(0:00 - 0:24) Canada is the MAiD capital of the world. Educated estimates say that since medically assisted suicide was made legal in 2016, MAiD doctors in this country have now killed over 60,000 people. People who go to hospitals for treatment are regularly offered maid as an option, but in reality it is pushed on them and they are pressured to accept it. (0:25 - 0:46) In 2027, Track 2 for MAiD will become law. Track 2 will allow MAiD for mental illnesses, people who do not have a medical issue and for whom death is definitely not imminent, up to and including simple depression. And the legislation has already been passed. (0:47 - 4:47) Trudeau simply put a hold on implementing it, as he knew it would affect his party's chances in the next election. But those are just the parts they're telling you about. They also want to bring in MAiD for our children. They call them mature minors, but there is no legal minimum age. Two years ago, the president of the Quebec College of Physicians and Surgeons was recording, talking openly about their plans for this, and you will see that clip in this interview. Assisted suicide for our kids and parents will have no say. It will be done on the opinion of a single doctor. But it gets worse. They also want it for babies, essentially erasing the line for abortion between babies still in the womb and those who have been born. If you don't believe me, once again, Dr. Louis Hua, the president of CMQ, can be seen openly discussing this in the clip you will see in this interview. Angelina Ireland of the Delta Hospice Society has been working hard to raise awareness for this and to provide people with a sanctuary where they can receive palliative care, free from the threat of being killed by their doctor. She joins me today to explain what is really behind this agenda and just how cheap human life will become in our country if we don't put a stop to this. Friends, it's a real pleasure to have you back. I thoroughly enjoyed our first interview on your 2008 book that you're co-authored, Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry, your chapter in the book, Grave Error. And now you have co-produced this absolutely amazing documentary. But there's a, before we get to the documentary, there's a question I didn't ask you last time. Okay. That I should have, and I'm going to ask you now. Okay. Because I know that there's a lot of people who've read your book and who will see this documentary and they're going to think, well, you're attacking Aboriginals, but that's not at all what I got from it. What I get from it is that you're actually trying to help by pointing out that the billions of dollars that are supposedly spent every year to help our Aboriginal peoples, most of that never ends up in their hands. And so I want you to talk about that for just a minute, about perhaps some of the negative feedback you've gotten from people who don't understand what you're trying to do and what you really are trying to do. Yeah. So I think there's a couple of elements to that. One is the Aboriginal industry, which is largely non-Aboriginal and certainly was largely non-Aboriginal when we were writing the book in the 2000s, which are mostly lawyers and consultants. So they are the ones who are benefiting from all these transfers. And even if the money does kind of trickle down a little bit to the Aboriginal population, it's in the form of monetary payments, which of course just gets spent on things without addressing any of the underlying conditions. The other significant factor are what are called neo-tribal elites, which is the Aboriginal leadership, which is not representative of the marginalized Aboriginal population. And it's those leaders who are bought off with all these various Aboriginal industry initiatives. And that is a huge problem too now, as we are discovering with the Kamloops case is like many Aboriginal leaders involved in various enterprises, which is an extractive kind of element, which again prevents the marginalized members from getting the services that they need to be able to thrive in Canadian society. (4:48 - 5:33) But as well, the Aboriginal leadership is now very, very difficult to deal with because they have been bought off for so long and not had any challenge to their position that they are very, very difficult to have any kind of discussion with because they will immediately start making all sorts of accusations of racism and so on, residential school denialism, even at the most basic questions which need to be answered. So we really have to sort of go hard at the Aboriginal leadership because they need to be held accountable, just like the members of the Aboriginal industry need to be held accountable. So that's what we're currently trying to delve into. (5:34 - 5:46) Right. Now, I imagine that the money that these Aboriginal leaders get to be bought off, though, that's still a tiny fraction of the billions that are spent every year. So what we've got here is, yes, an industry protecting its interests. (5:47 - 7:24) Yes. Yes. It's billions. Like the legal side is the main one, although the consultants are huge too. So all sorts of people are making money. I'll just give you one example, which maybe people don't know very much about, which they've probably seen a little bit of, which is these languages, the Aboriginal languages. So Aboriginal languages are pre-literate languages. They don't have a writing system. There is this thing which is developed by the International Linguistic Association, I think. It's a linguistic kind of area. They developed something in the late 1800s for linguists. So if you're a linguist and you want to have a sort of an overarching symbols for sounds, that's what it is. So people have probably been noticing this and I'm noticing it more and more now as you'll have various Aboriginal words, which will have sevens and question marks and upside down letters and so on. And the implication is, is that this is the Aboriginal writing system. So this has to be written in this writing system. This is all done by consultants who are linguists. Aboriginal people can't read the International Phonetic Alphabet. So what they're putting on these signs is just a few people who learn that. So when you get some kind of Aboriginal, supposedly word that's written in an Aboriginal language, which it's not. It's written in the International Phonetic Alphabet and you can't pronounce it. You don't know what's going on. (7:24 - 9:42) So you have to get some kind of instruction on how you're supposed to be pronouncing it. Aboriginal people can't pronounce that either. So why would you be writing things in these letters that no one knows how to pronounce? Well, it's millions of dollars which are going to these linguists and some Aboriginal leaders who've taken courses in the International Phonetic Alphabet and so on. They're the ones that are getting the money to write all these signs, you know, street signs or signs on buildings or signs or forms that are printed out. And that's money. That's millions of dollars that is going to that, which should be spent on basic services such as, you know, teaching people to read and write in a language where they will be able to communicate with other people. Housing, which is falling apart. Water systems that are contaminated and so on. So this, that although that's not like that's a small part of the billions that are spent on the legal disputes. All these linguists are making, you know, whatever they make as their per diems to go and write these languages in the International Phonetic Alphabet is just one example of something that makes no sense at all, is very, very segregationist because it means that you can't have people talking to one another. And it doesn't even, even the ordinary Aboriginal person doesn't even know how to pronounce these things because it's not written. That's not, it has nothing to do with the Aboriginal culture, this International Phonetic Language type of arrangement. Right. And I want to discuss that in just a minute. But first, I'm going to give a little bit of my own testimony to what you've just said about the money not getting to the people who need it. 40 years ago, I was a paramedic and I worked on the Galician Blackfoot Reserve and the conditions are deplorable. Yeah. Just awful. And you know, if they were getting even a fraction of that money, the conditions would have been much, much better. There'd been better sanitation. There would have been better education. There would have been better everything, but they weren't getting that money. So now I want to talk now what you were just talking about with this language, because history technically is what is written down. And when Europeans ended up here, the native peoples didn't have a written language. (9:43 - 12:27) Everything was oral. And there's a term you used in your book, and I can't remember, you have to prompt me on this, was something knowledge. Traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge. Right. So, but that's just a fancy term for oral history, which we know is very unreliable. Now, my wife is also a history major. She has a degree in history. And one of the most important things she taught me is that history is written by the victor. So we know that some of the history we have probably isn't reliable, but it's a heck of a lot more reliable than oral tradition. And this is a problem that we're running into now, and we see it in the documentary and in your book, where you're trying to have these discussions with people about what is truth, what really did happen. And they just keep reverting back to their traditional knowledge, but there's no substantiation for it. This makes the discussion extremely difficult because you, as an academic, I, as a journalist, we both are invested in finding the truth. For myself, it's because I understand that you cannot have a meaningful dialogue if it's not based upon truth. So, and this was demonstrated amply in the documentary where your co-producer got some of these people who were actually on the other side on camera, started asking questions. There was one very revealing portion in the documentary, which I really enjoyed, where you were talking to this woman, where you had given a, the building where you had given a talk and asking her, well, okay, so, you know, she's calling you a racist. She's saying that everything you're saying is false. And you ask her, well, did you read my chapter in Grave Error? No, it turns out she hadn't. Does she have any facts at all? No, but she decided you were a racist and that everything you're saying is wrong. And you had several encounters like that in the documentary. Are you not interested in what my arguments are? I know what they are. Okay. Okay. So, so what are, what are my arguments? I don't need to speak your work back to you. I'm not in a lecture. I'm not your student. I won't be summarizing your work for you. No, but do you want to be accurate in your, the way you're portraying my work? Do you think that being accurate? You think your work isn't racist. But you think it is? Yes. So why do you think it's racist? It fully is racist. But, but what, if you're going to say that my work is racist, don't you think that you have a responsibility to say why you think it's racist? Not to you. So you think that it's appropriate just to make accusations without any evidence? I mean, I have, there's tons of evidence, but your books are the, all the evidence I need. Have you read anything that I've, so what have you, what have you read? I've read Grave Error. (12:27 - 12:56) I've read all your little. Oh, so you've read my, my work. I've read your books. Okay. So you've read Billy Remembers? No. That's my work in Grave Error. I don't know Billy Remembers. Okay. So you have not read Grave Error. I've read Grave Error, but I don't know Billy Remembers. But. And also, I don't care. I don't want to talk about your work anymore. I think it's a bunch of bullshit. But if you are not able to even. Lady. Claim, even assert what. I don't need to assert anything. (12:56 - 17:59) But you're claiming you've read Grave Error. You don't even know what's in Grave Error. Yeah, it's a bunch of BS. I know exactly what's in that book. But you don't know that my article in there, Billy Remembers. I don't remember it. It wasn't, I don't remember it. And so the question that comes to me from that, I can understand the people who are part of the aboriginal industry, who are promulgating this. And it's questionable, I think, whether, how many of them actually believe it themselves. I myself have a nephew on my wife's side, who's an aboriginal lawyer, makes $400 an hour. But they're making money from it. So while I think those people are deplorable, I can understand why they're doing it. But you also quote in the documentary statistic that 60% of Canadians believe that there are bodies buried in unmarked graves at the Kamloops school. And most of these, these are white people who have absolutely nothing to gain from that narrative. In fact, are going to be harmed by it. And what I can't get my head around is, why are these people buying into this narrative? Why do they seem to want to believe it? Yes, well, this is a complicated question. First of all, they've been, I think when you have stories like what came out at Kamloops on May 27, 2021, with them, this sort of blanket kind of news coverage about a mass grave being found, and all the kinds of memorials and so on that went on. And what we're finding out now is that it wasn't just an accident that that media coverage was the way that it was. It was because there was a carefully orchestrated effort by the Kamloops Indian Band to control the information that went out. And so we never really even were able to hear the words of the so-called ground penetrating radar expert, Sarah Beaulieu, until July 15, 2021. So we had this whole space of time between May 27 to July 15, where we never really got any concrete information about what had actually happened. And on July 15, we learned from Sarah Beaulieu that remains had actually not been found, that what they were, were probable burials, according to her. They're not probable burials. This is another thing that's got to be addressed. It's a very improbable hypothesis, but she said probable burials, and she had a number of reasons for why she thought that they were probable, which is because she's not actually a ground penetrating radar expert. She's not a geophysicist. She's a conflict, what's called a conflict anthropologist, and was chosen precisely because she is completely on board with, you know, smudging before doing things, getting all this spiritual kinds of, you know, activity, you know, spiritual ceremonies and stuff happening before, which of course is a kind of a priming exercise to get people to believe that there are children buried there. When she should have been, if she were an actual GPR expert, she would have done the background research on this, which would have found out that all sorts of excavations have taken place on that site for a hundred years, and she would have been much more objective and distanced in terms of what she was doing. So the whole thing was a big setup from the beginning, and we're going to have, you know, one heck of a time trying to get people to try to understand what's happened because of that month and a half where we were bombarded by all these images and stories which had no skepticism whatsoever as to what was happening. So that's a big problem now, a huge problem, because that's what we found in Kamloops. It's going to be very difficult to try to get people to kind of understand the evidence, which is actually, you know, there's a lack of evidence for any of this. Yes, a profound lack of evidence. It's interesting that even Sarah Beaulieu said the only way to be sure is to dig them up. Exactly. So even she said that. Yes. And now let's get to the fact that there was 12.1 million dollars given to the Kamloops Indian Band for excavations. Nothing's happened. Exactly. This has been amazing because I was just in Kamloops for I guess about four and a half days shooting in Kamloops with Simon Hergott, who's the incredible videographer who used to be a journalist with Global News who was fired from Global News because he was opposing the various arguments about COVID and the lockdowns and so on. But anyway, he has incredible skills. And we went around and did all this footage of various things. The most amazing being at Thompson Rivers University, which is a big part of the story. Thompson Rivers University is an embarrassment. It is not a university at all. (17:59 - 18:29) And a lot of its professors, its president, a number of people working there have been actively involved in continuing this idea that there are the remains of 215 children at the Kamloops Indian Residential School. So that brings us, I think, to Leah Gazan's Bill 413. A very dangerous piece of legislation. I cannot believe it's happening, actually. That labels any questioning of this narrative as hate speech and criminalizes it. Yeah. (18:31 - 24:01) And I think that's kind of a two-part question. I want your comments on that piece of legislation. But also, I personally believe that the narrative is crumbling slowly. Maybe I'm a bit of an optimist, but I do think the truth always wins out in the end. Truth will out. Because we have all the data, all the facts, all the evidence on our side, and they have nothing, as is demonstrated very well in the documentary. So question one, your comments on Bill 413. And question two, the second part of that is, as the narrative crumbles, they're going to try very hard to hang on to this. What do you fear will come next? So the first thing, Leah Gazan, I cannot believe that this person's a politician. That we have politicians like this, who are doing what they're doing, is in itself shocking. And Leah Gazan gave a speech in Powell River. So this is part of the What Remains documentary, is Leah Gazan's speech that she gave on January 20th, 2025, where she said that there's nothing more violent than for an Aboriginal survivor to say something, to tell you their story, and for you to say they're lying. But for her, that is nothing more violent than that. Since the discovery of the 215 children in unmarked graves in Cowboys, there has been a growing and disturbing rise in anti-Indigenous racism and residential school denialism. The attempts and language used to control this narrative are becoming more and more desperate as the days pass. A power structure is clawing forward based on subjective experience, absent of objective truth, a philosophy known as relativism in what is now a post-truth era. This is how totalitarian states emerge. I decided that that was the time, that that was the time to introduce Bill C-413, which prohibits, would prohibit the incitement of hate against Indigenous people through residential school denialism. Because it's violent. Denying somebody's genocide, denying somebody's story is violent. That is just a ridiculous thing to say, because we have very, very violent things that have happened, such as the Holocaust with, you know, people being actually murdered. We have Rwanda with whole families being hacked apart with machetes. We have the death squads in Latin America, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So we have no shortage of, you know, actually violent things. But you have these absurd claims that are being made, for example, by Billy Coombs, who was one of the eyewitnesses about the burials at Kamloops, who said that Queen Elizabeth had taken 10 children on a picnic from the Kamloops Indian Residential School in 1964, and they had been abducted by the Queen and Prince Philip, which of course would be impossible. I've met people here in Calgary, white people, who believe that. And it just boggles the mind, if you've paid any attention to royal visits to Canada over the years. The King and Queen never go anywhere without an entourage. There's always a crowd of people around watching everything they're doing. To suggest that the Queen could have walked off with 10 kids and somehow murdered them and no one knows? This is ridiculous. Yeah. And who are the, you know, we don't know the names of the children. Like, this is what has to happen, is when people are making these claims, you have to start getting the ground facts about these matters. So, you know, who are the children who disappeared? There must be some, you can't just have 10 children disappear and no one said anything. Are they saying the parents of those 10 children would not have said, hey, you know, my children, my child went out for a picnic with Queen Elizabeth and never came back? You know, it just doesn't, and the Queen wasn't even in Kamloops in 1964. Anyway, we have footage of her being in Quebec and other places. But if I said to Billy Coombs, you're lying, Billy. Leah Gazan is going to say that's the most violent thing that she can possibly imagine, you know, all these sorts of things. So this is Lea Gazan, who, you know, shouldn't even be a politician. She, I don't even know, it just is so amazing. She has the role that she has. But okay, Leah Gazan is an absurd person. So we can expect things like that from her. But why are, why is the government taking this seriously? So it's the people who take Leah Gazan seriously who are the problem, really, not Leah Gazan. So that's the first thing. And then, well, what's going to happen? Because it's interesting, your comment about it is crumbling. Just being in Kamloops for four days, I didn't really see a lot of evidence of the narrative crumbling. Well, I think probably not there. (24:01 - 24:31) I see some, you know, well, there's our documentary that we did. There was just one, I just watched something by, his name is Sargon of Akkad. You might, he's a famous podcaster in the UK. He just did a video on this. And then there was Matt Walls, she did a, who did a video on this. There's, there's been, and, and, you know, there's, there's my research group that I've been involved with, who, you know, has the amazing research of Nina Green. (24:33 - 25:09) We've been writing stuff for the last four years, but it's just dismissed. You know, I'm not sure if you saw the rebel sequence where Drea Humphrey, oh, that's the other important documentary, The Buried Truth by Drea Humphrey. Drea Humphrey is asking Jagmeet Singh a question about this issue. And he refused to answer the question because he said he didn't, he didn't take questions from media outlets like, like Rebel News. So that's the kind of thing. So there's kind of a very, like, we have two universes that are kind of existing in Canadian society. (25:09 - 25:52) There's the critics who have known this for four years and have been writing about this for four years. And then you have people who just don't want to hear that position, don't want to answer any questions, don't want to engage in the critical thinking exercise that needs to happen about this issue. With, it was kind of interesting. We were at Thompson Rivers University on the 27th with our Spectrum Street Epistemology mats. And they tried to get us, they tried to get us to leave the property, the authorities, but we stood our ground. And we said, we're not going anywhere. (25:52 - 26:56) We are doing what you should be doing. You have failed in terms of your ability to have a university where these matters are discussed. And we're here to do this since the president of Thompson Rivers University, Brett Fairbairn, said that the remains continues to say that the remains of 215 children have been found at Kamloops. And the chancellor of Thompson Rivers University, Dede DeRose, and Ted Godfreyson, who's the cultural advisor at Thompson Rivers University, just did an interview on September 2024, so this is not that long ago, saying that children had been found on the site of the Kamloops Indian Residential School. This is the chancellor of Thompson Rivers University. Anyway, we stood our ground and we did this session asking the question, remains of 215 children, have they been found? And a woman, to her credit, her name was Jenna, she works at Thompson Rivers University, she participated in this session. (26:56 - 27:51) And she, you know, still believed that there were the remains of 215 children that were on the site, but she, we got common ground to say we need excavations. She thought excavations were actually happening at the site. And I know that they're not happening at the site. But still, we both agreed, and a person by the name of Hal, who is a free speech advocate, he showed up as well. So we had two opposing views on the subject. And we all agreed that excavations were what was needed to make this determination as to whether the remains of 215 children have been found. So the Kamloops Indian Band is obligated to do the excavations. They received 12.1 million dollars to do the excavations. We have documents from Blacklock's Reporter that show this. (27:52 - 31:02) What do you call it when someone receives money to do something, and they don't do what they're supposed to do with that government money? That's breach of contract. So the 12.1 million dollars has got to go back to the government. Yes. If they're not going to do the excavations. Yeah, but I don't think we're going to see that happen. Well, it's the government. It's up to the government. So you understand why the Kamloops Indian Band is doing what it's doing, which no one should be surprised about. You know, one would expect them to act with a certain amount of responsibility, but they probably see it as their money that they're entitled to anyway. But what is the government going to do about that 12.1 million dollars that was supposed to go to excavations that has not been going to excavations? It's up to them. And the fact that they would not demand that that be paid back is an indication of the corruption and the lack of accountability with the Canadian government. That's Canadian public money. That's public money that Canadians have spent to get to the bottom of what happened at Kamloops. And we are no further ahead of finding out what happened at Kamloops four years later because the government is failing in terms of its ability to have some kind of accountability over funds that are spent. And I don't think we're going to expect to see that happen anytime soon, at least not with the current administration, because as you say, it's the government that's not demanding the money back, but it's also the government that's giving two billion dollars a year to mainstream media. And who's pushing this narrative more than anyone? Mainstream media. Because the government is paying them to be a mouthpiece. Yeah, but if the public, it's the public that's got to start to agitate against this. The reason why the government's doing what it's doing is because we don't have the public that is making this into a big issue. And you know, that's what I'm going to be doing. It's like I am going to be going to campuses across the country, having these Spectrum Street epistemology sessions on have the remains of 215 children been found at Kamloops and get some professors talking about this, get some students talking about this, get some members of the public talking about talking about this. And this is an incredible initiative because what universities have done up to now is they will not book you space to talk about this. But I told Thompson Rivers University, if you remove us from campus for trying to talk about this issue, this is going to have serious reputational consequences for Thompson Rivers University. And they stood down. They allowed us to do it. That's good for you. Because they knew what was going to happen if they took, if they trespassed us and arrested us for talking about this issue, when they have spent four years misleading the public, misleading professors, all their professors believe this because the president has come out with these statements. It's an absolute scandal what is happening at Thompson Rivers University. And this is where I make my statement that the narrative is crumbling. I understand what you're saying from the side of the government, the side of public opinion. (31:02 - 33:45) But what we've had over the last four years is more and more very well educated people such as yourself doing this research, revealing the truth. And what do they have? The same old rhetoric. So as this evidence mounts that this is all a false narrative, more and more people start to see that. And you're absolutely right. Once enough people, enough regular Canadians understand that they're being lied to. I think we're going to see a demand to have this whole narrative shut down because it's not just they're being lied to, it's costing them an awful lot of money. A lot of money is coming out of our taxes to fund all of this. You know, it's when people need to start thinking about the fact that something like Leah Gazan's Bill 413, well, that doesn't just happen for free. Governments cost money to run. Our tax dollars are paying to create a bill that will violate our rights and criminalize our free speech. People have to get very upset about that, and they should. But the other thing that I think needs to happen is, and this kind of circles back to the beginning of our interview, we have to get the Aboriginal people themselves on board to understand that all of that money that's supposed to be going to them isn't going to them, it's going to fuel false narratives like this. And if we can shut those false narratives down, hopefully we can get some transparency and see that money get into the hands of people who actually need it. Yeah, so there's a lot to unpack in what you said there. So there's a couple of things. The first is about the crumbling narrative. And another, something to support your position, which is interesting, is the academic side. So you're correct. The person who's been the most vicious academic in trying to stop people from talking about this is an academic by the name of Sean Carleton at the University of Manitoba. Sean Carleton, on the anniversary of the four-year anniversary, all he had to say was to repost an article he'd written a year or two earlier, saying that, you know, residential school denialism is on the rise. And it was a piece, I believe, written with Niigaan Sinclair, who's the son of Murray Sinclair, who is the second worst attempt totalitarian who's trying to shut down discussion about this. So that was all that Sean Carleton had to say about the issue. Whereas if it had been a couple of years earlier, he would have been much more hostile about all sorts of things and saying much more that would be new in the sense of new things being written. So he's not really writing anything more about this. (33:46 - 34:09) And then on the flip side, on June 5th, I have been accepted. My paper on criminalizing residential school denialism has been accepted to be presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Conference at George Brown College. So the fact that that's been accepted is amazing. (34:09 - 36:33) I still can't believe that it's happened. On the downside, when I first looked at the program, I was on a panel with three other people. They weren't talking about the residential schools, they were on other issues. And we had a discussant who would be commenting on our papers. When I looked a couple of weeks later to find out what the email addresses were to send my paper to my fellow presenters in the discussant, it turned out that I had been removed from that panel and placed by myself without a discussant. So now I have to be by myself and I can't be on a panel with other academics. So it's just this kind of push pull of the different, you know, on the one hand, people trying to disguise what's happened to continue on with the same view. On the other hand, you know, people sort of beginning to realize that there's not a lot of substance to the claims about the 215, the remains of 215 children, and being somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that you, if you're asking questions about what's happened, you should be fined or put in jail because of that. And that's what's being proposed by the, I think it's up to two years in prison. That's what Gazan is, you know, is floating as her ridiculous piece of legislation. So that's kind of the side of the, you know, it is certainly better four years later than it was a couple of years ago. Because I think the fact that we're not seeing those excavations, like this person, Jenna, who was talking at Thompson Rivers, thought that excavations were happening. And her reason for why she thought it was taking so long was because of COVID and things had been delayed because of COVID. That was like, because of that, but it was happening now. But that's not true. It's not happening now. In spite of the ban, Ted Godfrey said a couple of times, and Manny Jules has said once, that they had had a discussion with the 13 family heads, and they had decided to exhume. Well, of course, in order to exhume, you have to excavate. Like he didn't say excavate, but you can't have exhumations without excavation. So it's basically saying they're going to excavate. Okay, so that's that side. (36:35 - 37:26) The side of the Aboriginal, getting the Aboriginal people to be demanding it, that's a very tricky one. Because as we saw, I'm not sure if you saw the Drea Humphrey coverage of the whistleblower about Kamloops. So they got an Aboriginal person. I have no idea how she was able to contact this person. They disguised his voice. He was afraid. He was afraid to come up and say anything about it. He said the ban has made a mistake. The ban knows that there's no remains there. But they're stonewalling, they're doing things. But they know that it's not true, what they've been, what they claimed in May 2021. And whether they ever thought it was true, I don't know. There's a lot of manipulation that was going on about this. So he's afraid to say anything. I would imagine most Aboriginal people are afraid to say anything about this. (37:27 - 38:41) Because if they do, they will be punished by the ban leadership for saying, for going against the, you know, the kind of the collective mindset, which is part of tribal politics, you know. As you pointed out in your book. Yes. So tribal politics, there's no such thing as free speech in tribal politics. You're either with the tribe or you're cast out of the tribe. So that's going to be a difficulty. I don't know how you get around it. You know, you do have people like Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson, who's a psychology adjunct professor at the University of Regina, who I did a Spectrum Street epistemology session with there. And he's the head of the New Enlightenment Project. And he doesn't even like to be referred to as an indigenous psychologist, because he says it's not relevant to my expertise as a psychologist. It's true, I have an Aboriginal background. And that that might have some, you know, shaping of some thoughts about other matters. But it doesn't matter about my looking at the evidence about the what the remains of children have been found. He thinks that it's an it appears I've been talking to him. But how much I don't know how much influence he has over other Aboriginal people or whether they would listen to him. (38:42 - 41:03) So this is a big struggle for the Aboriginal community. But and really, it's in my view, it's not really an Aboriginal problem. It's a problem of Canadian society. Like, and this is the scary thing that I'm finding time and time again, people who say, and this happened in the What Remains documentary, Simon Hergott, who is the incredible videography for who did this, these interviews, he came across people who would say things like, the truth doesn't matter. Yes, yeah, the young woman, it doesn't matter if the money is being misused, because Aboriginal people have been oppressed historically. And so it's just what they have owed is the money. The concept of truth, for some, is not an ideal that is applied equally to all. When posed with the question of, does truth matter? Some Powell River residents believe operating on falsehoods is justifiable. I think that to dictate something like this by a black and white concept of truth and true or false is not the issue. I think that as long as there is this very significant class division between the white population and the Indigenous population, why should there be this one set of rules like it seems false to, again, to the black and white, right? It seems reductive to try and have one set of rules for people that live in incredibly different conditions and worlds in the same place. Should Indian bands in Canada, who are already subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars a year, not have the responsibility to act on the foundation of truth? What has led members of the public to think in this way? We don't have any evidence for remains of children at that site. And we don't have any records of a parent saying that their child never came home from the residential school. (41:03 - 42:34) Valentina was presented with the fact that no excavations had taken place, despite the Kamloops Indian Band receiving $12.1 million to use for that purpose. Believed that dishonesty and fraud were just part of the process in reaching a better future. I feel like even if it's based in emotional reasoning and some sort of non-truths and people's personal plans to get money out of the government or whatever, it's not really something that concerns or upsets me. I think there's going to be a natural mess to cleaning up this kind of process. So as far as this band getting money, even if somebody's using it for, you know, personal gain, I don't know. It's not something that I'm terribly occupied or upset about. That's kind of the one position. Here we are arguing about whether the remains of 215 children have been found at Kamloops. I think that's an incredibly important question. We need to find out the truth about that question. But when you start saying this to some people, they say, well, that doesn't really matter whether there's 215 children there or not because of the terrible abuse that took place at the various residential schools. Except there's no proof of the abuse either. (42:34 - 42:48) Well, there's some. Or at least not widespread abuse, the way they're claiming. This is a very tricky area because as we'll find with all cases where there's no witnesses to it. (42:49 - 43:08) Whether a priest sexually abuses someone or not, not just Indigenous. We have this going through the entire boarding school system of just abuse that does tend to happen in these contexts, not just from the authorities, but from student on student abuse. This is another issue. (43:09 - 46:33) Then you get payouts, monetary payouts for being abused. So now you've muddied the waters in terms of, you know, now you have an incentive not to remember things, to miss. It might not even be lying. It might just be misremembering that's in your own interest. So this is a very muddy area that we don't, we're never going to get to the truth, the bottom of that, because everything has been so muddied and compromised by, you know, mass gatherings like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings where everyone's hearing all these stories. You can implant a story very easily in people who want to believe that story. So what are you going to do about this now? It's not really anything that you can get to the bottom of, but we can get to the bottom of the remains of 215 children, whether or not that's the case at Kamloops. Yes. But we're not, there's resistance to doing this. And then when you finally get people nailed down on this, they'll say, well, it doesn't matter anyway, because there's all these other issues. And it's like, well, no, we're not talking about those other issues. We're talking about this one issue. And I think, really, this is a fundamental issue. If we're not going to be able to get to the truth at Kamloops, which we can do, we're not going to get to the truth about anything. And if you believe in the truth, if you think that the understanding what's happening, you know, tethering yourself to reality, trying to figure out the way things are instead of what you want them to be, if you think that's important, that, you know, Kamloops is really the case, that question, because there's serious avoidance, evasion, obfuscation that's going on about this case. Yes. And do you think that perhaps a lot of the resistance to excavating, assuming these supposed graves at Kamloops, could be due to the fact that they actually did that at a Manitoba residential school, where they were supposed to be, I believe it was 14 unmarked graves underneath the school foundation, and they dug them up and found nothing but piles of rocks? Yes, yes. So, you know, they have a lot to lose and nothing really to gain by excavating. So everyone now, they've got 60% of the Canadian population, at least this was, I believe in, it was a year ago, or maybe it was 2023, I don't know when the survey was done, but it was done at least a year ago. It was Eric Kaufman's report. And it was interesting because it found that on a lot of the woke, what's called woke, which is identity politics that has become totalitarian, where you have to affirm the identities of people who are believed to be oppressed. So Indigenous people have this genocide survivor identity, that in order to help them overcome their marginalization and oppression, you have to affirm their genocide survivor identity. That's, that's wokeism. But this exists in a bunch of other issues as well. For most of those issues, the Canadian public is not on board with that, like they do, they think there's male and female, there's not, you know, if you if you're a man, and you believe you're a woman, well, you're not, that doesn't make you a woman, they're on board with that. They don't accept that. But they do accept that, you know, 60% accept that there's a mass grave at Kamloops. (46:33 - 49:23) And so I think that if, in order for us to, you know, kind of move forward in terms of this understanding of there being a universal truth, if we can get the excavations started at Kamloops and figure out what's there, we will achieve something that is very, very important for society. But there's no, there's no benefit to the, the Aboriginal industry or the neotribal elites, because they've already got 60% of the population believing there's a mass grave in Kamloops. The thing, the other thing, which is very, very important is we do not have the name of one child who never came home from the Kamloops Indian Residential School. So if there, and if, who are the 200, and it's not, and I should mention too, it's not 215. So even if we were to take Sarah Beaulieu's probable burials kind of idea, she said on July 15, 2021, so that's almost four years ago now, that there are not 215, there are 200. Because 15 of those targets of interest were actually in an area that was previously excavated by the Simon Fraser Archaeology Department. So she discounted those 15, because there are shovel test pits and other excavations that were done. So if she was wrong on those 215, or sorry, on the 15, why would she not be wrong on the other 200, which was the septic tiles that were laid in an east-west orientation in the Apple Orchard in the 1920s? It's equally likely she was wrong on those 200 as she was on the 15. But the band has, there's no benefit to them having the excavations, because they've already got 60% of the population believing that this is the case, when it's highly improbable. Because the remains of 200, whatever remains of 200, that's a lot of remains to be buried in a clandestine way. And somehow no one noticed. And no one knows. And if you go to the Kamloops Indian Residential School, which I have been to now, it's very close to Kamloops. Like, it's not like it's in a remote area or something. But to have people out in the middle of the night with lanterns and shovels and everything burying 200 people, you know, how do we know they're children? All these kinds of questions. (49:23 - 49:48) We had the Kamloops band say children as young as three years old. How do they know that they're as young as three years old? And what we've heard is that Sarah Beaulieu was saying when she was doing her ground penetrating radars, from the nature of these anomalies that she was looking at, the size of them indicated three-year-old children. Some of them I think recall from the documentary were 10 centimeters by 20 centimeters. (49:48 - 50:33) Yeah, that was in Saskatchewan, I believe. That was Terry Clark and Keisha Supernant, those two. They're doing these GPR kinds of things in Saskatchewan, and Terry Clark did it in Sechelt. They're not, they have no, they are an amateur running around with a GPR machine. They're not a geophysicist, like we've been talking to a geophysicist who's saying he thinks it's much more likely that those are animal burrows than remains. But it could be cobbles, it could be rocks, it could be animal burrows, it could be a whole bunch of different things. (50:34 - 51:47) Why is Sarah Beaulieu, if we can believe Ted Gottfriedson, who said this is what she said, is that, why is she thinking that there are three-year-old children buried there? What evidence does she have to claim there's three-year-old children buried there, especially when we have no names of three-year-olds who have gone missing? Plus, the question that comes to my mind is we don't typically send three-year-olds to school. No, and in fact, I believe residential schools, you had to be seven. I think that was the age of the residential schools before you got sent to a residential school. So the three-year-olds, this is a big mystery. But this is what is being said by the Kamloops Indian Band. Yes. Now, when I say that I think the narrative is crumbling, I'm in no way trying to diminish the challenges that lie ahead. And something that I learned from the documentary that even I didn't know, and I report on this stuff quite frequently, that sign in Powell River claiming 10,068 missing, presumed dead, murdered, whatever, buried children across Canada. So if we're interested in truth, in pursuing truth, the media should be asking questions about what this number actually represents. (51:48 - 52:06) And I don't think really there's been any stories which have examined this in any detail. The words missing children, you hear a lot. When we make decisions, we have to make sure that those decisions are based upon facts and not upon falsehoods or misleading information. (52:07 - 53:40) It's absolutely ludicrous. And yet, once again, this is being used to feed the narrative that there was this mass abuse and murder of Aboriginal children. So I think you're absolutely right that Kamloops is the key. Because if we can get those... And I'll sit right here right now and say when they do it, if they ever do it, they're not going to find a damn thing. They're nobodies. Highly improbable. We always have to be open. That's the thing about the scientific method is like, it's up to them to provide the evidence. They're making the claim. So the Kamloops Indian Band claimed, and this is the other annoying thing that people like Sean Carleton do, is they say that, oh, the band never made this claim. They were very careful. It was the media that lost its mind about this. This is not true. The Kamloops Indian Band, Rosanne Casimir, in July 2021, in front of, I believe it was the Assembly of First Nations, made a motion about a mass grave being found at Kamloops and having this being evidence of genocide. She did it again in September 2021. They did this petition, which they sent to Prime Minister Trudeau in October 2021 about, you know, the unmarked graves of children. So they've done it over and over and over again. Ted Gottfriedson as late as September 2024. (53:40 - 55:15) So Sean Carleton, this is nonsense. Knock it off. He's shifting, trying to shift the frame to pretend that the band never made any such claims. They did make the claim. So they made the claims. They got $12.1 million to excavate, to find out about this. They haven't done it. It's got nothing to do with COVID because it was in 2022 when Manny Jules and Ted Gottfriedson said that the family heads had agreed that exhumations would be done. And in order to have exhumations, you have to do excavations. We can't have exhumations as an open question because we don't know if there's bodies there. You know, so we need to find that out. So this is again and again and again. And then Sean Carleton, I believe it was last year, he shifted his perspective again to say that there had been deaths at Kamloops. Everyone knows there's deaths at the Kamloops Indian Residential School. So Nina Green and Jacques Rouillard, in a Dorchester Review article in 2022, so very early on, I think that was in February 2022, or it might have been even in January, Rouillard, based on Nina Greene's research, documented what the situation is at Kamloops, which is we have 49 names of children who supposedly died at the Kamloops Indian Residential School from the Truth and Reconciliation, or this is the National Center for Truth and Reconciliation. (55:16 - 1:00:19) 25 of those children did not die at the school. So they died in hospital, they died on their reserves because of accidents, and they had some association with the Kamloops Residential School because they might have just been there, but they didn't actually die at the school. And the ones in hospital died from various diseases. There are outstanding some death certificates. We're waiting on death certificates for, I think it's about 15 of these children. And there's nothing nefarious about this. It's because you have to be a family member and apply to vital statistics to get that information. The other death certificates are a matter of public record, but some of them we're still trying to get those death certificates. But there's no hint of any murders or foul play or anything. And with the ones that we have death certificates for, we have the cemeteries where they're buried. There's no mystery as to where they're buried. And that's the other kind of, it's probably intentional that they're making these confusions. People like Kimberly Murray, who's the special interlocutor, she has said in a committee in 2023, there are no missing children. They're buried in cemeteries. So what we have is, is cases like Romeo Saganash, who's the partner of Leah Gazan, who's also an MP, or he was an MP. I think he's no longer an MP. His brother died at a residential school, a moose factory, because I believe of some disease, of a disease, and was buried at the cemetery there. No one knew in the family where precisely he was buried. So he's in the cemetery. It's known that the brother's in the cemetery, but it's not known. So a couple years ago, they found the plot. They got some records and they found the actual spot where he was buried, and they let the parent know, the mother know where he was buried. So that's, that's the mystery, is where exactly in the cemetery. And as you can imagine, this is going to be somewhat difficult to figure all of this out, because you're going to have to have precise records of the, like on the death certificate, it doesn't tell where in the cemetery you're buried. And if you go and look at the cemeteries, Cory Morgan, who you're probably familiar with the work he's been doing about the Gleeson, I think it's the Sixth Circuit Reserve near Gleeson. Yes, that's where I worked when I was young. Yes, he did some footage of that. He's now being charged with trespassing or something, because he took some pictures of the terrible conditions that exist on that reserve. Anyway, awful. Yeah. And there's no, there's no reason why that has to happen, except that we're giving the money to the aboriginal industry and the neotribal elites, when we should just be providing the services and dealing with the social problems, the massive social problems. But in terms of Cory Morgan, the work that he was doing, he went to the cemetery of, I guess it was Siksika, and there's all these unmarked graves, not, sorry, not mass graves, but unmarked graves that were initially marked with wooden crosses, and those crosses have deteriorated. If you go to the Kamloops Bend, there's a cemetery outside of St. Joseph's Church, which has all sorts of unmarked graves in that cemetery. And some of those unmarked graves are going to be children who died at the Kamloops Senior Residential School. They'll be buried in those unmarked graves. So why isn't the band spending, it's so concerned about identifying the children, who, where they're buried, why isn't it spending its money on the 12, whatever, like, I don't know if that's gonna be separate, but they don't seem to be interested in that. They seem to be interested in this apple orchard, which there's no evidence of that, and it's highly improbable that there's any bodies buried there. Again, using the scientific approach, we don't want to say it's, there's no bodies there, and there never will be any, because we don't know, because we haven't done the excavations, but in order to determine whether it's the case, that's what needs to happen. To summarize then, for all the people who we know died, we have death certificates, we have records, we know they died at home, or they died in hospitals, they died of diseases, they died of accidents, they were not murdered, and they were buried in cemeteries. And for these supposed 10,068 claimed unmarked graves, we have no records whatsoever, no witnesses, and no credible evidence. Well, that number is very interesting. So I know some researchers in Powell River, I don't want to mention their names, because they have fears of repercussions if they talk about it. (1:00:20 - 1:04:35) Anyway, they've been doing research on the number, this 10,068. Where's that coming from, and what did these numbers? Presumably the 215 from Kamloops is in that number, also the Cowessess number, which is another travesty that's happened with Cadmus Delorme, who's the chief of the Cowessess band. When that came out, the 751 hits, he was pretending that this was a possible crime scene, when it was not even an Indigenous cemetery, it was a community cemetery next to a hospital, so there's bodies from the hospital that were being buried there. There were markers originally, and they deteriorated, and from my understanding, the band just didn't want to be involved in keeping it up, so it was just a decision was made to remove all these deteriorating crosses and everything. You can see some of the more solid markers that are there, and it's just now like a field that people can just... I'm not sure what's done with the field. So presumably the 751, but the most interesting one, which is in the What Remains documentary. So the What Remains documentary, we shot Simon Hergott, myself and an associate of Hergott's, we spent a few days doing interviews and so on, and one of the things we covered was this sign, 10,068. What we do know, according to the research on Powell River, is the sign went from... and it's like in a baseball field when you have goals and stuff, you take off the numbers and you put new ones on, so it's like this ongoing tally of these quote-unquote discoveries, was it went from 10... it was at 1028, and then it went to 1068, and it happened at the time when the Sechelt Band claimed that it had found the bodies of children in a parking lot, which was... the ground penetrating radar was done by Terry Clark, who's not a GPR expert, is a professor from the University of Saskatchewan, doing some very irresponsible kinds of claims and sort of implying that there's young children that are buried underneath this parking lot. But it's the same thing, you take this this GPR machine over and you get anomalies that you discover, and they could be drainage pipes, they could be... you don't know what's... but they think they're children, so that sign used those that finds from Sechelt to go from 10,028 to 10,060. That's based on the Sechelt anomalies finding of the GPR in the parking lot. Now, a question that I would ask is, are you aware of this ground penetrating radar, the GPR technology, ever being sort of tested in a controlled environment? Because here's the idea that occurs to me, because we know that the GPR is extremely unreliable, it can't tell you that there's a grave there, just tell you there's a disturbance of some area. I said, you know, there's a large park across the road from my house. I suspect if you took that GPR technology over there, you would find a whole bunch of disturbances that look exactly like what they're showing on their maps of these areas. And this could be done with no cooperation from anyone, and would cast a great deal of doubt on the narrative. Yeah, no, people should do that. That's something to think about. I have kind of thought a little bit about this. For the casing cam loops, it costs $40,000 to do this GPR work, which again, public money was spent, Canadian Heritage Grant was spent to do that GPR work. I don't know how much it costs, but that would be something to do, is to get a GPR machine to go in any field and see what you get. And you sort of saw that in What Remains. So in What Remains, the documentary that we just shot, we got footage from, I believe this was being done in Saskatchewan. (1:04:36 - 1:06:44) And so if you watch the whole thing, it's the New York Times, actually, which was doing this coverage, which is another story. New York Times is unbelievably unreliable. The flagship, on this file, they've just been absolutely terrible. Ian Austen is the journalist involved, who went and talked to Gary Gottfriedson and Ted Gottfriedson Sr., bumped into two men who said that they had been involved in digging in the apple orchard. We don't know the names of those two men. And one of them said he'd been digging holes in the ice, presumably to put bodies into the Thompson River. But my source on the Thompson River says that in the winter, if you put a body through the ice, it would stay there because the water's too, it doesn't run, it's not very deep. So, but anyway, Ian Austen, instead of doing his due diligence of finding that out and drilling down on that claim, just kind of took it as an established fact. Anyway, in terms of this New York Times coverage of this situation with Keisha Supernant, who's an advocacy archaeologist at University of Alberta. She's one of the worst spreaders of misinformation out there. And Terry Clark, who's from the University of Saskatchewan, neither is an expert in GPR, neither is a geophysicist, not scientific in any way. They're all doing smudging and everything before the session. And they're making these suggestions, like Terry Clark said, you know, what else could it be? It, you know, it looks like it must be a three-year-old child, you know, this sort of stuff. Anyway, they had an elder who was telling them that's where the bodies would be buried in that area. So the elders tell people this is where the bodies are buried. Then they take the GPR over there. Then they get these findings of targets of interest and they say, well, this is the evidence of what the elder is saying occurred. That's their methodology. (1:06:46 - 1:07:15) Well, the elder needs to be questioned more in terms of who these people are who would be buried there. Who are they? Who like, like much more skeptical questions being asked to find out like the facts on the ground, like you need to have this kind of audio facts that you start with, establish what actually is the case. And in the case of Kamloops, we don't have any of that. (1:07:16 - 1:09:15) We have some general stories, which I might add before the announcement was made in May 2021. We had no people talking about burials except for Billy Coombs and Jesse Jules. Billy Coombs, we actually have footage of him on Kevin Annett's documentary Unrepentant. And there's another figure that should be brought up here is Kevin Annett. I'm not sure if you've heard of Kevin Annett. No. He's a big part of the story. So Kevin Annett was a United Church minister in, I believe Port Alberni, was making claims. And he's the one who's kind of talking about the Queen Elizabeth abducted children. That's from Kevin Annett. Anyway, so he's making all these claims about thousands of murdered children being hung on meat hooks, being thrown in incinerators, all these things. And he's written, I think, three books. One is called The Fallen. One is called I can't remember. And anyway, when I was reading these many years ago, like a couple of decades ago, I was going, whoa, you know, this is crazy talk. You know, this is this is just like a mind of some deranged person. Anyway, he's been talking about this for decades and was also when he got defrocked and thrown out of the United Church because he was making all these claims about murders and everything. And there wasn't any evidence to support that. And of course, he sees this all as a big attempt to shut him down and so on. So he goes to Vancouver and meets up with Billy Coombs and a bunch of other Aboriginal people. Billy Coombs was a student at the residential school. And Jesse Jules, who we've never been able to contact and never been able to interview. Billy Coombs died in, I believe, was 2012 or 2013. So we can't talk to him anymore. (1:09:16 - 1:10:51) But there's a video of Billy Coombs, which is in Simon Hergott, my documentary, What Remains. Anyway, talking about the Queen Elizabeth situation. And there's a whole bunch of people watching these Kevin Annett videos and everything that he's doing and reading his books. And there's a sort of big movement that that is kind of online. And and so you're going to have a bunch of Aboriginal people that are going to be listening to this. So they've observed these stories. And now with the announcement at Kamloops that the bodies were found and remains were found, all these people are going, Aha! It's just what we knew all along. And yeah, there's always been these stories and everything like that. So all these people hearing these things, go and now they've got this story. And so they tell the Keisha Supernant and Terry Clark, Oh, the bodies, they're all buried along here. And so then they go and take the GPR machine and put it over that area and then get these anomalies, which could be anything. And if you took the GPR machine out to a field, wherever, you're going to find animal burrows, you're going to find all these things. So that's the same kind of thing that's going on. For instance, at this point, I think we have to talk about why this whole conversation matters, not just beyond discovering the truth, but the impact that it has on Canadian society. And I want to start with something that I know a lot of people will watch the documentary and they will think, well, that's not that's big of a deal, but I think it's a very big deal. (1:10:51 - 1:13:55) And the attempt to rename Powell city, because supposedly Israel Powell is, as you revealed in the documentary was falsely accredited with starting the Kamloops school when in actual fact he probably had nothing to do with it. But this is an attempt to rewrite our history. And that's extremely dangerous. As we were discussing earlier, history is what is written down. And okay, you can have your oral traditions, but if we've got records, we've got something to counter that with. But as soon as we start rewriting the records, now we've got a real problem. Yeah. Yeah. So this is, this is the most frustrating part of all of this. So we have the idea, the idea of a universal truth. And then we have people who think there's no such thing as a universal truth. So that's the first kind of divide. And a lot of the people who are supporting the kind of the aboriginal industry and it's all, it's to say that there's no such thing as a universal truth. So it really doesn't matter what people say. So that, that like there, there's this argument is being made. So, um, and it's not made consistently either, because as soon as you, as soon as they're trying to make claims, they're expecting you to accept that as a universal. So the elders who are saying that there's children buried in the Calhoun's Apple Orchard, they expect us to accept that and to state that that's the case. If they want that to happen, they are operating according to this kind of universal truth idea. I have to jump in here, I mean, you, you're a professor, you're, you're an academic, you're, you pursue truth and knowledge. Yeah. Does, does that idea not just appall you? Yeah. That there are these people who think there's no such thing as truth. Well, I'm sorry, but if there's no such thing as truth, then why are we discussing anything? Yeah. There's no point. No, no, it's all about politics. Then it just becomes politics. So, but it's not consistent because the whole thing about truth is that we have to agree that this is actually the case. If, if there's no such thing as truth, then it's just, okay, someone's going to force you to do something and say something. So they're going to force you to say that the remains of 215 children have been found because this is affirming the, you know, Aboriginal genocide survivor identity. Um, and you shouldn't really worry whether it's true or not. Like, that's kind of the thing, but then why are you getting me to say it? Like, like why, if you're just going to do what you're going to do, why do you need me saying something that I believe to be is not, I don't believe it's true, but you want me to say it's true. It's got a very 1984 feel to it. Very Georgia. (1:13:56 - 1:16:31) It's very Orwellian. It's very disturbing. And, and, you know, like wake up people, this is what's going on here. This is not about kindness and compassion and, you know, wanting to empower people and so on. This is pure totalitarianism. You get people stating things that they know is not true. And then you start to believe, people start to believe these things after a while. And this is how you assert control over populations. So we, we need, we are not being disappeared right now. We are not being arrested. I did not get arrested at Thompson Rivers University. I said, I will say to these universities, arrest me. And then we'll see, we'll have this discussion about how you are not fulfilling your academic mandate here. You should not, Thompson Rivers University should be receiving no public funding as an academic institution. It is not an academic institution. They told us when we were there that we were on the Tecumelips house. We were on the first indigenous house. So therefore we should not be discussing the unmarked graves. What does your location have to do with discussing truth? The Tecumelips don't want you to discuss the unmarked graves here at this university. So therefore you should not be discussing the unmarked graves here. That's what this man who's a representative of Thompson Rivers University was telling us. We have him on, we have him on, I, I, the whole thing was an unimaginable gong show of a university that has completely lost its way, largely due to that sham of a, of a segment there, which is the law school at Thompson Rivers University, which is involved in land claims disputes in his massive aboriginal industry stronghold at Thompson University University. And that tail is wagging the Thompson University dog, Rivers University dog. That's happening because they're being indoctrinated in law school. We have a lawyer here in Alberta, Roger Song. He's from China. And he understands all this totalitarian crap. And he's suing the law society of Alberta for pushing their D.I.O. policies on lawyers. And he should be. Well, you know about the case of James Heller. So James Heller is a lawyer. I know him from, he's from Victoria. He, in the law school materials, they had materials which said that the remains of 215 children have been found or unmarked graves have been found at Kamloops. (1:16:32 - 1:16:50) All he wanted to do was have the word potential added in front of unmarked graves. He got accused of being a denialist and being involved in racism and all sorts of things. The Law Society of British Columbia was supporting this and he's now suing them for defamation. (1:16:52 - 1:18:03) So the law schools are a complete disaster. They've been a disaster for on this file for, you know, at least 20 years, probably longer. Alan Cairns in his book Citizens Plus, which was written in 2000. So I guess that's going on 25 years ago now. He was talking about this problem, that these law professors are not acting like academics. They're acting as advocates who are trying to push this cause and expand all these definitions and everything like that. So now here we are in 2025, after 25 years of this going on, and we are just seeing, you know, we're now seeing, we're at a crossroads seeing what this is, the horrible rotten fruit that this is going to bear. And we had an unbelievable interview that was done with a law professor at Thompson Rivers, whose name is Nicole Chavez, who's an Aboriginal industry lawyer, who's involved in the land claims that are going on. This is incredible, this interview. I can imagine. I've had a few conversations, not recently, with my nephew, who was an Aboriginal lawyer. And yes, I can imagine how that conversation went. (1:18:03 - 1:19:03) Yeah, yeah, it's, there's a lot of grist for the mill in this interview. But it's, you know, it's not a case of one individual. It's the whole, the whole apparatus in the universities have completely fallen apart. Because as you're saying, the idea of universal truth is no longer accepted in the universities. So we can't, if you are trying to say what you think is true, which is going against the prescribed doctrine of the remains of 215 children being found, or that there's genocide that has taken place, the residential schools were genocidal, you will be pushed out of the university, you will be charged with residential school denialism if this crazy legislation goes ahead. And we have a law, Nicole Chavez, she was, this is her thing. She wants that. She's pushing for this to happen. She's a professor. (1:19:03 - 1:19:34) At a university, because she thinks that what the Aboriginal knowledge keepers are saying, everyone should just accept that, because of what she perceives to be the history that has taken place, which is not an accurate history anyway, and is totally driven by this kind of Aboriginal industry agenda. Yes. Now, we talked about UNDRIP at length in our previous interview, but I do think we need to touch on it again, because that really is the point of all of this. (1:19:34 - 1:19:38) It's the end game. That's the end game. So talk about that, please. (1:19:39 - 1:21:23) And Nicole Chavez has some more things to say about UNDRIP as well. And this is something, and I've been studying UNDRIP very, very sporadically from 2012. And I wrote a paper in 2012 about the perils of endorsing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. So I was looking at it very theoretically. This was before it had even been recognized. At some point, it got recognized symbolically by the government, and I believe it was the Harper government. So for people who think that this is a conservative versus NDP versus liberal, the whole system of Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal relations and policy is very deeply entrenched in Canadian society, beginning with the Constitution. So it starts with the Constitution, which is just seriously flawed. And this is how you get into these things, is you're sort of told that this is the way to make amends with the Aboriginal population by doing this. And what you're doing is you are basically bringing in principles which will destroy the system. But you didn't really realize it at the time, because it was never fleshed out in terms of jurisprudence. And so now we've been fleshing this out in jurisprudence now for the last 50 years, and we have a huge mess that is on our hands. The latest, of course, is the... So UNDRIP initially was just the United Nations document. It was sold that it was just, you know, it was just principles. It was just, you know, the idea of recognition. (1:21:24 - 1:25:21) And this would be something that would help Aboriginal people think that the Canadian government and the Canadian people were sympathetic to their history and so on. That's how it was sold. And it's not binding. It's not binding. So you're not going to be forced to do anything. It's just going to be some principles that you... But the principles that you're signing on to are contradictory to the operation of a nation state. Because what it's doing is bringing in an ethnic principle into a geographic one. So Canada is based upon a geographic principle, which is, you've got these provinces, you've got these municipalities, you've got municipalities that are responsible to the province. And then we've got the province, which is part of federalism, which has its own sovereign areas. And then you have the national government, what's called the federal government, which has its own areas of jurisdiction. And there might be overlapping, in which case there's a dispute. Then you go to the Supreme Court of Canada to make determinations about where the boundaries between the geographical entities reside. So that's the geographical principle. We're bringing in now with UNDRIP an ethnic principle. So instead of having a municipality where everyone can come and go. So you're in Powell River, and we haven't talked about Israel with Powell yet, which we have to do. Just bookmark that for a minute. And we found this with Powell River. So Powell River is a municipality. Aboriginal people can live in Powell River. They can get a house in Powell River, they can live in Powell River, they can vote in city elections, and so on and so forth. The Tlamyn quote-unquote nation, which is not a nation, it's a Tlamyn tribal grouping. It has this area that is negotiated with a land claim and all sort of thing. And then you have this mysterious thing called traditional territory, which is not part of the, it's just sort of the wider kind of area, which is now, that's what UNDRIP is getting at. So UNDRIP is saying that you have these nations that have the right to self-determination that are within Canada. But what that self-determination means is very unclear at this point. So in terms of lands that are traditionally occupied, and this is language in UNDRIP, they have self-determination. They determine everything that happens on their traditional territories that they occupy, which is a much wider area, which includes Powell River and all sorts of things. And this is now uncertain. It's usually now crown land that is under, like they've got that, and it's a large part of British Columbia. I don't know, I think it's 95% of the lands in British Columbia are crown lands. So anything that's done on crown lands has got to be, have free prior and informed consent from the aboriginal groups about this. They all have overlapping territories. So for example, Docks in Pender Harbour was a case. My father's property on Reed Island has a breakwater and three aboriginal groups are claiming that area and the breakwater is on crown land. So you have to have a permit and you have to have all these things. And that's done through like the province. That's how it was historically. But now you've got three aboriginal groups that also have got to give consent for the lease that you're going to want to have so you can have this breakwater. (1:25:22 - 1:26:40) Yes. And so, and that's unknown as to how that's all going to take. So it's these kinds of things which are happening, which no one knows how that's all going to unfold. But what you really have is a kind of a veto point from an ethnic group over which people don't belong to that ethnic group, don't have any responsibility. They have no voting power, no ability to hold that group accountable or anything. It's not aligned with the provincial government. So municipalities are all delegated authority from the provincial government. So if Powell River is doing something that the province is disagreeing with and thinks it's in violation of something, they can rewrite some kind of Powell River legislation and so on. That's not what's happening with UNDRIP because UNDRIP is supposedly nations with self-determination. So there's all sorts of disputes now that are going to emerge because of this. And guess who's going to benefit from that? Yes. It's going to be the lawyers in the aboriginal industry on both sides. (1:26:40 - 1:26:57) Right. So they're going to have the Pender Harbor representatives who are fighting one legal battle and you're going to have the aboriginal groups are going to be fighting another legal battle. You're going to have the lawyers working in the government and it's just going to be a huge legal dispute that's going to go on for the next 10, 20 years. (1:26:57 - 1:27:03) Yes. And as I see it, UNDRIP and DRIPA in BC, which reinforces it there. Yeah. (1:27:03 - 1:27:43) What this is, is this is a plan to give control of our lands and resources to foreign powers because it says, okay, you can't develop anything there without permission from the nations. And as you very correctly pointed out, they're not nations. In fact, you talk about that in your speech, that's in the documentary. They don't have a parliament. They don't have a legal system. They don't have a currency. They don't have services. They're not nations, but it legitimizes them that term, but they don't make the decisions. The aboriginal industry that controls them makes the decisions and that aboriginal industry can be bought out by anyone, say the Chinese, which already own huge swaths of land in Canada or any other entity outside of our country. (1:27:44 - 1:34:27) Suddenly now has control of all these lands and resources because of UNDRIP. And everything we've been talking about today, this false narrative about all these graves, is guilting people into going along with that narrative and handing over our country. So this is something that would have to be, and this is something I don't know very much about, but for people who are studying this area, again, the thing you want to do is you want to get a foundation of facts. So you want to look at what it is doing for sure is it is undermining British Columbia sovereignty and undermining Canadian sovereignty. So I should just mention with the symbolic character of UNDRIP before it got turned into DRIPA or UNDRIP. So DRIPA was passed in 2019. Declaration on, I don't know what it actually stands for, but it's the British Columbia. It's the codification of the United Nations declaration into provincial law, 2019. 2021 is the national, that happened immediately after Kamloops. So that's directly tied to the Kamloops announcement is the pushing through of the United Nations declaration on Indigenous Peoples Act. That would not have happened as quickly as it had happened without the Kamloops announcement. So it's directly tied to that. That is actually now making this Canadian law, British Columbian law. So before it was, you didn't have to follow anything. Now you do because it's law. And so it's going to be enforceable in a situation. And so what's happened is that because it's bringing in an ethnic principle into the law, it's going to undermine the sovereign final decision making power of British Columbia and also Canadians in terms of the federal federalist system. Nicole Chavez, when she was talking about this in this documentary, it says that's the point of it is to allow Indigenous people to have control over these areas of territory, which is 95% of the land in British Columbia. Now the international role that is being played here, we know that it's going to, it's undermining British Columbia sovereignty and Canadian sovereignty. That's a fact, because you're giving control to a non overarching power. So in the case of British Columbia sovereignty, that includes Aboriginal people. So Aboriginal people in British Columbia are residents of British Columbia and can vote in British Columbia elections. People in Aboriginal people in Canada are Canadian citizens. They can vote in Canadian elections. So it's not like they're being excluded from the Canadian political system, the British Columbia political system, because we were operating according to a geographic principle. What this has done, it's brought in an ethnic principle where it's only Indigenous people who are allowed to control whatever's going on within this particular sphere. Canadian citizens who are not Aboriginal, British Columbia residents who are not Aboriginal have no authority or no ability to interact with that system. So that is undermining Canadian sovereignty, British Columbia. So that's a fact. Yes. The thing about the international role, that's something that has to be studied and documented. I don't know what's going on there. It's possible that that's happening. But you'd have to look at, in terms of these Aboriginal groups, do we have evidence that there is movement by international, by Chinese governments, whatever governments that are interacting with the Aboriginal organizations? That's what's got to be studied to determine that. And I can't answer that question, but I can give you what I think is a very realistic scenario. And you've just laid it all out for us because this is about sovereignty. So before UNDRIP and DRIPA, let's talk about BC. That's a good example. BC is the best example. It is the best example. Before all of that, let's say that you had a mineral development company that was supposedly Canadian. But if you went and looked a little bit, you'd find they were owned by a Chinese shell corporation. And they want permission to go and do some mining in BC. Well, they have to get that passed by the BC government. And sure, people will argue, well, there's corruption. You can buy them off. Yes. But it's a lot harder to get away with because there's scrutiny. People are watching what's happening there. And now you get DRIPA and UNDRIP and you don't need that anymore. You just need the permission of the indigenous peoples now, the first nations, which aren't actually nations. And it's not the indigenous people that are giving that permission. It's the aboriginal industry that's doing it. And there's no oversight. So no problem. And this is where I come off saying what UNDRIP really is, is it is a ploy to give away our lands and resources to foreign powers. Sovereignty. It's a terrible. So I think people who study this issue should look, like that's what would need to be investigated. So these corporations. So this is what this is a scenario. Now, a lot of this is just what's called rent seeking. So rent seeking is when because of an aboriginal identity, you're able to extract resources on the basis of that and you're not actually doing anything. So it's usually if you're a landowner, this is the key. So you own the land. Someone wants to come and do something on your land and you charge them some kind of rent or something to do it. And you know, as a landowner, you don't have to do anything. You just own it. So and this is an extra cost for doing things. And this is largely so in the case of UNDRIP, what's happening now is that things like stumpage fees, where you what happens is corporations do logging on crown land for every tree. They pay the government a certain amount because the government's the landowner. Now, because the aboriginal organization is also seen as being a landowner, they get some of that stumpage fee, those stumpage fees, and that's being negotiated all the time. And UNDRIP has made that more prominent. What happens there is people say, well, that's a good thing, because this means that aboriginal groups are getting this funding, which then they're going to be able to use to support, you know, the marginalized members and all this. But that's not what that money goes for. (1:34:28 - 1:35:31) So the government of Canada still has to fund aboriginal groups to deal with the marginalized members. But then you got but it doesn't have the stumpage fees that it would be getting to help it to do that. So you're just taking away the tax base, which was used to provide services to all British Columbians is now no longer. So this is a huge. So that's generally what's been happening with DRIPA. But we have the corporations and what's going to who owns the corporations, all these kinds of questions. That's what's got to be studied in terms of what's happening internationally with this. But we definitely do know DRIPA undermines Canadian sovereignty, undermines British Columbia sovereignty. That's a fact. Yes. Now, what that's going to actually mean in terms of the powers that come in and start, you know, influencing the aboriginal organizations is an open question which needs to be examined. Yes, but that's what I would say. (1:35:31 - 1:35:52) Right. But the point that I wanted to make for the viewers is that the reason why this whole aboriginal schools narrative and questioning it and finding the truth about it matters is because it's being used to fuel that fire. Exactly. Of UNDRIP. Exactly. Which, as you correctly point out, is, I would say, currently the greatest threat to our sovereignty in this country. (1:35:53 - 1:37:32) Yeah, like it's definitely a threat to Canadian sovereignty and British Columbia sovereignty. It loosened people up. And UNDRIP, the Canadian legislation, was being resisted by, I think, five provinces and also the Conservatives were resisting it. So it would have had problems in the Senate going through. But with the quote-unquote discovery, everyone was on their heels. Everyone was, you know, what can we do? Oh, the 215 children murdered and put in masquerade. What can we do? This is obviously terrible. And everyone was kind of almost in shock. Like, that's kind of what happened. Because I'd been studying this, you know, I was well aware of the genocide argument. Actually, I did an event with Brian Giesbrecht, Rodney Clifton and Paul Veminitz. And I think it was on July 10th, 2021. We were saying, hey, you know, wait, like, we don't know what's going on here. We need to hold back, you know, wait for the evidence. This could be an abandoned cemetery. Like, we don't know what this is about. And that's because we had been studying this issue for a number of years and investigating the truth and reconciliation kind of rhetoric that was going on. So we were already, you know, sort of had a little bit of, you know, sort of skepticism about these kinds of claims. (1:37:32 - 1:37:46) But almost everyone else in Canada was just, you know, vulnerable to this kind of, and it's psychological manipulation. It's what it is. And this is what's going on all the time. (1:37:46 - 1:38:07) And it's not just the Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal relations. It's all these other woke kinds of causes, totalitarian identity politics causes. And what happens is compassion is used to get people to accept authoritarian measures that they would not accept otherwise. (1:38:07 - 1:38:30) Yes. Guilting them into going. And people go, well, you know, if I don't do this, I'm a bad person. I'm not supportive of Aboriginal, you know, trying to overcome the oppression that Aboriginal people have faced and so on. And that's the kind of thing we're getting in the interviews that we did in Kamloops, which is, it doesn't matter if it's not true. It doesn't matter if it's fraud. (1:38:31 - 1:39:13) It's, look at the terrible things that have happened. You know, like, we got to do something about this. It's like, well, first of all, it's never a good idea for people to be doing things on false pretenses. Like, that's not, if we're going to allow people just to do, to say they're going to do something when, and get public money to do it, and they don't end up doing that, that's not a good, accountable kind of, you know, people in public money being, you know, determined that it's going for the things that it should be going for. Like, all these kinds of problems. I think a way to clearly frame that is the old computer anagram gigo, garbage in, garbage out. (1:39:13 - 1:39:17) Yeah. If you're working on false pretenses, we got garbage going in. Yeah. (1:39:17 - 1:39:23) And so the conclusions that are going to come from, the actions that are going to come from is also going to be garbage. Or it will be a coincidence. Or if it actually works out, yeah, it's. (1:39:23 - 1:42:30) It doesn't work out that way, but, but still we should have, we shouldn't be having garbage going into anything. We should, we, if we're going to live in a democratic society, you know, having policy made on the basis of fact is important. And if we're not going to have policy based on fact, then policy can be anything. That's a huge problem. And in the university system, which is my, you know, passion is the universities. Cause I have been witnessing this for 25 years. Cause I, that's when I started in the, you know, into the academic side and, you know, things were never perfect. Obviously there are always problems, but, you know, up until about 2013, you know, we, we sort of understood what an academic environment was and how important an academic environment was, because if you don't have that sphere where you can fearlessly challenge authority figures, you know, stop false claims from being made for political purposes, then you have lost, you know, an incredibly important institution in producing knowledge, allowing professionals who go into, you know, becoming doctors or becoming paramedics or becoming people in the bureaucracy and so on. Those people are not, and the lawyers, like, that's another, like becoming lawyers, having a grounding in knowledge, stuff, factual information, having an understanding of critical thinking processes to figure out what's likely to be true and what's unlikely to be true. All these kinds of things that are very, very important for an advanced society to function properly. That is gone. It's over. And no better case is Thompson Rivers University. Like, like that is the worst thing I've ever seen at a university is the way they're operating. And, uh, they're going to be held to account for what they've done. And, uh, you know, well, they'll, it will be exposed. The, the, the question is, do people care about this? Well, they should, because it's the universities are supposed to be the last stop in our children's education. And if these are being used as indoctrination centers and they're fed nothing but falsehoods, well, what can we expect for society when those same students end up running things? Yeah. Well, the lawyers, this is the most shocking part of everything is that, you know, lawyers are going to go into court and facts matter in the legal system. And if you have people being tried for offenses and facts don't matter, then you're going to have people wrongfully convicted. As we have seen happen multiple times in this country in the last five years over the COVID narrative, when the courts refuse to even listen to whether or not there's any substantiation for the narrative. (1:42:31 - 1:48:56) Yeah. You know, that's, that's another thing, which really we need to get to the bottom of that. You know, like, like there's a lot of things like that when people just don't want to have the, and the universities, as we saw from when Thompson Rivers University tried to order us off their campus to discuss some misinformation that that university had been spreading for four years. And if we had been, you know, deferential, we would have left, but because we knew what they were doing was wrong. And we were prepared to stand on principle against them. We stood our ground and they just disappeared after trying to intimidate us in various ways. Right. Now, Frances, I think we're almost done, but a few minutes here, you made reference to something related to Powell River. Oh, yeah. We haven't discussed them. So what remains, just so if I can just explain to people the documentary, which I just, I cannot praise Simon Hergott enough. I was incredibly fortunate to have him contact me. And because of terrible injustices that have been done to him as a journalist, he has incredible skills that I have at my disposal to be able to produce these incredible documentaries now. Anyway, so the whole purpose of this documentary, What Remains, was to talk about the idea of truth and how it's being destroyed and the negative impacts that this has had on the town of Powell River. So Powell River, which I've been to now three times, I have a lot of friends in Powell River, and they have just been under siege. The people who want to maintain what they saw as their town, like they were mill workers, spent their whole lives producing value, producing paper, which everyone in the world was using, an incredible sort of community. And the mill shut down a couple of years ago. And so people are now, you know, in a little bit of a, you know, a terrible state because of that. And then, of course, now we have the aboriginal industry moving into Powell River in a big way. And what happened was, after the Kamloops announcement was made, the chief of the band, the Talaman Aboriginal group, sent this demand, and it was posed as a request, but it was, I think the words were, it's not a matter of when the name will be changed. Sorry, it's not a matter of if the name will be changed, it's a matter of when. So that's not a, that's not a request. It's like, we are going to change the name of your town. They have their own aboriginal area, which they call whatever they want to call, like, but they're making demands off of this geographical entity that they've got to now change their name because they claimed that the bodies of 215 children had been found at the Kamloops Indian Residential School. And as well, Powell was the initiator of residential schools. And this was very traumatizing to the aboriginal group to hear the name Powell being referred to. Anyway, it turned out that Powell, first of all, the Kamloops announcement is very improbable, so that was not, you know, correct information. Secondly, Powell, who was quite a person who was not a very harsh, you know, person who brought in various policies, he was actually someone who was trying to accommodate aboriginal interests as much as he could in the current context, was primarily concerned about day schools, so bringing day schools to the surrounding area. The Kamloops Indian Residential School, which is brought up, was actually initiated by the chief, whose name is little, I believe it's pronounced Louis, we said Louis in the documentary, but I think it's Louis, it's not the French version, it's the English. The chief of the Kamloops band wanted the residential school built so children would have a good chance. Because the aboriginal leaders back then, a lot of them understood that if they didn't educate their children, they were not going to be able to function in the society that was growing from the Europeans that had come to this country. Yes, and as well, the residential schools offered some benefits to aboriginal children because they had much more discipline, like the teaching was at a much higher level, although it still was, you know, I know there's a lot of problems with the resources of the residential schools and so on, but because you had much more of a disciplined environment where you were able to control, you know, children being, you know, given lessons on a regular basis, whereas if you had a day school, you had serious attendance problems usually would, and it was just due to the fact that aboriginal cultures were pre-literate, they were not used to reading and writing and arithmetic and all these kinds of, like a literate cultures kinds of parameters did not exist. So, if you have schools in the communities, then you have a lot of those difficulties that you're going to be dealing with, whereas if you have a residential school, you have much more control over the kinds of, you know, the rhythms of the day and the, you know, teaching people, and they had, you know, shop work, they were training students, and if you watch that, there's actually an interesting CBC program that was produced in 1962. It's called the Eyes of Children, which is a documentary produced by the CBC in 1962 about the Kamloops Indian Residential School, and they show footage of three aboriginal teachers in the Kamloops Indian Residential School. This is the same school which has claimed, you know, murdered 200 children and put them in unmarked graves in an apple orchard. You think that the indigenous teachers who were teaching at that school would not have noticed, you know, these kind of horrible things that were going on? Or children going missing, yeah. (1:48:56 - 1:49:13) Anyway, this doesn't, it's not probable in any way. Anyway, Little Lewis was the one who initiated the school, not Israel Wood Powell. Israel Wood Powell was concerned with the day schools, not with the residential schools, and, you know, also he was claimed to outlaw the potlatch. (1:49:14 - 1:52:26) Interesting, this is another interesting thing about aboriginal non-aboriginal relations, is that there were four aboriginal bands who wrote a letter, and, you know, whether they had help from missionaries and so on, this is all kind of murky, but they had put forward this petition to Israel Wood Powell asking that he put down the potlatch, because the potlatch actually disadvantaged poorer aboriginal groups, because what the potlatch system is, is that you, if you have a group that holds a potlatch, there's all this gift giving, you are obligated to respond with the same amount of gifts or even more, and if you're a poor aboriginal group, the amount of resources that you would have to spend to be able to meet what it was that the more wealthy groups were doing would be very, very difficult for your group, so they wanted the potlatch to be eliminated, because it was harming them, harming their group, to have this system when they could not afford to meet the kinds of obligations that were required in that kind of system. So that was another thing that came out in the research, is that the potlatch was not something that was universally demanded by various aboriginal groups, and Powell was dealing with that dynamic, as well as dealing with, you know, the demands of the government and all these things, and he was not even a strict person who was saying it should be made illegal. He was saying he thought that persuasion should be used more. Anyway, so this was the background of this. A number of citizens didn't want the name to be changed. They had this process that was run by two consultants who were part of the aboriginal industry, and they just were, it was right from the beginning, they were gonna, this was the policy that they wanted to have put forward, is that it was like, we're gonna change the name and we're just gonna teach you to think about this in the right way, and so they spent all these money and all the time on these, you know, community sessions, and then the town is never more divided than it ever has been, and all these name changes are just going ahead anyway, and, you know, there it's kind of, for me, it seemed to me that if this is lost in Powell River, local democracy is basically over, because they're very organized in Powell River, and they are having a serious fight that they've got to fight to try to maintain the name of their town, which there's no reason to change the name. All the reasons that were given were not true, so why would we then change the name if the reasons given were false? And it gets back to your comments earlier about sovereignty, and I'm not in any way putting down aboriginals when I say this, it's just a fact, they didn't build Powell River, they don't own Powell River, but they get to change the name. Yeah. Wow. (1:52:26 - 1:56:01) It's, you know, and it's not to say, like, if the residents of Powell River want to change the name of Powell River, then they can do that, but they shouldn't be forced to change it just because a group which already has its own area, no one's telling the Flamination what they should call, we're even calling them the Flamination, which is not even strictly a true thing, people should be aware of that, but if they want to call themselves a tribal, you know, Flamination, then they are doing that, they're putting out their materials and everything, so if they have their right to call themselves what they want to call themselves, why shouldn't the residents of Powell River have the right to call their town what they want to call their town? Right. Anyway, I was quite amazed by all of this that's happening in Powell River, but I think it's a wider kind of problem, which is we must have a universal understanding of truth, if we don't, we have no way of discussing things and figuring out what to do, and until, you know, I don't know when this started, like in the 60s there was beginnings of this happening, this is when post-modernism, which is the relative disposition, began to insert itself in the universities, but that was just a small part of the university, it wasn't like a demand that was being made over the entire universities, and now with the universities completely destroyed, all of this, you know, ridiculous kind of discussions, all these discussions are just like infusing all the other areas of society, so now we're in this terrible state, and people are just, it's almost like they're anesthetized, and they don't understand the danger of it, and you know, we are, as I said, we're not being thrown in jail, we're not being yet disappeared yet, and the reason why we're not is because we still have some of the old infrastructure in place that's preventing that, but we're not far off from that being destroyed, and so we need the public to become, you know, animated about this, and realize that this will destroy Canadian democracy, if we don't stop this from happening and restore some of the protections, some of the liberal democratic protections that we used to have not that long ago. Our universities, you know, in 2018, I was still completely operating within the academic freedom context in 2018, and I had a lot of confidence that it would hold. In 2019, it started to break down. In 2020, it's completely gone. In 2021, they, you know, so this is wrongfully released you. Yeah, but I'm still here. I haven't been disappeared, and I will fight them to the end of my days for that university to become an academic institution once more, and I will be able to do that if the public recognizes how terrible this situation is, and although it is obviously impacting me negatively, what's happened. My fight should be the fight of every Canadian citizen, because what happened to me is gonna, it has happened. (1:56:01 - 1:59:00) I interviewed a professor in Kamloops whose name is Derek Pine. People don't even know about his case. He was pushed out of Thompson Rivers University. His case is even worse than mine, but because he didn't really, I have some public light shone on me, so there's a little bit more concern about what's going to happen in my case than that was in his case, but there's many other professors, so unless we allow our universities to operate according to what they were operating before, and if I can just win my case at Mount Royal University and get reinstated back in that university, that is one step in pushing back against the destruction of the universities. And I certainly hope that it happens. Now, folks, the name of the documentary is What Remains. You can find it on YouTube. You'll find a link beneath this interview as well. And I wanted to ask, Frances, whose idea was the title? Because I love clever titles, and it's one of the best double entendres I've ever heard. I know, it's Simon Hergott, and I actually disagreed. I have to just give total credit to him, because I was sort of going, I'm not sure, because it doesn't have the Kamloops thing in the title, and I'm not sure, but it was his idea, Simon Hergott. Well, you can tell him I think it's brilliant. Yes, I think it's brilliant too, and I'm so glad that he thought of it, and I'm so glad he convinced me to have that as the title. But now the important thing is that this is not a standalone documentary. No. We're doing more. Yes. So we just spent four days in Kamloops shooting. Whoa, like I'm pretty blown away by what we discovered. Some of the most important stuff is about Thompson Rivers University, but there's also a media outfit called CFJC. A journalist by the name, well, calls himself a journalist. Yeah. His name is... I kind of take that personally when you call those people journalists. I'm a journalist. They're propagandists. A quote-unquote journalist, whose name is James Peters, who got the scoop for the Kamloops announcement. He was the first one to break the story. That doesn't just happen by accident. Anyway, we were able to come face to face with him. Oh, I look forward to seeing that discussion. That was incredible. That was incredible. I can't believe we were able to do that, but we were able to come face to face with him. Francis, thank you so much for your time today, for the wonderful work you're doing. Yes, to expose the truth and to teach people why it matters. What is truth and why does it matter? Is truth not the basis on which we judge reality, coexist peacefully, justly? Power of the minority over a majority with a foundation based on lies will lead to ruin. (1:59:03 - 1:59:16) Healing and unity cannot be achieved when this is the case. Only division. The people of Canada need to understand what is happening in Powell River and why. (1:59:20 - 1:59:54) The announcement that the remains of 215 children had been found in the old apple orchard next to the Kamloops Indian Residential School had a profound impact on Canada and the world. The town of Powell River was no exception as the revelation prompted the demand by the Klamen Nation to change the town's name. Here in this coastal community, what is perceived as just a minor change has much more significant implications because it gets to the heart of the ability to believe true things. (1:59:54 - 2:01:05) Furthermore, the unmarked grave story has been used as a weapon to fast track the integration of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, into the Canadian legal system, which has the potential to undermine the rule of law and democratic processes more generally. But the claims about Kamloops are now in dispute because of the investigations of Black- lock's Reporter and an intrepid group of academics, lawyers, and journalists. What is being exposed is that the unmarked grave claims are being initiated by an entity called the Aboriginal Industry, a self-serving group of lawyers and consultants that manufacture grievances to divert funding away from the marginalized Indigenous population. I believe that I have a responsibility as an academic to alert the public about this manipulation and try to uncover the truth. All people, including the Indigenous population, deserve the truth because it is on this basis that we can learn to live peacefully and cooperatively with one another.