your homes, right? You really got to start to taking a look at your home and, and, and making sure that I, I had, I think 20 pines around my home, like laying on top of my house. I took them all out and I hired a guy. He came there and he just lopped them all off and I gave the firewood away for free. And, and I put in deciduous trees. I took all the, all the fuel away from my home. Everybody can do that, right? [00:20:43] Ian Burns: It's also interesting. I mean, we're talking all about fires here and everyone's talking about fires. It's important to bear in mind that 2026 has been one of the, um, one of the least fiery seasons ever. Or in recent years, I should say. And 2025 was one of the lowest in, I can't remember how many years. I'm talking worldwide here. So, I mean, it's, when you think of it in that way, that actually less, less area is burning around the world. But then you look at Canada, you know, what, why is it happening particularly badly here? That's quite an interesting question, isn't it? [00:21:27] Jim Chek: Well, we just look at the Jasper Park fire. Look at the Jasper Park fire. Half that town burned down. And what did they get to the podium right away? The Liberal government got to the podium right away and blamed it on climate change. And then the reality showed up, the truth showed up. And like I said, in that Murray Wilson interview, they had letters from multiple foresters saying that this is a disaster about to happen. This is a disaster about to happen. And the government did nothing about it. And then the Liberal government tried to blame the provincial government. And it was clearly a national park under the purview and care of the federal government. Just nonsense. And yet the CBC and them, they don't tell the real story. They don't tell the truth. They just come up with climate stuff. And then the internet gets full of people screaming about it. And then they get the cover they need to do anti-energy policies and taxation policies and all these things. Well, what I just said there, have you, [00:22:27] Ian Burns: have you heard that? Has anybody heard that mentioned? I'll even, I'll put it in here so Nick can open this, open this story that I just found. This is from the Associated Press. This one here beneath the Vernon video. It's just quite important. I mean, I do watch CBC and I listen to CBC radio for my sins, for my troubles. And I can't remember ever hearing them mention this. And yet, left wing or left adjacent, whatever you want to call it, news media in the United States, the Associated Press, global burning is decreasing. Interesting. [00:23:20] Jim Chek: That's what I mean. It's a narrative and they drive narrative. That's what we try to do on this show. And you can help us. What we try to do on this show is bring truth and reality to bring absolute truth and common sense and just ask better questions. And that's, that's kind of one of our dreams is asking better questions in the pursuit of truth, right? Asking better questions in the pursuit of truth. That's what a journalist should do. Ask better questions in the pursuit of truth. Not go to the podium already with a, you know, like where the producer's in the ear there and say get a, get a quote for climate change. Get a quote for climate change. They should be asking better questions. When somebody says something, we should be pushing back against it and saying, why, why, why? A lot more. We spend billions and billions of dollars in British Columbia on fighting fires. How much do we spend? We spend a minuscule amount in mitigation. Weird. Don't you think? And then with all the forestry companies gone, this is key. And we're going to talk to this about Gavin Dewy. He's going to join us at 10:30. 23 forestry companies lost in British Columbia since 2023. Think about that. That's all that wildfire management gone. Who's going to pick it up? Who's going to, who's going to, who's going to take up the mantle? And a lot of it has been driven by policies in British Columbia and in Canada for that matter. Well, let's get to what we want to talk about. And sorry about all the people that lost their homes. It's all too, too common here in the Okanagan over the years. We were evacuated in '03 fire, Okanagan Mountain Park fire. And you know, that's a relatively new forest back there now. And you know, like I said, the safest place to be is where there's been a fire in the past because it's a new growth forest. Think about that. That's why forestry companies do the good work, right? And they, they regenerate the forest, the young forest. Finland has a similar type boreal forest to Canada and they have a, like a very new forest overall and they hardly have wildfires. Go watch the interview with Murray Wilson. And Nick can put that in there. That'd be great. But here it goes. We and I have talked about this. You know, they talk about all, you know, like they'll come on and say that, you know, like Mark Carney will say Canada's economy is doing better than the United States. You know, they'll say these things, you know, Canada's producing more jobs, more of this, more of that. The reality of the situation is that the market speaks. Here's Caterpillar. You know, I've talked about this many times. You know what you need to make factories and build and build things. You need bulldozers. You need tractors. And Caterpillar posted second quarter earnings that beat Wall Street expectation as the company's power generation equipment continue to drive revenue growth. They have backlogs into 2030 for equipment. Like, think about that. That's how much like the cat, you know, you can put in that. You know what that means though, don't you? If they've [00:26:19] Ian Burns: got these backlogs, that means that they need hundreds of thousands of immigrants to come in [00:26:25] Jim Chek: to work at Caterpillar. Yeah, just put the link to the Murray Wilson interview there just in the comments or if people can go watch that at a later time. Or if you can go find it on on our X as well. Or sorry, on our YouTube channel. But let's watch this clip here on from Bloomberg here on this here. Cat. The cat. [00:26:47] Speaker 5: I feel like it used to be this kind of like joking thing people would say at the beginning when Caterpillar was starting to enter sort of the AI power business saying, oh, great. I guess AI, Caterpillar is an AI company now. After this earnings season, can we definitively say, yes, [00:27:00] Speaker 6: Caterpillar is an AI company now? Well, this will help clarify that narrative in investors' minds for sure. There had actually been some questions, of course, across Wall Street about the AI rally, AI infrastructure spending. Now you have this company reporting a record backlog, $72 billion at the end of the second quarter. They said on the earnings call, they're getting orders for power equipment to power data centers out to 2030. That's good. I've been talking to investors this morning. [00:27:28] Jim Chek: They listen to that, a backlog of equipment like that to 2030. Just, I mean, these are the leading indicators, right? As you put tractors or cats into the field, that means they're building, they're constructing. And what that means is there's jobs, right? That's an economy that is on the launch pad. It's literally sitting on the launch pad. Electrical demand for electricians and electrical engineers is off the hook, off the hook. And go back and read our comments there on our predictions there. That's the, you know, getting your hands dirty. Like this is, this is an economy set to boom and cat. You know, I've driven many cats in my life too. But when I worked in the sawmill industry, I was mostly an old cat place, right? And then the CNBC on manufacturing comes in much hotter than expected, 55.5 or 55.6. Best number since May of 22. You can put that next slide up there. Next one. There you go. I mean, the numbers in the United States are like, they're hot. Like that economy is slitting on a launch pad. And in Canada, not so much. And I'll show you the energy one here. This is, this, this is, this is a great story. This is a Fermin's home country there. BP, one of the giants, British Petroleum. And they win, they were kind of like, you know, when, when all these anti-energy policies of the UK and Canada and the United States were vogue, were in vogue, BP kind of said, well, we're going to pull back. And they, they started doing, you know, like these, whatever, these green fuels and different things. Well, they're saying that we're not, we're done with that. Going all in on what they do best, oil and gas. But they're shedding assets. [00:29:25] Ian Burns: That's the name, isn't it? What's that? The clue is in the name of the company. [00:29:31] Jim Chek: Well, they were shamed out of it though, right? They were told, oh, you can't do that. So that they were doing all these other things that made no money. The huge losses from when they tried to shift their business. So they sold their biogas. [00:29:44] Ian Burns: It's because they feel like they have permission. They feel like they can do it now, don't they? [00:29:48] Jim Chek: Yeah. They, they sold their biogas stuff. They sold a lot of assets in Canada, including they, they, they got out of the asset in, in, in the North Sea and the UK. And then, you know, if you watch the interview with the CEO, Meg, she's a no-nonsense, no-nonsense kind of girl, lady or whatever you want to call it. She just basically said, you know, we're shifting our focus and we're going to put our money where it's going to receive the best capital. And she said, and a lot of that work is happening in Gulf of America. So she wasn't worried about, you know, woke police on her words. She just said Gulf of America. And she used the words Venezuela. So BP is going to go invest in Venezuela and pull out of the North Sea and pull out of Newfoundland there too, Bay to Nord, pulling out, pulling out of the North Sea. And what she talked about, if you go listen to that interview, what she talked about there, it's the, they need certainty. They need to know for certain that, you know, they're not going to get kiboshed later on with regulatory burden. And they're picking Venezuela over Canada and the United Kingdom. You need to let that sink in. They're picking Venezuela over the United Kingdom and Canada. [00:31:10] Ian Burns: You can't blame them, particularly when it comes to Britain with a 78% tax on profits or whatever the hell it is. Like who in God's name, who in their right mind is going to invest in a place like that? I mean, they've done absolutely everything they can to scare them away. [00:31:30] Jim Chek: We've got a short clip here from Bloomberg here, just a short clip on the interview with her. You can go watch the full thing on Bloomberg. [00:31:37] Speaker 7: I think the North Sea is going to be putting up its North Sea assets up for sale. What has motivated that decision? And is there anything that the current UK government can do to change your view? [00:31:49] Speaker 8: Yeah, that's a decision that was not made lightly. The North Sea has been part of BP's history for more than 50 years. And the rock quality is still good. We still think there is untapped oil and gas potential in the basin. But when we are really rigorous and we look at the data and we ask ourselves about free cash flow generation, return on investment, resilience through a low price scenario, and we look at the UK North Sea, it just is not competitive within our portfolio. Now, that said, we've had plenty of companies come knocking at our door expressing interest in buying the assets. So I am confident that the fields will continue to be well managed in other hands. But it's simply a question around capital discipline and capital allocation within BP. And one of the things I tell governments all around the world is when we think about our investment decisions, where we're going to spend money and generate return for 20 to 30 years, we want to have certainty that the fiscal terms are not going to change. So I have spoken with the prime minister, I've given him these same messages, I've said, look, there's an opportunity. [00:32:54] Jim Chek: What she says there, where she tries to veil it very nicely, is clear as mud, right? It's certainty, right? And they just don't trust the governments. They trust the Venezuelan government more than they trust Canada or the United Kingdom. [00:33:16] Ian Burns: Well, it's not so much, yeah. I mean, they trust America's boot on Venezuela's throat, I suppose you could put it that way. [00:33:22] Jim Chek: But they get more certainty out of that because they're worried in these governments, because they're looking at the past, because the past tells you the future, right? The past will dictate the future. And if you look at the past in Canada, how many billions of dollars were put into building pipelines here in Canada, only to get them shut down? And there's no repercussions, right? They're just basically, well, it sucks to be you. Sucks to be you. Off with you. [00:33:51] Ian Burns: And even now they think that they've got them on a leash and they can, you know, they can indulge them with a few crumbs and expect them to come to the table and beg. And then surprise, surprise, no private company is interested in building another pipeline. Like, who'd have thought that? But that's just the sort of haughty attitude that they have towards these companies, which, you know, in their own way, make civilization possible. But they've been, you know, disrespected and despised and reviled for such a long time. [00:34:28] Jim Chek: Speaker 1: Thank you to Diane there for the contribution. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Somebody says, you know, for contributing and someone says, "All that money goes to the bad guys when you donate." What? Are we the bad guys? Truth? Telling truth. Some people think in Canada, we did a show with Jasmine Lane. I think it was on Friday we did it with Jasmine. Was it Jasmine on Friday? I think so. Yeah. Speaker 1: And you know, you're talking about like, you know, she gets attacked as well. I mean, some people are really, really don't like the truth. Like they're really tough. Like some of the stuff that they're just, they're pushing back so hard, even if it's like right there in their face, like right there in their face, they just deny the truth. I'm not sure why. Here's, here's a harsh reality as well. When we're talking about economy, look at this for Germany. This is from Richard Diaz here. Look at this. This is the employment, um, growth there for non-growth for youth 15 plus. Look at that. Employment age 15 plus, not youth. Employment age 15. Look at that. What is, what has Germany done to their economy? De-industrialized their economy. De-industrialized their economy. Literally blew up their nuclear power generation plants. I mean, that's, I mean, now they admit that was a mistake. If you don't have cheap, reliable energy, you don't have a manufacturing base. And if you don't have a manufacturing base, you are not a middle power. Right? Like what, what would you build the middle power with? [00:36:04] Ian Burns: I mean, there's an argument. There's a question. There's an open question. Never mind middle power. Whether Germany is even sovereign. Is it even a sovereign country? Lots of people would say no. And they would say so proudly. They would brag about that. Such as the, um, moral disease that has infected the German people. But it's not, I mean, it's not necessarily a surprise, is it? If you look what happened in Germany in the 20th century. But the one thing they always had anyway, was an economy. That was what they, they diverted all their energies. They stopped trying to conquer Europe. They stopped all that malarkey, all that militarism. And they put all their energy into business. And you know, their, their glorious economy. But now even that is on the skids. It's, um, and it's not a coincidence that that's happened because we've, or as we have ended a sort of new geopolitical phase, where it's not, it's not the old way. It's not the old US chaperoned global system anymore. That's starting to rot away. And Germany is, um, you know, German, Germany's economy is suffering with it. [00:37:16] Jim Chek: Thank you to our moderators too. Cause there's obviously, we're attracting some people that don't like truth. They don't like the truth. Um, and this is the, this is the economy want we want to attach ourselves to the European economy. Cause Germany is the flag, the flag bearer for, for Europe. No, like, is there a stronger economy than Germany? Like, you know, throughout history, is there a better flag bearer than Germany for the, you know, the powerhouse? Cause it sure the heck isn't, you know, like some of the smaller countries and Hungary, Poland or what it, you know, France might argue that it, you know, it is, but is there a better country than Germany for, for the power of the European union? Other than the UK, which said, see ya, see you later. [00:38:01] Ian Burns: And even then that was just a lot of that was just banking international, like insurance and things like that. And, and, you know, London basically, it wasn't real hard power. And that's why the French might, you know, they might say, look, it's us. And in many ways it is in terms of real geopolitical strength. France is by far the strongest power in Europe. I would say they can just about feed themselves. They have nuclear power. So they, you know, basically power themselves. Um, they obviously have nuclear weapons and a military of some kind and a Navy of some kind, like, you know, they actually still try and have power. Whereas the Germans kind of gave up on all that thinking that it didn't matter anymore. Cause daddy, daddy, Sam, you know, America was just going to look after it and then they could get their fuel from Russia and they could find their markets in China. America would protect them militarily. You know, they had numerous, um, delusions. They were operating under numerous delusions simultaneously. And, uh, you know, all it took really for the wheels to come off, obviously things changed geopolitically, but they also had an incredibly foolish leader for quite a long time in Angela Merkel, who, I mean, she, she exacerbated all the problems that Germany faced just by being so dreadful and making every decision she made was the worst possible decision. She just [00:39:28] Jim Chek: did it again and again. We're going to have Martin Pelletier on later. Uh, I think at noon, we're going to have him on and he's going to, we'll, we'll bug him about the Japanese yen, the Canadian currency and all that. We'll leave all that for that. Um, because we know there's lots going on with that, but I did, I did want to point out like power generation in general and China has gone all in on, on solar. I mean, they say a lot of things, but they have done a, you know, a great job on solar because they don't have energy. Right. And then if you look at Germany and its virtue signaling and you talk about what they've accomplished with, with, uh, you know, solar energy, look at the chart here showing how China, what China has been able to do and what Germany has been able to do in solar generation, completely different. Right. But I mean, again, you have to trust the stats that come out [00:40:14] Ian Burns: of China as well, but. Well, China, I mean, for, for so many reasons, China is going to be at the top of that. It is the world's manufacturing. It's, it's not even, I mean, you say it's the world's manufacturing center. I mean, it's basically the only manufacturing center on the planet. It's like they, they are the builders of this planet. They also have an insane communist economy with no dissent allowed where they just, so if they decide that there's going to be infinity solar panels, there will be infinity solar panels. It's going to, they're going to be built. They, they build when excessive demand and then try and flood other markets with, I mean, you know, it's like economic warfare. So obviously they're going to build more because they're not building responsibly. They're not, they're not bounded by the realities of economics. They just build and then flood markets. And then the other thing that's very, very important, since this is measuring on the y-axis, this is measuring generation. China has sunshine. Germany doesn't have sunshine. Western China, which has a very small population anywhere, so that you can build more solar panels, the area is, you know, it's very sunny. Lots of parts of Western China are very sunny. So obviously they're going to have more. So, I mean, [00:41:29] Jim Chek: it's very sunny. But they've also, they're not just, they're not happy enough just to build their own economy up. They've also sent people out into the rest of the world, the Western civilization, and helped it destroy their economies with pushing and funding anti-energy policies and narratives. Brilliant. Hey, look at it. Here's one here, the global mail. [00:41:52] Ian Burns: China does not have a communist economy. LOL. Have you tried telling Xi Jinping that? So many people are just so ignorant of how China works. I mean, okay, yeah, they did have some economic reforms under Mr. Deng Xiaoping. But yes, it is still a communist country. [00:42:19] Jim Chek: Hundreds of protests met as planned data center in Alberta. And a lot of people are saying, are these paid protesters that show up? Because it's just weird, right? You know, a lot of the stuff that you talk about these protests, they're protesting about water usage. And if you go watch the interview we did with Global Traveler, many of these new data centers really don't use much more water than a golf course uses. So are they going to protest every golf course that goes up as well? Is that what they want to do? Because they should get at it, because golf courses use a lot of water. [00:42:49] Ian Burns: To be honest, I think they do have golf courses. There's a lot of anti-golf movements. There's probably a lot of crossover between golf hatred and data center hatred. Somebody here is like, we've got some China fans. Somebody's saying, China's very smart. They save money, work hard, and laugh at stupid westerns. China is so smart that they criminalized having more than one child while simultaneously experiencing a massive demographic collapse. And as a consequence, now they have no children. I mean, is that a smart country? Is that what smart people do? [00:43:29] Jim Chek: So this one here, you can see this start coming out. They say they're pulling back on immigration. But we're going to ask this question of Martin Pelletier. How many companies in Canada built their economic success out of high immigration? How many of them lobbied the government for high immigration? How many built their whole models around high immigration? I listened to a piece on TELUS stock this morning. TELUS hurting. The stock chart is way off. And they're saying they need to come back when there's more immigration because they really benefited well with immigration. Same as Rogers Communication. Ian talked about that, where they were relying on many new subscribers from immigration. And now they've got so many expired visas here in Canada that they don't know where people are. This immigration, how Lena Diab keeps her job, it shocks me. It literally shocks me. And then, you know, like we have no idea where people are. We had the former RCMP, undercover guy on, Gary Clement, telling us about all the transnational gangs and stuff like that in India, using lots of people, youth coming from India there and being used in the trucking industry for, for trafficking drugs across Canada. And now there's, you know, there's protests across Canada to keep these people that came here on these student visas. And then they wanted to get jobs and they were basically in these, what you call diploma mills here in Canada. A bunch of these pop-up colleges showed up, taking advantage of the situation, making nothing but bank. Who paid the price for all that? Who paid the price for these, the few that made bank off of it? You paid the price with less access to health care, rising inflation, rising rents, high crime, still suffering from high crime, and just less access to things. And then just, if you dared say anything, they labeled you, Mark, Mark Miller, he has still not answered to that. That's why they won't do interviews because there's so much in their past they are too scared to answer to. When he called people racist for questioning, he was wrong. He was absolutely wrong. Mark Miller should have to answer for that. Mark Miller was part of the, he was the cabinet minister for immigration. And he was asked a civilized question and he just labeled somebody racist. He should have to answer to that. He refuses to answer, refuses to answer to the Canadian public. And think of all the people that suffered. Think of the people that died on waiting lists. Who's going to answer to them? Mark Miller, who should answer to them? And then that stuff going on, like we talked about it on Friday's show, a lot of these liberalism policies that have permeated the Western cultures, the United Kingdom, Canada, you know, Europe, and much of the United States under the Biden administration, with open borders, you know, no borders. I mean, some of the Democratic Party right now is saying, never mind, no borders, no Senate, no Congress, no police. What is that? So if you don't have a society based on law and order, you might get this here. This, this thing, what's going on down in the, in, in, in, and I always going to get this wrong, Sunuda, Suda. You know, like the media is now saying that, oh yeah, they all went back. But then there's journalists, actually independent journalists that have gone there. The French journalist from Rebel News is there. I can't remember her name now. Laval, Lavalée. And then Nick Shirley's there. And you know, like he's had a knife fold on him. Like it's just crazy. And, and then the rebel news reporter is having rocks thrown at her because they're trying to report the truth. They're trying to show people, because you're not getting a lot of that from the mainstream media, who is still running narratives like migrants and a lot of European nations. This could break the European union because a lot of people are saying that this is, this is, um, like a breaking point. Sam Cooper put out this piece here too. I think he just responded to this one from Henrik. "Ever since the invasion of Suda, I have a strange feeling that the great tectonic plates beneath the EU are beginning to shift." And Sam responding, this is also what I previously called grievances united, the coalition of the states led by Russia, China and Iran. He's saying that they basically are trying to take advantage of this liberalism and anything Ian's pointed that out many times. China loves the liberalism. They just want you to adopt many of the bad things. Well, they took on the good things. They'll take, we'll take all the manufacturing. We don't want none of the nonsense and you take care of the nonsense. But it's like, [00:48:31] Ian Burns: sometimes people look at you like, um, you know, you've, um, you've converted yourself into Alex Jones and got yourself a tinfoil hat on or something. When you say something like that, like a lot of these countries will exploit the softness of the West. I mean that we literally have documents and quotes and effort. We have the evidence anyway, but forget that if you, if you're not keen on evidence, just imagine yourself for a minute sat in Tehran or Beijing or Pyongyang or Moscow or wherever the hell it is. Imagine just like sitting there and you're thinking, damn, that reason I like these Westerners. I need to get back at them somehow. They, you know, they've sanctioned me and they've thwarted my imperialist objectives, blah, blah, blah. What can I do? Are you telling me that it wouldn't enter their head that the Europeans are incredibly soft and ridiculous when it comes to random men breaking into their country? Are you seriously, are you seriously telling me that? It's just like, it stretches, um, one's ability to believe a little bit, a little bit too far. Like, sometimes I feel like people underestimate the West's enemies. They think that they're so stupid that they wouldn't see something obvious right in front of their eyes. Of course, it's a weakness. Of course, they exploited. [00:49:56] Jim Chek: This one here put out by Jason Kenney calling China strategic partner while Beijing helps Russia strengthen capabilities that we could eventually be directed against Canada. Arguably again, already undermines Canada, Canadian interests. Yeah. These are, these are just like obvious things like Captain obvious. Thank you. But like the liberal party of Canada selling to the Canadian public, like literally they don't seem to care, like selling to the Canadian public that China has a better partner than the United States without saying all the other stuff that's underneath that. It's just, it's just ridiculous. Even if they were doing it as a negotiation tactic, it's a really bad tactic because you're forming the opinions in some of these people. We've seen it through COVID. We're seeing it through climate change. Some of these people have had their brains kind of like, like melted and they're never going to be the same. Like, I don't know. How do you get it passed? Like, you know, you see that stuff coming out with Fauci and there's people screaming on the internet, people with academic credentials screaming that, you know, how dare we question Fauci? Just like, shouldn't we question anybody that had that much power over the people? Shouldn't that be like the norm? Shouldn't that be expected? It's just ridiculous. [00:51:05] Ian Burns: Jesse Kenny's been, this one that we've got here, this picture, this tweet, he's been doing, been saying some quite sensible things lately. Old Kenny. [00:51:14] Jim Chek: We've got a request out to Mr. Kenny. We've sent a couple of requests and we're going to send one out to Stockwell Day because Stockwell Day always had a lot to say as well. And he's basically saying, this is an invasion, not immigration. And he's talking about what's going on in Spain. [00:51:31] Ian Burns: But on China here, this opinion piece that he's talking about, what Jesse Kenny's talking about here. Oh, actually, no, sorry. He's quoting somebody else, isn't he? But something that goes into the radar here. It was literally a few years ago. I think it was 2021, 2022. I can't actually remember the year, not very long ago. Anyway, very, very recent, that the House of Commons voted, I think unanimously, there were some abstentions, but I think they unanimously voted to call China a genocidal state. Genocide. In other words, race killing, race murder, the racial murder of the Uyghur people and East Turkic ethnic minorities. The House of Commons of Canada declared China a genocidal state. So exterminating a race of people. That was a few years ago. Most of the people who vote for that are still in the House of Commons. That alone, how could you possibly go and suck up to the country? That a few years ago, you condemned for exterminating an ethnicity. I mean, I thought genocide was bad. Isn't that the thing that we all, isn't that like our moral sort of center point is that the Nazis committed genocide? They're extremely evil. Whatever we do, it needs to be the opposite of what they do, because they committed genocide. And then we go to Beijing and kiss the feet of a regime that we said was committing genocide a few years ago. I mean, what's going on here? That doesn't seem too complicated to me, but apparently it is to [00:53:23] Jim Chek: the liberal party. And here's some more of the liberal policies again. They did it twice in the media, the servile media. Falls for both times. Remember when Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland did the tacos and tinsel? That's what we labeled it as tacos and tinsel. When they gave you the GST break there just before Christmas, it's like, you're suffering? Oh, well, we've got a solution for you. We're going to take the GST off of tacos, chips, and tinsel so you can get that for Christmas. Tacos and tinsel. How's that? How's that? Feeling better now? Feeling better? As they sprinkle some crumbs to the, you know, like the screaming public that can't buy enough food for their families. And here are the same thing, same thing, just kind of repackaged, a repackaged liberal policy. The groceries benefit or the groceries and essentials benefit, right? As Ian said, enough for what? Like, you know, to buy a couple of weeks worth of groceries. To the bottom end of that rung, most people were getting checks of like a couple bucks. But Canadians and federal focus groups questioned the value of Cabinet's signature inflation fighting program. And that's from Privy Council Research. More needed to be done. Really? Again, thanks, Captain Obvious, right? While most were positive in the reaction to the announcement and expected those actions likely provide some assistance to lower and middle income households. Not much for middle income. And they believed they were struggling with the high cost of living. None felt the submission would be effective in making groceries and other essentials more affordable over the long term. Again, another podium pontification where the media didn't even ask questions. We covered that when we had the food professor on, too. Nobody even asked how they were going to pay for it and what it was actually going to drive for results. But they used it how many times they stood [00:55:13] Ian Burns: up in the House of Commons, "We're doing for Canadians what Canadians asked us to do." That was a pretty good voice. I'm going to keep that up. I don't know who it was, but it was good. [00:55:25] Jim Chek: We do thank everybody for the comments. We do love the support and we're okay with criticism as well. We're more than willing. But if you're just going to be a bot, then there's people in there that are going to bot you out. How's that? And thank you for those people that do that. You know, like champagne. We're talking about food security. I think it's something tax measures to help people. You know, my mother says everything is okay. You know, my wife, she's doing well. She get a bonus. You know, we don't lay no rail. We get still get money. I look in a bank account. Canadians are very generous. Hey, that's pretty good, right? I look at my bank account. Canadians are very generous to their champagne family. That is the truth. Canadians are very generous to the champagne family. Oh, yeah. Francois taking good money down, lots of expenses, and his wife working for Alto and that big fat pig that they laid on the table, $90 billion pig they laid on the table. And they said, well, let's carve off a piece for bonuses, even though we haven't done anything. And they said, Canadians are very generous. Hey, you are. You are a sucker. And here's the regular Canadians. We're going to play a little piece of this clip here. You know? 10 million Canadians. Food insecurity. That's from the Department of Agriculture. That's not Ian and I making up a staff. That's from the Department of Agriculture. In their quote, they said, "It's critical." Let's play a little bit of this clip. [00:56:54] Speaker 9: I'm going to play a little bit. He's 66 years old, living on a tight budget, and Stephen Hills can't believe how much he pays at the grocery store. It's getting out of control, especially for seniors on fixed income. Hannah Giffen has two young children. Filling this grocery cart with food for her family is never cheap. Every time you go in, the prices seem to seem to be higher. A new national survey shows 76% of Canadians say the cost of food and groceries has the biggest impact on household finances. 47% say gas is a significant financial pressure, followed by mortgage and rent at 33%. Electricity, household maintenance, and repairs. That's good. That's good. You know what's in control of this [00:57:42] Jim Chek: government? The energy policies. The energy drives everything. The energy policy will affect the food policy. Energy is everything. We want to drive that point home. Energy is everything. Taxing energy puts inflation into the system. That is the truth. The media won't tell you that. Putting a tax on energy won't fix the climate, but it will drive inflation. There's no doubt about it. That's the truth. Putting industrial carbon tax, carbon capture on our energy will drive inflation. Because that money could be going to you into policies and different things. And cheap, reliable energy could build greenhouses, like Ian said. They could do so many things. Energy, cheap, reliable energy is prosperity. Cheap, reliable energy is security. And what does our government do with it? Anti-energy policies. They're still existing. And the biggest thing they do to it, add inflation to the economy by putting taxation policies on top of our energy. Literally on top of our policies. In the United States, they don't have it. The largest economy in the world, they don't have it. And I can tell you right now, who wants to bet China has anti-energy policies going on? Do you think they do? Anybody in the comments that wants to tell us how China has all these anti-energy policies? [00:59:00] Ian Burns: They've got anti-right deviationism policies, but not anti-energy policies. No. And there's another thing, you talk about tax, you talk about cost of energy. Another thing that you need to remember, an old Michael Walker here mentioned that you talk about the price of a gallon of milk. Another problem in the Canadian economy, when it comes to food, is that special interest groups, pressure groups, very, very small numbers of highly organized people who control lots of resources, are pandered to. And they are given a priority over the mass of people in this country. Their interests are worth more than the interests of the people as a whole. Just look at any economy throughout history, any society throughout history. That is a recipe for, at the very best, stagnation. You know? That's why it's fundamental to capitalism. If you want a free, the free market, if you want the free market to actually work, you've got to be particularly vicious when it comes to smashing apart monopolies and special interest groups and other parasites that latch on to the energy of the market and suck the life out of it for their own ends while everybody else suffers. So I just want to say like, you know, like people [01:00:22] Jim Chek: say, well, you just, you know, whining here is not going to do anything. It does work, actually. It does work. We've seen it change. We've seen the stuff that we've done with John Carpe when you push back. And Helen actually reached out to, no, I can't remember her name, but we reached out to Helen, one of the MPs here in the British Columbia here. And they said they would come on. So we reached out and said, we're going to try to book an interview. So you can go to the reallybigshow.ca, go to the website, go to the bottom of the website there and you can reach out and ask MPs to come on the really big show. It's even filled out there for you too. You can use that or you can write your own thing. You can say, I'm mad as hell. I'm not going to take it anymore. But you can reach out. It works because we have an MP already saying, yeah, okay, I will. They'll listen to you, especially if it's on mass. Mark Miller, flood his email, flood David Eby's emails and tell him you need to come on the really big show and answer to the Canadian public. What Mark Miller did with immigration here in Canada, what he's doing with Heritage, what he's doing with all these bills that suppress your rights, he needs to answer the Canadian public. They get away with it right now because the media that they do answer to or go on are in their pocket, literally in their pocket. And they're not in their pocket, they're in your pocket. They just happen to transact it for you. [01:01:36] Ian Burns: I would also say that us having this chat and having this wine, you know, people might say that it's just futile and nothing happens, but, and I'm not going to credit this to us, but people like us having conversations like this, not just on YouTube, but also on places like X, I think are directly linked to Jason Kenney, who's a very prominent politician in Canada. I know a lot of people don't like him, but whatever. He is a very, very famous prominent politician in Canada. I think all this conversation and this, this new sort of, um, middle year has contributed to him the other day coming out and saying that supply management is trash and needs to be removed. Although obviously that's my summary of what he said. I don't think you would agree with the way I framed it, but like him saying that. And then another one that comes to mind is like Bob Fyfe coming out and saying, yeah, of course the media is biased against conservatives. Yeah. They're, they're pro liberal, like little things like that. You know, this whole little ecosystem that we've, um, crafted in this country, that's quite sort of fragile and small at the moment, but it's still there. I don't know. I think it, I think it does really make a difference. And I think that will ultimately smash certain sort of shibboleths and conventional wisdom and that can allow growth. Whereas the sort of fake media, the Potemkin media that Canada has, you know, in the likes of CTV, CBC, they never do anything like that. They never facilitate those conversations. They never facilitate any change whatsoever, unless it's change ordered by the powers that be. So it allows for like a little bit of organic kind of democratic, um, developments, I would say having this going. So I don't think it's completely wasted. [01:03:29] Jim Chek: Asking better questions in the preserve of truth. That's what media's job should be. And it is to kind of motivate you to stand up and, and, and recognize that your voice is the most important voice there is. The vote is the most important thing there is. And free and fair elections is the most important thing there is because that's how we shape our countries and our nations. Right. And they need to hear that they can't do these lies and this deceptive behavior anymore. That the information belongs to you. Like we're going to talk about it in a little bit here about the COVID vaccine stuff. Think that 15 years of they're going to seal the records. Unacceptable. Unacceptable. Food professor. We interviewed him last week. Look at this. If you're a bacon lover, July, 2026 was certainly not your month. Look at the price that jumps. We can't keep putting up with this, right? We can't keep putting up with this. This, this government anti-energy policies drives a lot of this. Like the tax on diesel fuel. Right now, diesel is the most important fuel in Canada because we have a vast nation, second, second largest landmass in the world. And the way that stuff moves around Canada is with diesel fuel. Look at the price of diesel and look at how much of it is taxation. Remove the bloody tax off diesel. If you care about the people in this country, you care about people going hungry, remove the tax off diesel, remove the taxation from diesel and scrap your carbon capture and make energy plentiful. And you will see an economy boom. We could join the Americans in this rocket ship that's about to blast off in the United States. But this is what we do. Here's what we do. Anita Nand doled out 125 million in foreign aid to Brazil. We talked about how many times on this show. And if you look at Brazil's GDP versus Canada's, shouldn't we be asking them for money at some point? Like what literally in the heck, H-E double hockey sticks or whatever, is going on with Anita Nand and the doling out of money? How much of this actually goes somewhere? And this is for climate change again. And that's where they had COP, was it COP26 or whatever it was? COP30 or... [01:05:40] Ian Burns: 30, I think. Yeah. [01:05:41] Jim Chek: COP, where we just cop you out, you know what I mean? Like you're going to co-op somebody that's just to steal your money. Literally, it's just a joke. [01:05:53] Ian Burns: It's hard to believe, isn't it? I love that picture of Anita Nand looking like... It's like, I dole out money. I'm going to fix this place. I'll sort it out. As she does an incredibly stupid thing. [01:06:06] Jim Chek: And Holly Doan of Black Locks, they highlight fraud, waste, abuse, corruption, incompetence, whatever you want to call it. But look at this one here. You almost got a laugh. None of it housing agencies applied for taxpayer financing to build the costless rental properties in Canada, the equivalent of nearly 2.5 million per townhouse. Why not? The vast majority of the territory residents live in public housing. None of it continues to experience the most severe housing crisis. So do you think we could build houses less than 2.5 million per townhouse? And have you seen some... I've worked in construction in northern communities. I've never seen any worth two and a half million dollars. So where's the money going? Is the better question. Where's the money going? [01:06:54] Ian Burns: But it's also like... We're talking about none of it, lads. Like, we're not talking about downtown Toronto. We're not talking about Manhattan. [01:07:01] Jim Chek: Land is basically free. We're talking about none of it. It's quite a bit of room. [01:07:06] Ian Burns: Cheap land, you would think? Cheaper than Manhattan, anyway. [01:07:10] Jim Chek: So their 2026 submission requested $990 million to build 400 affordable rental homes. You know who's paying for that? Yeah, that's you. You. You can afford it, right? [01:07:30] Ian Burns: It's people like that woman, though, that we just saw freaking out about how expensive her groceries were with her kid. Yeah, you're paying for this. This is where your taxes go. [01:07:41] Jim Chek: Go to thereallybigshow.ca. Go to the bottom. Find an MP. Find 10 of them. Just start sending them letters to come on thereallybigshow.ca. Say to be accountable to the Canadian public. Be accountable. Have some courage. Have some courage. We'll ask you fair questions. We've done tons of interviews. We've done interviews with NDP, with Liberals, with Conservatives. We'll do an interview with anybody. We'll even put the bubbles on for Abby. Abby Lewis, if you want to come on, we'll run bubbles. Well, that would be really cool, right? Because we make you feel comfortable. We'll ask you some questions. And Elizabeth May, if you come on, Ian will put on a bunch of what you call flair, right? You'll put on all your flair. [01:08:27] Ian Burns: What could I do? So for Abby Lewis, I'll wear a keffiyeh. What could I do for Elizabeth May to make her feel good? I could get like a little teddy bear. [01:08:35] Jim Chek: How about you cut half your hair off? Half your hair off one side. [01:08:40] Ian Burns: Yeah. I'll dye it purple, maybe. And dye it green. There you go. I'll dye it green. [01:08:44] Jim Chek: You'll dye it green for the show if she comes on. Elizabeth, come on. Right there. See, we're willing to make sacrifices. I do want to plug something, because we're going to get it out. Ian and I did interview the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra. I believe it was on Tuesday, wasn't it? Or when was it? [01:09:05] Ian Burns: No, it was Thursday. [01:09:06] Jim Chek: Thursday. Right. Thursday. Otherwise, we would have had it out. We did it on Thursday. So we're going to put together a little package at the end here. We're going to get a promo and then we're going to start bringing out the pieces. It was a really good interview. It was a good get as you go. And we have plans to go to Washington here. I'm going to talk to Ian about that after this show as well. This little engine that could is trying to do as much as it can with what it has to get the word out. And you can help too. You can literally help by sharing, subscribing, donating where you can. But the biggest thing you could do is make sure you're subscribed and get your friends to subscribe. You know, like get 10 friends and say you got to watch the really big show. Get them to watch and follow and bring people to the truth. Because, I mean, I challenge anybody to say what we're saying isn't true. Because most of the stuff is based in data. Right. Another one from Black Locks. Canadian Revenue Agency turns a blind eye to rich taxpayers and corporations when it comes to audits. But not to you, though. Right. Public skeptics can follow a significant drop in audits targeting wealthy tax filers. Well, let's think. Which is the largest tax dodger, alleged tax dodger, you can use the word alleged, tax dodger in Canada? Who's that? Six and a half billion dollars allegedly dodged. Who's that? Right. Brookfield. Didn't Mark Carney say he was going to fix that loophole? As soon as he got in, is that one of the promises? And how is that coming? How's that loophole doing? Who cares? Right. I'm in. [01:10:45] Ian Burns: We're going to fix loopholes at speeds we didn't even think were possible. [01:10:50] Jim Chek: Where's the questions on that? Where's the media? Is it just like the list? Just like there are questions like climate change. What are we going to do about climate change? Oh, we got a taxation for that. We got tax. Tax will fix that. And then Evan Solomon, one of the biggest, even Jason Kenney, I think, went after Evan Solomon. Like, you know, Evan Solomon is like, Canada is leading the world in AI. Do you believe that? Evan Solomon, former CTV. You've got to say very prim there. Canada is a leader in AI. Canada has some of the best AI people in the world. [01:11:21] Ian Burns: He's got a very scratchy voice as well, hasn't he? And he's a bit too confident considering his abilities. [01:11:28] Jim Chek: Here's our chart of the week here from our friends at Wealthsimple. If you don't have Wealthsimple, go get it. One of the best financial platforms in Canada. Where's Canada on this chart? Canada's top AI models. Where are they? Where? They're the red ones. Yeah. So they disappeared. [01:11:50] Ian Burns: Better than some other countries. What's that? Better than some countries. I don't see Luxembourg on there, our great rival. [01:12:02] Jim Chek: For leaders, you know what? It's America and China. And China looks like it's winning a race here. And in all we get from, like, the economist she interviewed, Elon Musk. What's her name? She's got a goofy name. Zany or something? [01:12:20] Ian Burns: Zany. Just a posh, posh English woman's name. [01:12:27] Jim Chek: Her big question is like, oh, we should regulate this. We got to get that. Of course, in a European's mind, right? First thing comes to mind. When are we going to regulate? When do you think the Chinese are going to regulate? When do you think they're going to regulate? Should we just, you know, regulate and pontificate for a while and just let China win the race and then see what happens? I think that's a good idea? Zany? That should have been a question. Nah. Nah. And this should be like a headline story everywhere. One in 10 emergency physicians leaving Canadian ERs. Meh. Eh? Meh. [01:13:07] Ian Burns: Have you ever been treated in a corridor? [01:13:19] Jim Chek: I've been, spent time in the corridor, yeah. And my mum was dying. She spent, she wasn't in the corridor, but I walked by the same people for weeks that were in the hallways in Kelowna, Kelowna General Hospital for weeks, literally in the hospital hallway for weeks. Weeks. [01:13:35] Ian Burns: Correctful. It's so embarrassing as well, isn't it? Just to be there in public. [01:13:41] Jim Chek: But hey, let's get immigration going because Tim Hortons needs people. A&W needs cheap staff. IntelliCom needs cheap staff. Rogers Communications needs more subscribers. And TELUS needs more subscribers. So, you know, like, let's get that going, right? Because, you know, [01:13:59] Ian Burns: we need that. And the regulators and the colleges and all the rest of it, they need to continue to have their prominent position, don't they? [01:14:08] Jim Chek: Conestoga, he needed that $600,000 salary, right? He needed that. And then, plus he got a beautiful sunset thing, right? So, you're allowing these politicians to do this to you. You're allowing these politicians to do this to you, to treat you like vermin when you're sick, and your family like vermin when you're sick, so that they can run benefits for the few, you at the expense of you. You pay for it. [01:14:34] Ian Burns: Well, we're also talking about CRA just a minute ago. They also treat you like a rat. If you do anything naughty or you're under any sort of suspicion with your tax returns, you know, it's like you will be hunted down. [01:14:46] Jim Chek: And then when it comes to Brookfield, they do this. When they know there's six and a half billion dollars sitting there, they do this. I didn't see it. I didn't see it. Imagine how much funding they could do for six and a half billion dollars. Just sitting there. And Mark Carney, he said he was going to fix it. Thank you, Diana. Mark Carney. This is the National Post. Does Mark Carney want to lead the U.S. Democratic Party? We've said this many times. We said that the links between the Democrats and the Liberals in Canada is almost blatant at this point. It's just too obvious. They basically hired one of the Democratic operatives, high up operative there, to become Mark Carney's chief operating officer there. I mean, what more could you say? Like, you know what I mean? Like literally in there running staff. Crazy. [01:15:47] Ian Burns: I could say that about Justin Trudeau as well and his time. Well, his time in power and also now out of power. He just, I mean, in almost every way, he's just a Democratic Party politician. [01:16:04] Jim Chek: Well, here's another one here. This is one from Juno News. And this is our Dean Allison. Our Liberals getting their marching orders. They basically met with Obama and Alex Soros, right? You know when they had the Liberal Convention up here? Obama attended along with Alex Soros. And the next thing you know, they're hiring a Democratic operative to run Carney's, kind of like his chief of staff. Here's Melanie Jolie on stage. [01:16:35] Ian Burns: In recent decades, the Liberals have been accused of working in cahoots with the Americans, haven't they, on a number of occasions. There are ex-accounts, Twitter accounts, that basically spent, it seems to me, most of their time in the day complaining about Lester Pearson and his acquiescence to the Yankees on nuclear weapons. [01:17:12] Jim Chek: And then this one Ian's brought up many times. Some Canadians tell Mark Carney, like, his use of the language here. The prime minister under fire for his decision to change how the federal government spells words moving away from decades of Canadian style to British style instead. Why wouldn't you? The Canadian press agency has unearthed dozens of pages of comments sent by Canadians to Ottawa to explain their views on the change. One unhappy citizen wrote, "We're supposed to be enthusiastically pro-Canadian." And it's just all in the actions, right? It's all in the actions, isn't it? [01:17:52] Ian Burns: I mean, I totally agree with that. The guy who said, the guy here, he said, "Who thought this one up? Fools." It's just like, what's the point of this? What purpose does this serve? It's such a strange thing to do. And very expensive, I would imagine, and takes up a lot of time in people's heads. People who haven't worked in an office where there are professional writers, like literally people whose job it is just to whack out copy, they probably don't realize the extent to which a style guide, like especially a new style guide, the extent to which that will sort of colonize your mind, take up quite a lot of your time trying to think about, you know, you'll be saying, oh, how do we do hyphens or something? Or how do we spell this? You know, like that takes up a lot of time. You've got to like, consult your guide. I mean, what a weird thing to do. What an immensely strange thing for Mark Carney to have done. [01:18:57] Jim Chek: And then this piece here, the Liberal Party is flying high in the polls, according to Nanos, with the Prime Minister so comfortable in power that he has no obvious challenger among prominent conservatives. See, this is how they're even minimizing Polyev even more, because they're not, they're looking past him now, because they're saying, well, he's a dead duck. The survey found that Doug Ford, Harper, Polyev, Peter McKay, Rona Ambrose, Daniel Smith, Jean Charest, Lisa Rae, Jason Kenney, Mark Mulroney, Aaron O'Toole, Andrew Scheer, Leslie Lewis, Tim Husson, Jamal Giovanni, Caroline Elliott, all dwelling in Mark Carney's shadow. Do you know what I mean? By introducing all these characters, you're actually saying, you know, Pierre Polyev doesn't stand out. So do you know what I mean? It's just another shot across the bow. And it seems to be working in the minds of a lot of people when you talk about stuff living in people's heads. It seems to be quite effective. [01:19:52] Ian Burns: But it's also like, this poll is ridiculous, obviously. It was commissioned by CTV. CTV commissioned this poll. So is that a great idea to try and pick on the conservatives? I mean, I don't know why the conservatives are doing a very good job of, you know, self-executing. They're taking care of themselves quite nicely. I'm not sure why CTV decided that they should spend precious taxpayer resources to stab the Tories again. But the reason this is stupid is because none of these people, other than Polyev obviously, is even trying to replace Mark Carney. It's very different. People react to events. People don't react to theoreticals, like hypotheticals, you know, theoretical scenarios. They don't think like that by and large. Hence, if you've done this and you put Mark Carney in the list, however many moons ago, I don't know, before he'd before he even looked like he was going to come into Canadian politics, people probably would have said, no, I don't want Mark Carney, you know, because he wasn't on the scene. He wasn't a fact. [01:21:01] Jim Chek: He hadn't made it real yet. Well, just to add more to it, the Global Mail and newspapers disappointed if the Liberal Party's decision to spend $4 million taxpayers money on TV ads during FIFA, it amounts to partisanship messaging paid for with your tax dollars. The paper argued in the editorial referring to rules on such advertising has been loosened by the Liberals. Imagine that. The paper added is dangerous abuse of power, and if left unchecked, it will have negative effect on democracy. Really? The Liberals are blurring the lines between their party, the federal government, and Canada itself. Really? That's what they've done. They go after people like us too, and Jasmine Lanes and stuff like that, because they say even us introducing truths is anti-Canadian because they tie the Liberal Party to Canada. They believe the Canadian Liberal Party is Canada. The right to rule. And so they get, basically they said, they convince themselves, yeah, so what if it's against the, you know, like the rules or the laws or whatever? Do you not know who we are? We are Canada. [01:22:05] Ian Burns: Yeah. And credit to the Globe and Mail. This is actually, this is actually a good editorial. I would advise people to read it all. It's not long, really. It's quite, it must only be about two, three hundred words. But it's good. And it, um, you know, makes some very, very serious accusations against Mark Carney and the Liberal Party. It's, uh, it's worth your time. [01:22:31] Jim Chek: So this one from Black Locks, we'll just cover it briefly. They, you know, they've been talking about a flood insurance for, um, a long time. A long promised national flood insurance program would see homeowners at greatest risk pay about $350 in extra surcharges under threat of being disqualified from disaster relief. And that's from access to information records. The finance department has been working on this since 2020. Wow. Talk about speed. We're going to travel at speeds. Never seen before 2020. Okay. There you go. Uh, I'm just going to cover a few things because we've got Gavin due in a couple of minutes here. Firefighting, not an army job. Canada should stop relying on the military as firefighters. And that's from the department of public safety briefing note. Cameron has proposed creating its own version of the United States federal emergency management agents to handle wildfires. Why don't we spend some time with mitigation? Why don't we do that? Why don't we do that? Indeed. We got some market stuff I want to tell you about real quick here as we wait for Gavin due to pipe in here. Palantir, huge, huge. Otherworldly, as Alex Karp said, Palantir earns upgrade after big second quarter as analysts get bullish on AI business. Like they just, their quarter was like a boomer, like otherworldly. Like I think some of the numbers were crazy. And I'm just out of memory here, like 96% increase in revenues and crazy. And we're going to save this one here, but I'll just briefly touch on the US Treasury secretary signaled Washington and Toronto could reach a deal over the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz as soon as Tuesday. And that oil prices have dropped significantly as this, you know, like, I don't know how many times we've been here now. We've been to this dance a few times, but oil off dramatically right now this morning at $75.84 in West Texas Intermediate. Huge drop, huge drop as this looks closer than ever. And Western Canadians select at 67.99, right? So we'll talk more with Martin Palaszczuk energy. And this is like when the market does things like [01:24:48] Ian Burns: this, this is like where I just, I don't even pretend to be able to understand why they do things like that. I mean, Trump and the Trump administration has been saying this now for ages. It's almost like every day, every day, every day. It's like, we're very close. But then every time they move, the market moves [01:25:06] Jim Chek: every time on the set. I just, just let us know. I really don't understand it. We've got Gavin Dew there just getting set up there. He's putting, combing his hair and getting ready for the show here. I don't know if he's, does, do we need to do bubbles for Gavin? Or is he okay with just straight up the really big show? If you got any questions for Gavin Dew, you can chuck them in the comments there. Gavin Dew is going to join us here in a second. He's the MLA for Kelowna Mission here. And he's always very generous with his time when we ask him. We're going to talk about the job situation here in British Columbia, especially all the mill closures. We lost another mill. We lost a mill in Prince George. Like I said, 23 mills now in BC, I believe now since 2023. Two pulp mills recently. The one in Crofton Mill there on the island and then the Northwood pulp mill in Prince George. Devastating for those people that lose those jobs. Anytime you're ready, Nick. Okay. Scott Bessett there was making a joke. We won't play it right now, but Scott Bessett, he, I guess he was writing a note there and he wrote on his note, buy Japanese yen, JPY. And he said, I think it was like five to $10 billion. And then he made a joke. He said, yeah, cause you know, like the media going after him. He said, yeah, after that, I'm going to have a, have lunch with the Supreme leader and play tennis with Putin. Just having a joke. He's a sharp guy though. I wouldn't want to. Mr. Do. Hey, how are you? Thanks for joining us. You're live on the really big show. [01:26:58] Speaker 10: Good to be here. I noticed my head is much bigger than yours and I forgot. [01:27:01] Jim Chek: Oh, Nick's going to try and size you there. You're a little dark there too. Take it in your home office. I take it. [01:27:08] Speaker 10: Uh, you know, uh, today I'm actually in the basement of the legislature. I was just, uh, sitting down with some of our researchers to talk about, uh, the NDP's economic record and, uh, realized it was, uh, 1028 and I needed to be on at 1030. So I, uh, hijacked somebody's office and, and signed on. So, uh, here I am coming to you live from the legislature basement. [01:27:29] Jim Chek: Scrabble into the basement. Nice. Thank you for joining us. Um, of all the wildfires going on again. And then I had Murray Wilson and I'm not sure if you've watched that clip or not. And we talked a lot about mitigation and, and most of the, the mitigation being done or the wildfire forestry management being done by the, the, the industry. And if we lose that many mills, [01:27:53] Speaker 10: who's going to do the wildfire management. That's a really, really important point, uh, Jim, because you're absolutely right. We need to have active, uh, um, forest management practices, which generally have been done, uh, by industry. Uh, and we need to, to change our approach in that regard. I, I'm fond of pointing out, uh, that we spend about nine times as much fighting wildfires in BC as we do preventing them. Uh, I also like to point out that we produce, uh, about two to three times the emissions from wildfire smoke, uh, as we do from the entirety of human and industrial civilization. So if we want to be responsible about GHG emissions, if we want to, you know, be doing our part in the world, uh, around, uh, around environmental responsibility, then quite honestly, doing a better job around, uh, reducing and mitigating wildfires, you know, really offsets our ability to grow our industries, which produce prosperity and support our communities. So I look at it as let's try to reduce wildfires, uh, so that we can afford to grow industry, grow prosperity, and, you know, enable human thriving. [01:29:03] Jim Chek: And the forestry sector obviously hit really bad. And you're the, uh, the critic for, for jobs here, jobs and innovation. Another mill, uh, the one in Prince George, 300 jobs, good paying jobs too. And then plus all the economic benefits that those jobs spin off to in that community. Devastating for that print, [01:29:21] Speaker 10: that community has lost more than that mill. Absolutely, uh, Jim. And I heard you say 23 mills in the last few years. It's, it's, uh, my count is 30 mills, uh, since the NDP, uh, took office. So whatever way, uh, you counted over whatever time period, we've seen just devastating losses, um, to the sector, which as you rightly point out, that costs us the individual jobs, but it's also the talent that goes with it. Because when you have somebody lose their job, uh, in a mill, in a community, um, often you're, you're losing them and you're also losing their partner. So the number of stories that I've heard of, uh, mill workers, uh, you know, being forced to leave a forest dependent community. And well, it turns out that their spouse was a nurse. It turns out that their spouse worked in community services, worked in wherever. So we're really not just losing, uh, the individuals who are unfortunately losing their jobs at those mills. We're losing their contribution to the community. We're losing that local tax base. We're losing, uh, you know, that local little league coach. We're losing that local, uh, teacher or, or nurse. So the effect on communities is profound. [01:30:32] Jim Chek: And then we have all these wildfires. We have all these wildfires. They, they, the media and, and the government that steps to the podium, they don't want to mention the loss of 30 mills, which is basically the wildfire management, the mitigation component of it. And then, so, and nobody's picking it up. We had Ravi Parmar on the minister of forest and we asked that question as well. And then they, you know, like, obviously he admitted to that, but he also pointed out that the provincial parks and national parks really not even in the purview of, of the BC government as well. And, and little to no management goes on at all in those, in those areas, British Columbia. And then people keep getting fed that narrative that it's climate change, as opposed to where's forestry management in Canada. I mean, how much of Canada is covered in forests? [01:31:18] Speaker 10: Yeah, obviously a huge percentage of our land base, uh, is, is covered in forest. And, and to your point, Jim, if you are not actively managing forests, and if you are allowing, uh, flammable, uh, detritus to accumulate on our forest floors, uh, you are creating a tinderbox that is just absolutely ready to go. Uh, so we, we need to change our forest management practices, uh, to, to improve that. We've certainly seen, um, very active conversations, uh, you know, BC is burning the documentary that came out, uh, last year, earlier this year, uh, I think really contributed to shifting that conversation. There's that proactive forest management side, um, which is really important. And then there's also the ability to deploy technology to more effectively identify and suppress fires early, which is an area that is starting to move along, but this government has been no friend of that innovation. All the way back in 2017, uh, under an agreement with the green party, uh, there was actually a pilot project to use machine learning, which is artificial intelligence to identify and predict the paths of wildfires to be able to, uh, to address them earlier. And, uh, the NDP actually cut that program, uh, and shut it down. So we had an opportunity to be leaders in terms of technological innovation to fight wildfires. And we unfortunately flushed that opportunity away, uh, under this government. Now you have a wide range of really good BC based companies that are trying to do this innovation. And, uh, consistently, what I hear over and over again, and it's extremely difficult for them to actually get access to sell into government, to show their products to government. So just like every other industry in BC, we've got smart innovators here who are being forced to go outside of BC in order to sell their products, their wares, their services, uh, that are desperately needed in order to, uh, to prevent and suppress [01:33:21] Jim Chek: wildfires here. You know, watching the fires in, in Spokane here, um, and then along the lake shore in the north part of the Okanagan Lake here in this past couple of weeks here or past week. And then you look at the pine trees that are in there and then like, why aren't we doing more to mitigate, you know, like the, the, the fuel that's right around the homes is literally laying on top of the homes. Are we not educating, is there no money for it? Like, why aren't we mitigating this in the interface, especially removing the fuel from the homes? Yeah, absolutely. Uh, agreed, Jim. Right. And [01:33:57] Speaker 10: the changes that the government made around fire smart and some of those initiatives just make, make no sense. Uh, there's a lot more that we can be doing, uh, both led by industry and led by communities to try to minimize both, uh, fires starting and getting going, but also to minimize, uh, the risk exposure that our, our communities have, uh, to fires. Uh, so I think there's, there's a lot of opportunity for improvement there. Again, I'll be fair in saying there being some incremental moves toward at least having the conversation about more active forest management. Uh, but it's still, uh, to my mind, I just don't understand why that conversation is not being approached at the level of crisis that it is truly at both the conversation around wildfires, but also the conversation around our, our forest sector, which is in just absolutely catastrophic condition as a result of the policy carousel that, uh, this government has put it on. [01:34:51] Jim Chek: I'm going to have this last question for me and I'll turn you over to Ian here. Um, one of the things that Ravi Parmar, um, the forest minister said was that a lot of the, the forest receptor troubles is, is due to China, not necessarily, you know, the Trump administration, because this is happening over time is just that we can't compete with China because they afford us a lot of their land. They, they, they can do stuff a lot cheaper. They have less, he said it, they have less, uh, human rights there. They can basically one, one of the government said there is no human rights violation. Ravi said, well, and they can do a whole bunch of stuff with their, their workforce. And so how do we compete with China and South America? Cause that's where the pulp mills are going down. We've got cheap pulp coming out of the, out of South America. We've got cheap lumber coming out of like Russia and China and stuff like that. And Trump is, is part of that problem, but a lot of it having to do with, with China and other places like this. So how does BC compete? And, and again, I'm layer one more thing in there, but Americans seem to have been able to figure out a way to compete because they got a lot of private land down there and access to timber seems to be working because a lot of Canadian companies [01:35:55] Speaker 10: now are working in Washington. I mean, that sounds like a level of economic literacy and, uh, industry knowledge that I would expect from a minister whose only private sector experience was working at subway, uh, which is unfortunately Ravi Kalon's, sorry, Ravi Parmar's only private sector experience to my knowledge. Um, so the, the issue there is, is, is multifold. The first is, I think that people are really tired of hearing this government, uh, blame everything on Trump, uh, tariffs and softwood lumber, uh, you know, policies have not been good for us. Let's be totally clear. Uh, they have not been good. However, this has also been a government for nine years and many of their policy decisions long predate, uh, any of these terror conversations and many of their policy decisions have led to the weakness and instability, uh, in our forestry sector. We do certainly have a problem with, uh, economic, uh, you know, economically viable access to fiber. Uh, that's a, a huge challenge that, uh, you hear every time you talk to leaders in the forestry sector. Uh, I think it's very intellectually absurd to make the claim that somehow we can only have economic fiber if we have a Chinese human rights approach. That's nuts. It's absolutely insane to pretend that the, you know, the, the fundamental economics of our forest sector are non-economic because we're not human rights violators. And to, to, to just continually, uh, point at, at Trump, that's silly. There is a lot of forestry policy and a lot of policy more broadly that is 100% under the control of this government and they've been screwing it up for nine years. Uh, we cannot change single-handedly what's happening geopolitically. We can't change what's happening, uh, in and from America with regard to tariffs and other policies, but what we can do is actually create stability and certainty and predictability and work with industry to get our forestry sector back on its feet. Uh, and whenever I talk to folks in the forestry sector, uh, they decry the policies that this government has taken that have introduced massive uncertainty both for them and also more broadly on the land base with things like, uh, like DRIPA and related policies. [01:38:17] Jim Chek: Ian? [01:38:19] Ian Burns: I'm going to ask you a question about two, two of your job titles or two of the words in your job title, jobs and innovation, because you talked about machine learning, uh, a moment ago. Is it not true that in the future in the forestry industry, as in other industries, but we're talking about forestry here, innovation is going to lead to fewer jobs anywhere and automation of things like mills and processes like that. How, how do you square that circle? [01:38:50] Speaker 10: Thanks Ian. Um, I, I would, I would say your question is a good one, but I would remove the, in the future. Um, forestry is a, a really, um, good example of what is called skills biased job dislocation, uh, by economists. And it's not in any way, shape or form unique to AI, uh, or to the new, uh, the new technology. So think about any production facility. Think about any processing facility, uh, over time. There has been what, what again, economists often refer to as being, uh, labor capital switching. So you end up with less and less labor intensive, more and more capital intensive processes where you have, uh, certainly more automation, more mechanization, uh, more use of different, uh, different tools, um, in to increase productivity, uh, in those facilities. And with that often does come, uh, the gradual attrition, particularly of, uh, of, of lower skilled jobs that certainly has happened in our forestry sector as we've seen more automation. It's also happened in the oil and gas sector. Uh, if you go to Alberta and you see, uh, what the kind of resurgent oil and gas sector after the crash looked like, uh, it was often described as a jobless recovery, uh, in that a lot more automation, a lot more capital, uh, uh, assets, a lot more, uh, you know, mechanization, a lot more digitization came into the sector that that happens frankly, in, in every sector of the economy. And it's one of the dynamics that we need to be really attentive to as a government or as a government in waiting, because there are, uh, invariably those changes happening in every sector. The job of government is not to, you know, is not to just demand that innovation stop happening. The job of government is to be aware of where innovation is happening, uh, where it has the potential to impact jobs and to try to cushion the blow of those kinds of disruptive changes. So a lot of the time people point toward the forestry sector or toward other physical industries, which have been disrupted by technology, innovation, automation. And what they'll often point out when we talk about, uh, AI is that it is now disrupting jobs that were previously not disrupted. Um, there's a great book, uh, called, rise of the robots technology and our jobless future by Roger Martin. It's probably a decade or more old and it does a really good job of cataloging the ways in which job this location has hit factories. It's hit the resource sector. It's hit mills. Uh, and now it is, you know, the hungry maw of artificial intelligence is chewing its way through industry after industry. And it is fundamentally disrupting, uh, jobs, particularly, uh, comparatively lower skilled jobs now in white collar, uh, uh, professions that previously were relatively insulated from those changes. When that happens, it does also create different jobs and different opportunities, but the outcomes are not equally shared. So as a government, you need to be thinking really actively about how you can cushion the blow and maximize the opportunity. When you see that kind of disruption happening, particularly when it's happening at the speed of disruption, uh, that's happening with, uh, with artificial intelligence. [01:42:11] Ian Burns: I would just say as a comment is reassuring that, um, our elected or some of our elected officials, at least thinking about this, I can see you've really, um, you've really been thinking about that. Um, okay. I'm gonna ask you a, a less, um, maybe a less intellectually serious subject, uh, question. A less nerdy question. A less nerdy question, Ian? Well, we'll see. Maybe, maybe you can inject some nerdiness into it, but, uh, BC conservatives, you've got, you've got a new leader now. She's, um, maybe settled in, but there's been a few, there's been a bit of drama, a bit of sort of Twitter drama already. Um, I'm just wondering what the mood is like. Is it, is the party happy? Are you feeling like, you know, you're happy with your new leader? Do you think you can win the next election? [01:42:55] Speaker 10: I think we absolutely can, Ian. Um, I look at it this way. You win elections in BC or anywhere else. When the government is ready to lose, the people are ready for change and the opposition is ready to win. So all three of those conditions have to be present in order to have electoral success. I think there is no question whatsoever, uh, that the government is ready to lose. You look at what's happening. You look at the, uh, the polling, you look at the way that people are thinking and talking, um, about this government. And there is no question that the David Eby is circling the drain. Uh, and if he were to lead the NDP into another election, I think that they would, they would lose. The fact that they're actively talking about trying to swap him out and put somebody else in suggests to me that you have a government that is ready to lose. Are the people ready for change? I think there's no question. I can't imagine why anyone would think, uh, that prolonging the damage this government is doing would be good. Um, you look at what's happening on the jobs file. You look at small business confidence. You look at our collapsing healthcare system. You look at the public safety crisis we're in. We'll look at, look at the affordability crisis that we're in. Uh, people are hungry for change. Uh, the last ingredient that is on us to fulfill, uh, is making sure that we as an opposition are ready to win that we're a credible alternative government in waiting that people can see as safe change, uh, and can see us offering practical solutions to the issues that they care about in their daily lives. So, you know, you asked a good question about artificial intelligence. We as a government in waiting need to be ready to talk about how we are going to navigate the incredible complexities that are going to come with that disrupter of the economy. We need to be ready to talk about how we're going to stabilize the forestry sector, get it back on its feet. We need to talk about how we're going to be able to work with our, uh, our neighbors in Alberta and with the federal government in order to strengthen, uh, industry and the economy overall, uh, across Canada. Uh, we need to be able to talk with practicality about the measures that we're going to take to address public safety, the measures that we're going to take, uh, to get our healthcare system, uh, back on track. And I think if our focus is on those things and if the offering that we're making is one where people can say, yes, I want that change, then we will have success. There's always a little bit of drama and a little bit of friction that comes particularly with, with a change in leadership. Um, that's, that's, uh, almost inevitable. I've never seen a political party go through a leadership change without some of that. I think the big question mark for us is, can we make sure that we are entirely focused on the concerns of everyday British Columbians who are not asking about internal drama? They're not asking about, uh, you know, the opinions of former premiers. They're not asking about any of this stuff. What they want to know is, can I walk out on the street and feel safe? Can I go to a hospital and expect that I'll be able to get treatment? Can I expect that my high school age kid is going to be able to get a first job and get onto the ladder towards success? Can I buy a home? Can I afford to live and stay and build a life in this province? Or do I have to leave and go somewhere else in order to get opportunity? If we can answer those questions and lay out a positive, optimistic vision for what this province can be under a new government, then I think we'll win. If we're distracted by squirrels and shiny objects and by, uh, by, by fights that, uh, you know, that, that create passion among a small number of people and, uh, do not appeal to the vast majority of British Columbians, then we won't win. So we're doing that work now as a caucus and as a party to try to get focused on the things that are going to win the next election and give us the opportunity to help get this province back on track. [01:46:44] Ian Burns: Okay. Um, one more from me and then I'll, I'll return you to Jim. Um, and it's on that, just to follow on from what you said. Um, it seems like the NDP maybe are of the same mind as you that if they, if they can look at the BC conservatives or the opposition as, as trustworthy and stable enough to manage BC, then you'll probably win because it seems to me looking at it from the outside that their chief tactic is to call the BC conservatives extremists, associate them with Donald Trump, make America great again, that kind of thing. And, you know, just kind of push them into that unstable, unsafe sort of category. Um, I don't know if you agree with that, but do you think, is there concern in the party that that might be effective? Like, do you, do you have a counter argument? Do you have, are you, are you trying to defend against that or what is your strategy? [01:47:40] Speaker 10: Yeah, that's a great question, Ian. Uh, there's no question that that is the, uh, the primary strategy that the NDP are taking and will continue to take. Uh, it's one they've taken for the last two years. I think that's a strategy that you take as a government when you are not able to defend your own record. I think anybody who objectively looks at the record of this government and sees what they have done to this province, uh, would not want to reelect them. Um, so I think that, yes, that is absolutely their tactic. You know, as I've, as I come back to you repeatedly, um, they look for any opportunity to make Donald Trump their adversary, uh, not Carrie Lynn Finley and the conservative party of British Columbia. They look for any opportunity to frame, uh, political issues and to frame a future election around anything other than the choice between their record and an alternative. Uh, so yes, without question, that is absolutely their strategy. And I think to your point, it's our job to refuse that frame. It is our job to reject the idea that BC politics, uh, should be subsumed by American politics or subsumed by Canadian politics. This is not America. We are not America. We will never be America. And we should not be beholden to the domestic politics of America. We are British Columbia. We're not Canada either. We're British Columbia. Our focus is on putting British Columbia first. Our focus is on advancing our strategic and our economic interests as a province. And that is what I think any government or any opposition that wants to be a government owes the people that it's seeking support from. You have to be focused on the actual issues that are within your scope of control as a provincial government or as a group that wants to be a provincial government. And I think it's frankly, it's solved into the intelligence of British Columbia voters that, uh, David Eby and his merry band, uh, of new Democrats continue to try to make our politics be all about America and American politics. They're not. This is British Columbia. Focus on British Columbia and deliver for the people of British Columbia. [01:49:45] Jim Chek: How about we get some old Democrats, maybe not new Democrats, just making a joke there. But, um, I have one final question for you and we'll let you go because we got to finish up our show. I saw Caroline Elliott put out a piece and it seemed like time is of the essence that we're actually at a critical, critical point here. And, and can, can the, the public, can British Columbians afford to wait for an election that is, you know, a couple of years away because we give away more and more land. And I've, I've had people reach out to me, people, um, that are part of the, you know, the bigger community that are, you know, very well to do and that are, you know, the part of the developer crowd. And, and they're extremely worried that, that the damage that's being done on a daily basis is, is going to be at the point of no return at some point. So is, is there like a real, like anxiety to get stuff done? Like, you know, how do you facilitate this? Is there any, also any noise in the, in the, in the NDP themselves that they may want to bring down this government themselves? Because it seems like maybe some of them don't really want the path that's going on here. [01:50:53] Speaker 10: Those are, uh, there's about four good questions in there, Jim. Uh, firstly, yeah, I think there's no question that there is instability within the NDP caucus. Uh, we saw most recently, uh, Kelly Green, who's a cabinet minister, uh, come out opposed to the Tilbury LNG facility that was approved by cabinet. That's highly unusual, uh, to have a cabinet minister come out and the premier actually claimed he helped her write her statement about her opposition to a project that was approved by cabinet. Under any normal democratic circumstances, she would be resigning from cabinet or being removed from cabinet because the way it works is you have cabinet solidarity. You make a decision as a cabinet and then cabinet usually lives with that decision. Um, so the fact that, uh, that she is being allowed to do that with impunity suggests that David Eby is losing control, uh, of his caucus and trying to mollify, uh, various elements of, of his electoral base that are in conflict with one another. So certainly there is a tension there. Uh, absolutely. Uh, Jim, that's, that's certainly the case. Uh, as it relates to concerns that, uh, that Carolyn Elliott flagged, uh, the first thing I would say is you don't have to be some big developer to be concerned about what's happening in this province. Uh, everyday British Columbians are petrified of the instability and uncertainty that's being created on the land base. They're, uh, rightly concerned that we have, um, very low small business confidence. They're rightly concerned that we have a youth jobs crisis. They're rightly concerned that we have entire sectors that are falling apart. Uh, and that a significant amount of that decline is directly attributable to, uh, the uncertainty created on the land base by this government and its policies, uh, as well as the public safety crisis created by this government and its policies, as well as the broader economic malaise created by this government and its policies. So is it possible to make a change earlier? Um, obviously we would like to take down this government as soon as possible. We would like to replace this government as soon as possible, but in the interim, what we have been doing is holding them to account around a series of decisions that have been made in a profoundly, uh, untransparent way. So coming up in the fall legislative session, we have several private members bills coming forward that will do exactly that, Jim. Uh, we have a number of bills that are related to disclosure and transparency around the transfer of crown assets, because one of the things that we were actually really shocked to discover is that when we tried to find out what, uh, crown lands, uh, had been, uh, transferred or disposed of and what the value of those lands were, there was literally nobody who could tell us that. So there have been, there have been dramatic, dramatic transfers of land and control over land that have happened over, uh, you know, the past number of years. And whether you agree or disagree with the, the way in which that has been done, there should at minimum be transparency. So that the people of British Columbia know what assets that used to belong to them, uh, have been transferred and what the value of those assets were that they also deserve to know, uh, if, uh, their property, uh, is, uh, under negotiation to be transferred or to have their disposition of that property changed. Uh, so we are going to be bringing legislation forward, uh, in the fall that would address those issues. We are going to be continuing to hold the government to account. Uh, David Eby has had six positions on DRIPA so far, so we'll see if he comes up with a seventh or an eighth or a ninth, uh, by the time we get through the fall session. But, uh, certainly folks can be assured that we will be pushing very, very hard to hold the government to account and to try to limit the ongoing damage from, uh, their reckless approach. [01:54:34] Jim Chek: Well, we do. Thank you, Gavin. Uh, as always, you make yourself available and, uh, we appreciate that. Um, and that's what politicians should do is make themselves available to the public and to the media so that we can get questions asked and, and be accountable because it's tougher and tougher to get, you know, people in power to answer questions. And, um, that's our job. And you make our job easier by making yourself available. And I wish more would do that. [01:55:02] Speaker 10: Uh, anytime, Jim, uh, be in touch. I'm always happy to come on and I always appreciate your show. [01:55:07] Jim Chek: So thank you very much for what you do. All right. Thank you. And we'll get back to our show here. Again, uh, thanks to Gavin do the MLA for Kelowna mission and, uh, Ian and I will get back to our show here as we pop Gavin out there. Nick's going to let them go in a second here. There you go. So onward, onward. Uh, thanks to Gavin do for, for jumping in with us. That was, uh, like I said, always appreciated. Um, I do, we're going to back here. Bitcoin hackers, uh, we're gonna do a little bit more on the market when we have a Martin Pellish at noon hackers have absconded more than a hundred million dollars worth of Bitcoin. They said it was unhackable, but anyway, this, uh, wallet got hacked. Hack hackers, uh, have gone in more than a hundred million dollars worth of us Bitcoin from thousands of supposedly secure accounts in recent days. And that is from, uh, a Bitcoin wallet, uh, hosted by Canada based coin kite. Formally. You know, and then, uh, quite rather since 2026 though in 2026, uh, close to $972 million. Right. But that's less than what was stolen the year before. So, you know, um, you know, it's, it's a lot more, I guess, common than you thought, but that we, we mentioned this before Cameco's Westinghouse files for IPO. None other than the United States of America. Hey, why not? Hey, Canada, not first, right. For Brookfield and Cameco. Not first. [01:56:59] Ian Burns: Yeah. Keep all that pro America stuff. Let, let the peasants deal with that sort of thing. [01:57:04] Jim Chek: Yeah. Yeah. That's for you at the grocery store. [01:57:06] Ian Burns: We in the elite. [01:57:06] Jim Chek: That's for the grocery store. [01:57:07] Ian Burns: We'll denounce that in public. And then we'll go and do something like this. That's how we show our MAGA credentials. [01:57:15] Jim Chek: Where it really matters. Then you say, well, what do you, it doesn't apply to us, right? We're telling you, you do the work. We're not doing that. SpaceX doing their earnings call today at the close of the market. You can listen to Elon Musk. I think one of the most consequential companies on this planet. And then, uh, here's something interesting. Sawyer Merritt. He's one of the guys that follows that Tesla and SpaceX very well. U S satellite based, uh, provider Hughes net there filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Blaming who Starlink, right? Like, how are you going to compete? Who are you going to call Doug? Hey, Doug Ford. Are you listening? Doug. And Ian, you got to stop this. Gen Zed told to stop being stupid and drop tan maxing. Wasn't there was face maxing. Now there's tan maxing. Is maxing a new word? Young people are doing something stupid. That was the other thing. [01:58:11] Ian Burns: What's that? It was looks maxing, wasn't it? [01:58:14] Jim Chek: When they were chiseling their jaw and stuff like that. Like, literally, like, holy cow, eh? Ian and I do Thai maxing. I think we're doing a good job with it though. [01:58:24] Ian Burns: Yeah. Weskit maxing. [01:58:26] Jim Chek: Weskit masking, yeah. Theratologist sounded alarm about the latest incident of Gen Z silly behavior warning. The so-called tan maxing, tan maximizing is a recipe for developing a skin cancer. [01:58:41] Ian Burns: Okay. Yeah, this article includes an interview with a woman, I think. And she says like, or maybe they caught from a video that she made or whatever. And she's like, she looks at her, I don't know if it's a watch or whatever, a phone, but she looks at a digital device and it says like UV. It gives the UV rating is particularly high. And then she runs off, gets in a bikini and like, exposes herself to the sun. It's like, it's like literally the opposite of what, um, you really should be doing. People are coming in saying the sun is good for us. I know, I'm familiar with that. That's like, um, somehow the sun, the sun is part of the culture war now. I learned that not so long ago. Even the sun now is, um, part of the culture war. Yeah. I mean, the thing is though, you're not supposed to like, you're obviously not supposed to sit out in high UV sun for ages without any protection. Well, like even our, our ancient ancestors didn't do that. [01:59:44] Jim Chek: I love the sun. I'm a sun worshiper, but you know, you don't want to bake like a lobster either, right? Like move around, do some stuff, but don't like, you know, like lay out there at noon, like on high UV days and say like, take me, take me. Yeah. I mean, vitamin D and all that people are [02:00:00] Ian Burns: mentioning, I think you can get from, from like decent level of UV, like fairly high, you can get your day's worth of vitamin D within like 15 or 20 minutes or something. But that's not what these are doing. And these are like, they're literally trying to promote tanning. So they're trying to, you know, they're trying to make their skin react to an abundance of sunshine. [02:00:28] Jim Chek: This one's funny. This is the Fauci files. Like I've watched some of the reaction from like big accounts, doctors, and they're just defending Fauci and like, how do you defend this? How do you defend this? This is crazy. But I found this one a bit hilarious. This is quarterback Aaron Rodgers and his take on Fauci. Listen to this. [02:00:44] Speaker 11: Tony Fauci is an absolute criminal. [02:00:46] Speaker 12: Can you tell us about the mindset of coming into your last season? Like that's a real thing. It feels like, cause is everything better? Is everything funner? Is everything more awesome? Like how do you kind of view this year versus maybe the years of the past? [02:00:59] Speaker 11: I'm going to plead the fifth. Okay. [02:01:04] Speaker 12: Like that absolute coward, Tony Fauci. [02:01:12] Speaker 11: Are you kidding me? Yeah. 111 times. You got a pardon and you're in front and you pleaded over a hundred times at the White House. What are you scared of, Tony? I thought you were the science. Yeah, yeah. I thought you were, I am science. And you get up there and you can't answer a question. Yeah. What are we doing? And how much time did the network spend to that? How much time did they spend on my responses every week, on my vaccination status, on Taylor and Travis's wedding? Yeah. Did they do, did they do even a minute? Did they do even a minute on Tony Fauci? No, I didn't. I don't think I've heard anything. [02:01:47] Jim Chek: Good questions by Aaron Rodgers there. They spend more time questioning Aaron Rodgers vaccine status, the mainstream media, than they did on Fauci's. I'm talking about the mainstream media. Fauci's, I think it was 115, Fifth Amendment things, even on things like the color of a tie. Again, power, absolute power he had over the world, never mind the United States. Non, unquestioned power, unquestioned power. And the, and the media that is supposed to question power, their job, their job. And I'm going to remind you of it is asking better questions in the pursuit of truth, in the pursuit of truth. They sure the hell weren't doing that job, were they? And they're sure the hell not doing it now either, right? Because here's truth laid out in his diary and they do this. I didn't see it. Right? I didn't see it. We're in the interest of getting things going here because we got another interview quite up and Ian's going to have a snack and we're going to have a chat right after this too. But Benny Johnson put this out, he interviewed, or he's shown this interview here from ABC actually. This is that in and out shooting, um, that happened there in, um, I believe it was in Idaho, right? And, um, I'm just going to find it here for a sec here. That was in, uh, in Twin Falls, Idaho on Saturday. And then the gunman killed two people, wounded seven others. And a couple are still in critical condition here. And then a citizen, uh, was there and opened fire and that, that scared the gunman off there. And that gunman later took his own life. But, uh, we got a clip here from the person that, um, being interviewed. [02:03:42] Speaker 13: Investigators say two men, an off duty state trooper and this man, 35 year old Jordan Salinas fired back. [02:03:49] Speaker 14: I peeked around the, uh, right hand side of that sign closest to the road. And that's where I saw the, the individual with his rifle, uh, pointed at the vehicles. [02:04:00] Speaker 13: Authorities believe those heroic actions drove the shooter from the scene and likely saved lives. [02:04:06] Speaker 14: He seemed unusually comfortable aiming that rifle at those cars. And then as soon as some rounds started coming at him, everything changed immediately. All that, you know, all that bravado he had immediately crumbled this in and out had opened just a week [02:04:23] Jim Chek: prior. You can go watch that full clip and you can also watch the shootings. I mean, the guy was just like, I mean, I watched the shots go into a Tesla, just, just, you know, like cold blooded killing there. [02:04:40] Ian Burns: It's scary though. Doing that, what he did there because I mean, you can't guarantee that police or whatever wouldn't look at you and think you were the, you were the bad guy. [02:04:53] Jim Chek: Anyway, that's a really big salute to that guy that stepped up and likely saved some lives. So there you go. That's our salute for, for that. And, uh, we got some stuff in history real quick. We'll go through. This is a big one. 1914, Britain declares war on Germany. And that's in the front page news there. England formally declares war on Germany. [02:05:15] Ian Burns: Greatest disaster in British history. [02:05:19] Jim Chek: In 1944, another, uh, very, very sad story. Anne Frank and her family are arrested. The Gestapo raided the secret annex in Amsterdam where Anne Frank and her family and others had been hiding. Anne's diary later became one of the most powerful accounts of the Holocaust. So many in Canada forget that now, eh? As, as anti-Semitism in Canada, you know, like it's, it's, it's just basically being fueled and the, you know, the government fueling, adding fuel, fanning the flames or looking the other way, whatever you want to call it. It doesn't look good in Canada right now because there's many people in Canada scared for people with, um, Jewish heritage. They're certainly not using the same kind of [02:06:03] Ian Burns: language and they're not talking about it as often as they do. There are other things that they're fascinated by. There are other causes. They don't come out and inject it into everything, do they? And they're not like, you know, they're not going to, Mark Carney, for example, is not going to go to, um, some sort of event and lecture people about anti-Semitism. Instead, he's going to talk about, um, he'll pander to whoever's in front of them. So if they say that it's genocide in Gaza, he'll go along with it. If, if he's asked about arresting the leader of the world's only Jewish state, sure, he'll say, yeah, he'll go along with it. [02:06:45] Jim Chek: Lizzie Borden's parents murdered. Andrew and Abby Borden were found axed to death in Fall River, Massachusetts. Uh, Lizzie Borden was accused of, but later acquitted. Jesse Owens wins the long jump in Berlin. That was a big thing, right? American athlete Jesse Owens won the long jump in Berlin. Uh, his second of four goals challenging Nazi ideas of racial superiority. The real Nazis, not the ones that just, you know, don't want, you know, like the stuff they, that label is so easily used now. And you know, like they, the people that use that label on people such as Elon Musk should feel utter shame in how they use that label of what, what happened in Nazi Germany and what happened to the people that they've felt the effects of Nazism. And then they just, they just casually apply it to Elon Musk, just like that, just like that has no care and respect for what happened in the past. They just use it as a term of hate to get their own way into silence and marginalize and minimize people. Absolutely embarrassing. And, and intellectually, um, what you would call bankrupt. Sent to 1790, the U S revenue cutter services is created. The Alexander Hamilton, Hamilton established the service, the forerunner, the modern day U S coast guard to enforce, enforce tariffs and combat smuggling. Well, in Canada, the coast guard has no guns, no, no wanting any guns, no, nothing doesn't want to be part of the military. The coast guard, they can't even give out fishing tickets. They have to actually have somebody from the fisheries to do the ticket. [02:08:35] Ian Burns: You can watch my finger. [02:08:40] Jim Chek: And then, uh, just letting you know that I appeared on, uh, this, this, uh, I appeared on the behind the headlines over the weekend on Monday. And that show I think is live now on the internets. Um, and I think, I don't know if Nick has the photo or not, but, um, there you go. I was on the show with Ian Connerty. He was on our show just recently. So there you go. That's it. Uh, Ian and I are gonna, um, we're gonna see if we can get a clip up tomorrow of, uh, something up from the ambassador. And then we'll, we're going to talk right after this. I'm going to phone you right after this, grab you quick before you go for a snacky. Cause then we got, um, we got, uh, Martin Pelletier joining us at 12. That'll be a really good discussion actually in the economy. Um, smart guy, big following on X too. And we're going to talk about the Canadian dollar, talk about the Japanese yen, talk about the economy in general. Are we doing enough? Are we doing anything? Anyway, thank you for joining us. We're back here. Like I said, at noon with Martin Pelletier, and then we're, um, back here tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM PST. Just like that. Every morning, you can count on us. Count on us like, uh, you know, the sun showing up every day. We'll show up every day as well, especially every weekday. The sun shows up seven days a week. We're only going to show up five and then we're going to miss holidays. Anyway, ciao. [02:10:25] Speaker ?: Bye. Bye. Bye.