June 16, 2025 • 35 mins
Aaron Pete counts down his top 10 podcast moments — featuring David Suzuki, Tara Henley, Holly Doan, Candice Malcolm, John Rustad, Kris Sims, Aiemann Zahabi, Clarence Louie, Brent Butt, and Premier David Eby. These conversations challenged assumptions, sparked growth, and defined 200 episodes of meaningful dialogue.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Aaron Pete (00:00):
200 episodes, that's 200 conversations, 200 people
smarter than me and 200 chancesto say something I'll regret on
YouTube.
But I didn't start this show tobe safe.
I started it to be curious, tochallenge the ideas we inherit,
to understand what drives peopleand maybe, just maybe, to grow
a little along the way.
So today I'll be counting downthe top 10 episodes that didn't
(00:23):
only make waves.
They made me pause, rethink andremember why I started this
show in the first place.
So let's get into it.
Coming in at number 10, we haveCanadian icon David Suzuki.
When I asked him how bad thingsreally are, he didn't sugarcoat
it.
We're off a cliff, he said, notheading toward one.
(00:43):
Off it Full stop.
That moment hit me hard.
Suzuki's voice carries decadesof frustration.
He's a scientist, an activist,a grandfather who's been
sounding the alarm since beforeI was born.
It's tempting to dismiss thatkind of urgency as doom saying,
but that would be missing thepoint.
(01:05):
He's not just frustrated, he'sheartbroken, and it made me
think.
If someone with that muchknowledge is that worried, what
excuses do the rest of us havefor this level of inaction?
And yet I hold onto more hopethan I feel like he does.
Maybe it's generational.
Maybe it's naive, but I stillbelieve change is possible, not
(01:29):
because it's likely or becauseit's easy, but because it's
necessary.
Hearing Suzuki speak wasn'tjust sobering.
It was a challenge to prove himwrong in the best possible way.
Let's take a listen, looking atthe state of the environment
today, are we making progress?
Are we heading in the rightdirection or the wrong direction
?
David Suzuki (01:48):
We're right over the cliff and it's too late.
Too late to get back onto thecliff.
You know, I used to say I feltlike we're in a giant car
heading at a brick wall at 100miles an hour and everybody's
arguing about where they want tosit.
Doesn't matter who's driving,you have to put on the brakes
and turn the wheel.
(02:08):
But now I don't use thatmetaphor anymore.
I say you know a roadrunner, alittle bird?
Well, he's always being chasedby Wile E Coyote and they come
to a.
The roadrunner comes to theedge of a cliff and of course he
does a 90-degree turn.
But Wile E Coyote's got so muchmomentum he goes right over the
(02:31):
cliff.
And there's that moment whenhe's suspended and he realizes
oh my god, I'm over the cliff,that's where we are.
But then people say well, is ittoo late?
Yeah, it's too late to get backto the edge of the cliff.
But it makes a differencewhether you fall 10 feet or 100
(02:54):
feet.
So I'm still there, trying tohang on to something on the side
to keep from falling all theway down.
But the science is in.
The science has been in forover 30 years and I want to
remind you that in 1992, inanticipation of the Earth Summit
(03:17):
in Rio de Janeiro.
That was.
The Earth Summit was thelargest gathering of heads of
state ever in human history, andit was meant to signal a shift
in the way that human beingswere living.
And so, before the meeting,over half of all Nobel Prize
(03:38):
winners signed a document calledWorld Scientists Warning to
Humanity.
And the document opens by sayinghuman beings and the natural
world are on a collision course.
Human activities inflict harshand often irreversible damage on
(03:58):
the environment and on criticalresources.
If not checked, many of ourcurrent practices put at serious
risk the future we wish forhuman society and may so alter
the living world that it will beunable to support life in the
manner that we know.
Fundamental changes are urgentif we are to avoid the collision
(04:23):
our present course will bringabout.
Now, that was a very powerfuldocument.
They then listed the areaswhere we are colliding with our
environment the atmosphere, theocean, fresh water, species
extinction, and it just goesdown the whole list.
(04:43):
Extinction, and it just goesdown the whole list.
Forestry and so on.
And then the document gets evenmore grim.
It says no more than one or afew decades remain before the
chance to avert the threats wenow confront will be lost and
the prospects for humanityimmeasurably diminished.
Aaron Pete (05:06):
At number nine we have Tara Henley.
She's a longtime friend of theprogram.
She left the CBC not inbitterness, but in pursuit of
intellectual honesty.
This episode captures whathappens when institutions
discourage curiosity and howimportant it is to ask hard
questions.
Anyway, what I admired mostwasn't just what she said, but
(05:29):
how she said it.
Tara is calm, measured andcommitted.
It's easy to throw stones fromthe outside.
It's harder to care enough tochallenge the thing you once
loved.
Tara's critique didn't comefrom a place of vengeance.
They came from grief, the griefof watching something she
(05:50):
deeply values begin to lose itsway.
Tara reminded me that lovingsomething doesn't mean never
questioning it.
It means caring enough to askthe uncomfortable questions.
Her call wasn't to destroy theCBC.
It was to reform it, to remindof its own potential and to
(06:10):
acknowledge the damage done byabandoning its core values.
In a time when people eithercancel or conform, her courage
to chart a third path reform.
It felt rare and it feltnecessary.
Here's that moment.
Tara Henley (06:26):
You know that I love the CBC.
I said that on your firstpodcast that we ever did
together.
Part of the reason why I wentpublic with my criticisms was
because I felt like nobody elsewas going to say the things that
needed to be said and that wewere going to lose the CBC if we
didn't have a frankconversation.
I still feel that way and thislast weekend I was invited to
(06:47):
speak at Digital Media on theCrossroads, a big industry
conference in Toronto, and Itook the opportunity there to
make the case for saving the CBC, for not defunding the CBC, and
I felt I was uniquelypositioned to make that case
because I have been so critical,but also because, as you can
(07:08):
imagine, after my resignationletter went viral, I heard from
thousands of Canadians on thisissue and I've had so many
conversations.
I felt like I had a decenthandle on what the actual
criticisms were and that's whatI wanted to talk about.
I don't think the CBC has beenor is currently doing a very
(07:30):
good job of addressing thosecriticisms.
So McGill's Center forTechnology recently did a survey
.
It showed that 78% of Canadianswould like the CBC to continue.
We hear that stat all the timein the media right now.
The second part of thatsentence is if it addresses its
major criticisms and it doesn'tget repeated, and that's a shame
(07:51):
because it is a conversationthat has to happen.
I would say there are fourmajor criticisms that I counter
all the time.
One is bias.
Two is mistakes, particularlyin pandemic coverage,
particularly in that 2021-22 erathat you and I have just been
talking about.
The CBC's own records showduring that period, the
(08:12):
ombudsman has reported a 60%increase in complaints during
that time.
We can't gloss over thesethings.
We're going to have to dealwith them.
It's going to be painful.
It's going to be painful.
And then there's the complaintfrom within the media as a whole
that the CBC is using its $1.4billion advantage to compete
against struggling media andstartups like yourself and like
(08:34):
me.
And the fourth is an abuse ofthe taxpayers' trust.
I know you had the CanadianTaxpayers Federation on in the
past.
You're, I'm sure, familiar withall the arguments there, but
the executive salaries are quitehigh.
The VPs are making almost$500,000 a year.
We know last year from Freedomof Information requests, the CPC
(08:55):
paid out more than $18 millionin bonuses.
These are things that are verydifficult for the taxpayer to
accept, and there has to be aconversation about that as well.
Even when you look at thenumbers from the Canadian
Taxpayers Federation, since 2015, there has been something like
(09:16):
231% increase in CBC staffmaking over $100,000 a year.
Again, we are in a cost ofliving crisis.
People across the country arehaving difficulty buying food
that does not sit well.
So those are the big criticisms.
My piece sets out 15 ideas, anyone of which would signal real
(09:36):
change.
I'm not under any illusionsthat the CBC is going to do
these things.
I just wanted to demonstratewhat it might look like to have
real change, and why I wanted todo that is to come back to your
question, which is what is apositive vision of the CBC?
Aaron Pete (09:55):
Number eight is Holly Doan.
She does what people thinkjournalists are supposed to do
Compare promises to outcomes.
There's no spin, there's nonarrative, just receipts.
Talking to Holly felt likestepping into a time machine, a
reminder of the kind ofjournalism many of us grew up
(10:16):
believing in no grandstanding,no partisan framing, just
relentless focus on the factswhat was promised, what happened
and what didn't.
It made me realize how rarethat's become.
We've grown so accustomed toeditorializing, to teams and
tribes and talking points thatsimply reporting feels so
(10:41):
radical.
Holly isn't trying to go viral,she's trying to get it right,
and a world of noise.
That clarity is its own kind ofcourage.
Let's roll that clip.
Holly Doan (10:53):
In terms of extracting government
information.
I also like to say to peoplelook, we don't cover what
government, what politicians say.
We don't go to news conferencesor watch Question Period.
Really we don't cover whatpoliticians say.
We keep an go to newsconferences or watch Question
Period.
Really we don't cover whatpoliticians say.
We keep an eye on what they'resaying.
We cover what government does.
What government does you knowif you don't know about it?
(11:15):
It's like the dog that didn'tbark.
That's the dog that can hurtyou if you don't know what he
did.
Yes, of course, then we'llcover what politicians say, but
only after we know whatgovernment did will we ask them.
Aaron Pete (11:25):
Coming in at number seven is Candace Malcolm.
A conversation that reminded methat sometimes the best
insights come from when you'rewilling to hear someone out,
especially someone you don'tentirely agree with.
We talked about history, policy, media mistrust and Indigenous
issues, and while ourperspectives diverged, we didn't
(11:48):
shut each other down.
We listened, we challenged eachother, we reflected, and that's
the kind of exchange wedesperately need more of.
What struck me most was howmuch nuance emerged from our
disagreement.
When you take the time to digpast slogans, past talking
points, you find context, andcontext doesn't always change
(12:12):
your mind, but it deepens yourunderstanding.
In that sense, candice didn'tjust make a point, she made an
impression.
So let's go to that part of theconversation.
We have spots in the lowermainland where indigenous people
were hanged, and so the the,the power imbalance during that
period would not have led peopleto rush in and go.
(12:33):
Oh, I'm sure journalists careabout what our circumstances are
.
For so many canadians they hadno idea indian residential
schools even existed and that'snow being taught.
But to think that anybody caredabout these problems 50 years
ago, 100 years ago, is kind offoolhardy.
So when I saw that, it was likewell, maybe we're not putting
in ourselves, into the contextof what those times may have,
(12:55):
may have had on people but?
Candice Malcolm (12:57):
but you're conflating times too, right,
like when you're talking abouthow there were first nations or
natives that were hung in thelower mainland, Like I'm sure.
I mean, do you know the datesthat that happened?
My guess is it was in the 1800s.
Like when we're talking aboutresidential schools, most of
them opened, like in a warperiod, Like we're talking about
like the 30s to the 60s, right,or maybe the 20s to the 60s.
(13:18):
First of all, you know the 20swere a time when the Spanish
plague was, you know, killed aquarter of the globe population,
Right, Like.
Like the average, you know, onein four children were surviving
to the age of 18.
Right, so like people just dieda lot more frequently back then
(13:40):
.
To which?
Aaron Pete (13:42):
people celebrated Joseph Trutch within our region.
He said the extinction ofIndigenous people will come at
the consequence of many of thesediseases, so they're not a
problem to worry about, which iswhy he downsized Indian
reserves, which Douglas gaveanticipatory reserves to.
So the kind of overall ethosduring that period was that all
these people are going to dieanyway, so we don't have to
(14:03):
worry about them.
So it wasn't like there was alot of love for Indigenous
people during some of theperiods we're talking about.
Candice Malcolm (14:09):
Well, okay, so I was talking about in an entire
population, not just FirstNations.
Like everyone was dying fromthe Black Plague, right, people
were dying and I'm sure you canfind awful quotes because it was
a different time when peoplehad different views.
I'm sure you could find quotesfrom First Nations people saying
awful horrible racist thingsabout white people too, and you
can find awful horrible quotesabout white people Like I don't
(14:30):
think that the two sides had thebest relations back then and I
think that there's a lot ofpeople, but one had all the
power and one had none of thepower yeah, it was definitely
like regrettable circumstances.
But, aaron, I'm talking aboutlike the fact that there's
claims that there were hundredsof children that were murdered
in these schools but that wedon't know the names of those
(14:52):
kids, like we don't know whothey are.
Like I mean, I'm saying this asa mother like if I send my kids
off to school and they don'tcome home, like I'm not just
gonna say like, oh well, oh well, no one cares anyway, so I home
.
Like I'm not just going to saylike, oh well, oh well, no one
cares anyway, so I'm just goingto, I'm not going to talk about
it, I'm just going to go along,like, like if something happens
to your children, you're goingto let it know, even if it's
(15:12):
just in your community.
Like you're going to have arecord that your child died at a
school.
Like, even if it's just thatyou, that you keep that record
in your community.
Maybe you don't go tell thewhite sheriff down the street
because you don't trust him, butbut the the idea that there's
just all of these children thatwere murdered by nuns and
(15:34):
priests and teachers, like, likeyou say, like a lack of an
evidence is an evidence.
That's, that's a pretty, that's.
That's one of the worstaccusations that you can level
against another human being.
Aaron Pete (15:44):
But it's not against a human being, it's against a
broader system.
Right, it's not one.
I'm not saying this guy wasresponsible, which, to your
point, would be incrediblydisrespectful.
It's that the system would havecaused these deaths, these
people working within the system.
I actually have a lot ofsympathy for the individuals who
worked with them.
We do know that many of thepeople who wanted to work in
(16:07):
Indian residential schools overthe past hundred years were not
the most well-intentionedindividuals, that going up into
the middle of nowhere andworking with kids was not
something many people wanted todo, and some of them had
perverse incentives, darkincentives and harmful ideas on
what they would be able to do ifthey ran those so like a bunch
of, so the government recruiteda bunch of murderers to go off
(16:28):
and like kill kids like I.
Candice Malcolm (16:29):
I just I'm trying to understand the
accusation because again, likebecause we're writing about this
is a super controversial topic.
I've heard from a lot ofcanadians.
I really respect what you'resaying and I'm happy to continue
this conversation as long asyou want because I think I can
learn from you in this instancebecause you're a lot more
connected to it than I.
But I've heard from people whosay you know, there was an
Indian residential school in mycommunity and they got more
(16:49):
money than the public schools orthe Catholic schools and they
had more resources and they hadbetter teachers and they had
nicer buildings.
And I've talked to people whowere graduates of these
residential schools and they saythat it changed their life and
it made them on a better pathtowards succeeding in a modern
economy.
So like there's two sides to it,right, it's like I'm sure a lot
(17:11):
of people went to school andhad a miserable experience and
they were homesick and they weresad.
A lot of people really wantedtheir children to attend these
schools because they saw it asan opportunity for betterment.
Like I said, the schoolsweren't compulsory, they weren't
mandatory, they weren't goingand scooping people up from
their house, despite there's asort of a thought that that was
happening, that the Canadianpolice were going door to door
(17:33):
and scooping kids up and takingthem to these schools.
That's a myth, as far as I canunderstand.
People wanted the schools andsure, like in any environment,
there's going to be an abuse ofpower.
There was abuse and there washorrible, unspeakable abuse and
it's tragic and anyone who wasinvolved in that should be held
accountable.
There's a reason we got rid ofthis program.
(17:53):
It obviously failed.
It didn't work, although somepeople did benefit from it.
Aaron Pete (17:59):
But fair to say that churches have had a system to
protect their own, not just withindigenous people, but there's
documentaries about how they'vemoved people around to avoid the
exact accountability thatyou're describing what churches?
There uh, there's man off thetop of my head.
There's a um, a netflixdocumentary called like mother
(18:20):
something, and she was a nun andshe worked within the system
and canada, in the us, okay, andthat she was murdered and that
a few of her colleagues weremurdered and the priest.
They have documentation that hewas committing these atrocities.
They have documentation thechurches knew and that they were
deliberately moving him around.
I can't remember the name ofthe documentary off the top of
(18:41):
my head but like this isn'tcontroversial that this has
happened.
Candice Malcolm (18:45):
Yeah, I think that there's been abuses in
power, and they used to happenat churches and now they happen
in other places.
Aaron Pete (18:52):
Number six is John Rustad.
Our conversation cut throughpolitical politeness and struck
a nerve across the province.
I asked him plainly would youfire Bonnie Henry?
His answer didn't come from aprepared script or a cautious
politician's filter.
It came from conviction.
What followed was a detailedcritique not just of the public
(19:15):
health decisions but of thevalues guiding them.
Rustad didn't hedge.
He argued that ideology hadtaken precedence over evidence
and the decisions made in thatmindset were doing real harm.
Whether you agree with him ornot, what matters is that he
showed his work.
In politics that's pretty rare.
(19:37):
This conversation reminded methat tough questions aren't just
headlines.
They're about accountabilityand in a democracy we can't
afford to forget that.
Would you fire Bonnie Henry?
John Rustad (19:51):
Yes, Well, sorry, I don't know if we need to fire
her, but we would terminate hercontract in whatever form that
would be.
I look at like Bonnie Henry didthe best she could during COVID
.
When you look back at it, youcan really question a lot of
decisions she made.
It seemed to be driven more byideology than it did by science.
But I'm not a doctor, I'm not ascientist, you know.
(20:13):
I can't question that myself.
When you compare the resultscompared to some other
jurisdictions okay, maybe ourresults weren't as good as what
we're led to believe, but Ilooked at it particularly from
the perspective of not hiringback our healthcare workers.
Every other jurisdiction inNorth America hired back our
healthcare workers, as far as Iknow, every other jurisdiction
in the world and yet we didn't.
And I asked Bonnie Henry why weweren't doing it and she, what
(20:38):
she essentially told me was ifhealthcare workers are not
prepared to take a vaccine, thenthey should probably be
thinking about working in adifferent field.
In other words, it wasideologically driven.
It was not driven based onhealth.
It was not driven based onrisks.
Every other jurisdiction didthis.
We didn't.
To me, that's somebody who'sactually causing harm to our
(21:00):
system and that should be thefirst order of a doctor.
You know, do no harm, thatthere's harm being done to our
system.
And I also look at Dr BonnieHenry, who went out to Ottawa
and made the argument on behalfof David Eby and his government
that we should be expanding safesupply, that safe supply should
be available you know, instores, that we should be
(21:25):
doubling down ondecriminalization.
I mean, these have been utterfailures in our society.
Experts are telling me we havethe highest level of addicts per
capita anywhere in NorthAmerica and it's particularly
acute, of course, withindigenous populations.
And I look at that and I thinkthis is not the direction we
should be going.
And if this is what shebelieves we should be doing,
(21:46):
then I think she needs to findwork elsewhere.
Aaron Pete (21:48):
Number five is Chris Sims.
When it comes to taxes, fewpeople are as clear and
relentless as she is, and,whether you agree with her or
not, her ability to break downpolicy into plain language makes
her a powerful communicator.
We talked about the carbon taxwhere it started, how it evolved
(22:09):
and what it means for ordinaryCanadians, but the real value of
the conversation wasn't in thenumbers, it was in the framing.
Chris reminded me that behindevery tax policy is a family
trying to make ends meet, asenior heating their home, a
truck driver filling their tank.
This wasn't a rant, it was areality check.
(22:32):
Let's go to that clip.
Kris Sims (22:34):
The first.
You might be surprised I mightnot be telling you something you
don't know.
Actually, you probably alreadyknow this, but the first
political party in Canada to runa campaign against the carbon
tax that even said ax the taxwas the British Columbia NDP.
That's right.
So back when Carol James, theformer finance minister, was
(22:56):
leader of the NDP, she calledGordon Campbell's idea to have a
revenue neutral carbon taxlipstick on a pig.
I agree that was a really goodquote.
And then she ran an entireelection campaign on axing the
tax because she thought it wouldbe unfair to punish people for
heating their homes and drivingto work and eating food.
(23:17):
She was right then, and I can'tfor the life of me explain to
you why the provincial NewDemocrats in British Columbia
have lost sight of that.
In fact, there's footage ofJohn Horgan, before he became
premier, in the oppositionbenches railing against the
(23:38):
carbon tax in BC, and that wasback when it was about five
cents a liter carbon tax in BC,and that was back when it was
about five cents a litre.
You guys are more than 30 centsa litre right now with your two
carbon taxes.
So my point of all this is ispoliticians can change their
minds and the NDP reallyreversed course on the carbon
tax, unfortunately, and we wantthem to see them go back to
(24:00):
axing the tax.
Aaron Pete (24:01):
Number four is my guy, amon Zahabi, ufc fighter
coach and strategist.
But what impressed me mostwasn't his physical training, it
was his mental discipline.
We talked about mindsetpressure and doubt and the
decision to bring on a mentalcoach to sharpen his edge.
In a world where fighters oftenpresent themselves as
(24:24):
invincible, amon's honesty abouthis need for mental strength
stood out because it was humble,it was real.
The lesson Everyone, no matterhow tough, needs help staying
sharp.
Greatness, as he put it, isn'tabout being great once, it's
about repeating it.
And that hit home for me.
(24:45):
Let's jump to that clip.
I'm wondering if you can talkabout choosing to work with a
mental coach, how that decisioncame about and how you find
somebody who's maybe the rightfit to work with you about your
mental game.
Aiemann Zahabi (24:58):
Yeah, well, I hired Mindset Mike because my
friend suggested it for me.
Like, listen, I got a coach foreverything else right.
So why not have a coach for themind?
Because, in the end, the finalpiece is the mindset right.
When you get to the top 15,everyone's well-conditioned,
everyone's got skills,everyone's got their path to
victory.
But if I can have someone whocan have me run through a system
(25:22):
that guarantees that I'm goingto be performing my best on the
night, that counts.
Why not take that advantage,right?
So that's kind of the reasoningbehind hiring him.
Because you know to be great.
It's about repeating thatgreatness over and over again.
You know, if you're great onenight, who cares?
You got to keep repeating thegreatness for people to be like
(25:44):
oh wow, how does he keep beinggreat?
That's what really makes peoplelove you, right?
So that's kind of like the thereasons why I wanted to hire one
.
And, uh, so far, like the twotimes we worked together, I had
no doubt that I was going toperform well, because I was.
My mind was so clear.
You know, I knew exactly what Ineeded to do, and especially in
this last one, where I ran intosome trouble near the end and I
(26:07):
used some of the techniques tomake sure that I ended up on top
.
Aaron Pete (26:11):
Coming in at number three is Chief Clarence Louis, a
man who speaks like he's got notime for fluff Because he
doesn't.
Every word he shared isgrounded in a belief in
Indigenous self-reliance and aneven deeper understanding of how
economics drives communitysuccess.
What stuck with me was howunapologetically practical he is
(26:36):
.
He's not here to pander or toguilt anyone to change.
He's here to build, to employand to get results.
His vision isn't built ontheories.
It's built on experience.
It's built on decades ofleading his community, not just
through words, but through realaction.
The clip we're about to hearreminds us that, whether you're
(27:00):
talking about education, healthcare or cultural programs, the
money has to come from somewhere, and if we want sovereignty, we
need economic power.
It's a message that empoweringas it is, challenging, and one I
think about constantly.
Chief Clarence Louie (27:19):
One of the national chiefs once said it's
the economic horse that pullsthe social cart.
Well, yes, it is, but most ofour people don't realize that
they're trying to put the cartbefore the horse.
You know, they all talk aboutall these social programs,
social elders programs, youthprograms, education.
Everything costs money.
(27:40):
Health costs money.
I've never met a teacher thatworks for free.
Nurses and doctors don't workfor free.
Everybody wants a paycheck.
There's nothing wrong with that.
That's just normal and natural.
Everybody wants a paycheck,even when I see healers, these
native healers that go around.
We have to pay them.
(28:00):
Nobody, unless you're going tolive off of welfare.
The majority of our people wanta decent paycheck and they have
to realize that those paychecksthat come from and even if you
work in social services orschools or in education, that
(28:21):
paycheck comes from somewhere.
I mean the money, the fundedmoney that goes into health and
education, comes from economicdevelopment, comes from
corporate taxes, comes frompersonal taxes, natural resource
taxes, everything.
(28:41):
If you connect the dots, it allgoes back to economic
development.
Because unless you're a thirdworld country dependent on
foreign aid which I know, canadaand America and most GA
countries they end up givingmoney, they end up giving some
(29:02):
of their economic developmentmoney to these needy countries
because they depend on foreignaid.
But every government I don'tcare if it's the federal
government, provincialgovernment, municipal
governments, first nationgovernments every government
needs money to operate.
(29:23):
And if you connect the dots,dots, where does that money come
from?
It doesn't just fall out of thesky, people you know.
It just bugs me that nativescan't connect the dots.
They can't connect the dots ofwhere.
Where does this money come fromto pay my teachers, or to pay
our social service staff, or orwhere's the money come for youth
programs, elders programs, onit when we bury people, where's
(29:45):
that money come from?
It comes from economicdevelopment, it comes from
business development.
That's where all the moneycomes from to run the federal,
provincial, municipal, firstnation governments.
Money just doesn't fall out ofthe sky.
It comes from economicdevelopment.
Aaron Pete (30:05):
Coming in at number two is the great Brent Butt,
comedian, writer and the creatorof Corner Gas.
This episode was a reminderthat laughter isn't just an
escape.
It's a way of processing theworld.
I've had some heavyconversations on the show about
war, addiction, politics,climate change, but Brent
(30:29):
reminded me that you canapproach serious issues with a
light touch and that sometimeshumor gets to the truth faster
than outrage does.
Brent has this gift for makingyou feel like everything's going
to be okay, even if it's not,and in an era of cynicism, his
optimism grounded in honesty isrefreshing.
(30:51):
This conversation gave me asecond wind.
It reminded me why storytellingand, yes, even jokes, still
matter.
I grew up watching your show.
I grew up looking up to you.
I've learned so much throughyour journey of highlighting
individuals who are making adifference, and you've done such
a great job of reminding us tolook at the small moments, see
humor in it and make sure thatwe're being the best people we
(31:13):
can be, and I just I thinkyou're just such a positive
influence for people and I thinkI can't thank you enough for
doing this.
You've been a highlight ofdoing this podcast.
I can't appreciate you.
Shut up stupid.
Brent Butt (31:25):
How about that?
Put a little twist at the endthere.
Well, thank you, thanks for allthat Very kind words.
I appreciate that very much.
Aaron Pete (31:32):
Tober 3rd.
I think people shouldabsolutely read it.
We've got a dog cameo going onin the background for people who
are just listening.
And number one, premier davideby.
Not just because he's thesitting premier, but because
this conversation marked aturning point for me.
It validated the podcast in theeyes of many, but, more
(31:53):
importantly, it deepened my ownunderstanding of leadership.
Eby didn't dodge, he didn'tdeflect.
He leaned into that tension.
He acknowledged mistakes.
He tried to explain the why,not just the.
What what moved me most was hisreflection on trust In a world
where confidence in governmentis absolutely crumbling.
(32:16):
He didn't pretend that faithcould be won with slogans.
He talked about earning itbrick by brick, mistake by
mistake, correction bycorrection.
That's a rare kind of humilityfor someone in power and that's
why this conversation, for me,sits at number one.
(32:37):
How do you process, during thatstorm of reaction, whether or
not you're on the right track ornot, or whether or not there's
too much political pressure tocontinue?
David Eby (32:45):
Yeah, I mean, one of the things that you do see in
politics is there's alwaysanother side.
Even in issues where you thinkit should be pretty cut and
dried and during COVID it's agreat example like whether or
not you should get a vaccine, itfelt to me like a pretty
straightforward oh my God,there's vaccines, get a vaccine,
you know.
It felt to me like a prettystraightforward oh my God.
There's vaccines, like let'sget vaccinated.
But there's always another side, and one of the things is that
(33:09):
that we're really seeing is and,and some of it's just, you know
it's in in your example.
Anytime you're making a change,people, you're asking people to
trust.
You know we're making a change.
What's coming next is going tobe better and and I don't know
(33:29):
you know I wasn't alive inprevious times in human history,
but it felt like trust was alot higher in institutions and
government and in neighborhoodsand each other, and so this is a
time of of limited trust.
So, whether it's tearing down abuilding, or whether it's
taking a vaccine, or whetherit's you, it's any government
policy that's going to changethe status quo, people have to
trust that you're doing it forthe right reasons, yes, but also
(33:50):
that it's going to be apositive outcome.
And so that's the big challengeof politics, to my mind and
doing politics well or not isyour ability not just to
communicate where you're goingand where you want to go, but
that you're actually able tocome back after you made the
change and say, yeah, weachieved it, or earn trust by
saying, no, we didn't.
And maybe we could talk aboutdecrim, but we didn't achieve
(34:12):
what we wanted here, and so wehave to go back and try again
and to have the humility to say,yeah, we thought it was going
to have this outcome, it didn't,and we have to keep pushing and
changing 200 episodes and thesewere only just 10 moments, but
what they all share is thishonesty, courage and a
willingness to say what matters,even when it's hard.
Aaron Pete (34:35):
This isn't just a podcast.
It's a space to wrestle withideas, to challenge assumptions
and remind ourselves thatcomplexity isn't a flaw, it's a
feature.
Thank you for being part of thefirst 200.
Let's see what we can learn inthe next 200.
200 episodes, that's 200 conversations, 200 people
smarter than me and 200 chancesto say something I'll regret on
YouTube.
But I didn't start this show tobe safe.
I started it to be curious, tochallenge the ideas we inherit,
to understand what drives peopleand maybe, just maybe, to grow
a little along the way.
So today I'll be counting downthe top 10 episodes that didn't
(00:23):
only make waves.
They made me pause, rethink andremember why I started this
show in the first place.
So let's get into it.
Coming in at number 10, we haveCanadian icon David Suzuki.
When I asked him how bad thingsreally are, he didn't sugarcoat
it.
We're off a cliff, he said, notheading toward one.
(00:43):
Off it Full stop.
That moment hit me hard.
Suzuki's voice carries decadesof frustration.
He's a scientist, an activist,a grandfather who's been
sounding the alarm since beforeI was born.
It's tempting to dismiss thatkind of urgency as doom saying,
but that would be missing thepoint.
(01:05):
He's not just frustrated, he'sheartbroken, and it made me
think.
If someone with that muchknowledge is that worried, what
excuses do the rest of us havefor this level of inaction?
And yet I hold onto more hopethan I feel like he does.
Maybe it's generational.
Maybe it's naive, but I stillbelieve change is possible, not
(01:29):
because it's likely or becauseit's easy, but because it's
necessary.
Hearing Suzuki speak wasn'tjust sobering.
It was a challenge to prove himwrong in the best possible way.
Let's take a listen, looking atthe state of the environment
today, are we making progress?
Are we heading in the rightdirection or the wrong direction
?
David Suzuki (01:48):
We're right over the cliff and it's too late.
Too late to get back onto thecliff.
You know, I used to say I feltlike we're in a giant car
heading at a brick wall at 100miles an hour and everybody's
arguing about where they want tosit.
Doesn't matter who's driving,you have to put on the brakes
and turn the wheel.
(02:08):
But now I don't use thatmetaphor anymore.
I say you know a roadrunner, alittle bird?
Well, he's always being chasedby Wile E Coyote and they come
to a.
The roadrunner comes to theedge of a cliff and of course he
does a 90-degree turn.
But Wile E Coyote's got so muchmomentum he goes right over the
(02:31):
cliff.
And there's that moment whenhe's suspended and he realizes
oh my god, I'm over the cliff,that's where we are.
But then people say well, is ittoo late?
Yeah, it's too late to get backto the edge of the cliff.
But it makes a differencewhether you fall 10 feet or 100
(02:54):
feet.
So I'm still there, trying tohang on to something on the side
to keep from falling all theway down.
But the science is in.
The science has been in forover 30 years and I want to
remind you that in 1992, inanticipation of the Earth Summit
(03:17):
in Rio de Janeiro.
That was.
The Earth Summit was thelargest gathering of heads of
state ever in human history, andit was meant to signal a shift
in the way that human beingswere living.
And so, before the meeting,over half of all Nobel Prize
(03:38):
winners signed a document calledWorld Scientists Warning to
Humanity.
And the document opens by sayinghuman beings and the natural
world are on a collision course.
Human activities inflict harshand often irreversible damage on
(03:58):
the environment and on criticalresources.
If not checked, many of ourcurrent practices put at serious
risk the future we wish forhuman society and may so alter
the living world that it will beunable to support life in the
manner that we know.
Fundamental changes are urgentif we are to avoid the collision
(04:23):
our present course will bringabout.
Now, that was a very powerfuldocument.
They then listed the areaswhere we are colliding with our
environment the atmosphere, theocean, fresh water, species
extinction, and it just goesdown the whole list.
(04:43):
Extinction, and it just goesdown the whole list.
Forestry and so on.
And then the document gets evenmore grim.
It says no more than one or afew decades remain before the
chance to avert the threats wenow confront will be lost and
the prospects for humanityimmeasurably diminished.
Aaron Pete (05:06):
At number nine we have Tara Henley.
She's a longtime friend of theprogram.
She left the CBC not inbitterness, but in pursuit of
intellectual honesty.
This episode captures whathappens when institutions
discourage curiosity and howimportant it is to ask hard
questions.
Anyway, what I admired mostwasn't just what she said, but
(05:29):
how she said it.
Tara is calm, measured andcommitted.
It's easy to throw stones fromthe outside.
It's harder to care enough tochallenge the thing you once
loved.
Tara's critique didn't comefrom a place of vengeance.
They came from grief, the griefof watching something she
(05:50):
deeply values begin to lose itsway.
Tara reminded me that lovingsomething doesn't mean never
questioning it.
It means caring enough to askthe uncomfortable questions.
Her call wasn't to destroy theCBC.
It was to reform it, to remindof its own potential and to
(06:10):
acknowledge the damage done byabandoning its core values.
In a time when people eithercancel or conform, her courage
to chart a third path reform.
It felt rare and it feltnecessary.
Here's that moment.
Tara Henley (06:26):
You know that I love the CBC.
I said that on your firstpodcast that we ever did
together.
Part of the reason why I wentpublic with my criticisms was
because I felt like nobody elsewas going to say the things that
needed to be said and that wewere going to lose the CBC if we
didn't have a frankconversation.
I still feel that way and thislast weekend I was invited to
(06:47):
speak at Digital Media on theCrossroads, a big industry
conference in Toronto, and Itook the opportunity there to
make the case for saving the CBC, for not defunding the CBC, and
I felt I was uniquelypositioned to make that case
because I have been so critical,but also because, as you can
(07:08):
imagine, after my resignationletter went viral, I heard from
thousands of Canadians on thisissue and I've had so many
conversations.
I felt like I had a decenthandle on what the actual
criticisms were and that's whatI wanted to talk about.
I don't think the CBC has beenor is currently doing a very
(07:30):
good job of addressing thosecriticisms.
So McGill's Center forTechnology recently did a survey
.
It showed that 78% of Canadianswould like the CBC to continue.
We hear that stat all the timein the media right now.
The second part of thatsentence is if it addresses its
major criticisms and it doesn'tget repeated, and that's a shame
(07:51):
because it is a conversationthat has to happen.
I would say there are fourmajor criticisms that I counter
all the time.
One is bias.
Two is mistakes, particularlyin pandemic coverage,
particularly in that 2021-22 erathat you and I have just been
talking about.
The CBC's own records showduring that period, the
(08:12):
ombudsman has reported a 60%increase in complaints during
that time.
We can't gloss over thesethings.
We're going to have to dealwith them.
It's going to be painful.
It's going to be painful.
And then there's the complaintfrom within the media as a whole
that the CBC is using its $1.4billion advantage to compete
against struggling media andstartups like yourself and like
(08:34):
me.
And the fourth is an abuse ofthe taxpayers' trust.
I know you had the CanadianTaxpayers Federation on in the
past.
You're, I'm sure, familiar withall the arguments there, but
the executive salaries are quitehigh.
The VPs are making almost$500,000 a year.
We know last year from Freedomof Information requests, the CPC
(08:55):
paid out more than $18 millionin bonuses.
These are things that are verydifficult for the taxpayer to
accept, and there has to be aconversation about that as well.
Even when you look at thenumbers from the Canadian
Taxpayers Federation, since 2015, there has been something like
(09:16):
231% increase in CBC staffmaking over $100,000 a year.
Again, we are in a cost ofliving crisis.
People across the country arehaving difficulty buying food
that does not sit well.
So those are the big criticisms.
My piece sets out 15 ideas, anyone of which would signal real
(09:36):
change.
I'm not under any illusionsthat the CBC is going to do
these things.
I just wanted to demonstratewhat it might look like to have
real change, and why I wanted todo that is to come back to your
question, which is what is apositive vision of the CBC?
Aaron Pete (09:55):
Number eight is Holly Doan.
She does what people thinkjournalists are supposed to do
Compare promises to outcomes.
There's no spin, there's nonarrative, just receipts.
Talking to Holly felt likestepping into a time machine, a
reminder of the kind ofjournalism many of us grew up
(10:16):
believing in no grandstanding,no partisan framing, just
relentless focus on the factswhat was promised, what happened
and what didn't.
It made me realize how rarethat's become.
We've grown so accustomed toeditorializing, to teams and
tribes and talking points thatsimply reporting feels so
(10:41):
radical.
Holly isn't trying to go viral,she's trying to get it right,
and a world of noise.
That clarity is its own kind ofcourage.
Let's roll that clip.
Holly Doan (10:53):
In terms of extracting government
information.
I also like to say to peoplelook, we don't cover what
government, what politicians say.
We don't go to news conferencesor watch Question Period.
Really we don't cover whatpoliticians say.
We keep an go to newsconferences or watch Question
Period.
Really we don't cover whatpoliticians say.
We keep an eye on what they'resaying.
We cover what government does.
What government does you knowif you don't know about it?
(11:15):
It's like the dog that didn'tbark.
That's the dog that can hurtyou if you don't know what he
did.
Yes, of course, then we'llcover what politicians say, but
only after we know whatgovernment did will we ask them.
Aaron Pete (11:25):
Coming in at number seven is Candace Malcolm.
A conversation that reminded methat sometimes the best
insights come from when you'rewilling to hear someone out,
especially someone you don'tentirely agree with.
We talked about history, policy, media mistrust and Indigenous
issues, and while ourperspectives diverged, we didn't
(11:48):
shut each other down.
We listened, we challenged eachother, we reflected, and that's
the kind of exchange wedesperately need more of.
What struck me most was howmuch nuance emerged from our
disagreement.
When you take the time to digpast slogans, past talking
points, you find context, andcontext doesn't always change
(12:12):
your mind, but it deepens yourunderstanding.
In that sense, candice didn'tjust make a point, she made an
impression.
So let's go to that part of theconversation.
We have spots in the lowermainland where indigenous people
were hanged, and so the the,the power imbalance during that
period would not have led peopleto rush in and go.
(12:33):
Oh, I'm sure journalists careabout what our circumstances are
.
For so many canadians they hadno idea indian residential
schools even existed and that'snow being taught.
But to think that anybody caredabout these problems 50 years
ago, 100 years ago, is kind offoolhardy.
So when I saw that, it was likewell, maybe we're not putting
in ourselves, into the contextof what those times may have,
(12:55):
may have had on people but?
Candice Malcolm (12:57):
but you're conflating times too, right,
like when you're talking abouthow there were first nations or
natives that were hung in thelower mainland, Like I'm sure.
I mean, do you know the datesthat that happened?
My guess is it was in the 1800s.
Like when we're talking aboutresidential schools, most of
them opened, like in a warperiod, Like we're talking about
like the 30s to the 60s, right,or maybe the 20s to the 60s.
(13:18):
First of all, you know the 20swere a time when the Spanish
plague was, you know, killed aquarter of the globe population,
Right, Like.
Like the average, you know, onein four children were surviving
to the age of 18.
Right, so like people just dieda lot more frequently back then
(13:40):
.
To which?
Aaron Pete (13:42):
people celebrated Joseph Trutch within our region.
He said the extinction ofIndigenous people will come at
the consequence of many of thesediseases, so they're not a
problem to worry about, which iswhy he downsized Indian
reserves, which Douglas gaveanticipatory reserves to.
So the kind of overall ethosduring that period was that all
these people are going to dieanyway, so we don't have to
(14:03):
worry about them.
So it wasn't like there was alot of love for Indigenous
people during some of theperiods we're talking about.
Candice Malcolm (14:09):
Well, okay, so I was talking about in an entire
population, not just FirstNations.
Like everyone was dying fromthe Black Plague, right, people
were dying and I'm sure you canfind awful quotes because it was
a different time when peoplehad different views.
I'm sure you could find quotesfrom First Nations people saying
awful horrible racist thingsabout white people too, and you
can find awful horrible quotesabout white people Like I don't
(14:30):
think that the two sides had thebest relations back then and I
think that there's a lot ofpeople, but one had all the
power and one had none of thepower yeah, it was definitely
like regrettable circumstances.
But, aaron, I'm talking aboutlike the fact that there's
claims that there were hundredsof children that were murdered
in these schools but that wedon't know the names of those
(14:52):
kids, like we don't know whothey are.
Like I mean, I'm saying this asa mother like if I send my kids
off to school and they don'tcome home, like I'm not just
gonna say like, oh well, oh well, no one cares anyway, so I home
.
Like I'm not just going to saylike, oh well, oh well, no one
cares anyway, so I'm just goingto, I'm not going to talk about
it, I'm just going to go along,like, like if something happens
to your children, you're goingto let it know, even if it's
(15:12):
just in your community.
Like you're going to have arecord that your child died at a
school.
Like, even if it's just thatyou, that you keep that record
in your community.
Maybe you don't go tell thewhite sheriff down the street
because you don't trust him, butbut the the idea that there's
just all of these children thatwere murdered by nuns and
(15:34):
priests and teachers, like, likeyou say, like a lack of an
evidence is an evidence.
That's, that's a pretty, that's.
That's one of the worstaccusations that you can level
against another human being.
Aaron Pete (15:44):
But it's not against a human being, it's against a
broader system.
Right, it's not one.
I'm not saying this guy wasresponsible, which, to your
point, would be incrediblydisrespectful.
It's that the system would havecaused these deaths, these
people working within the system.
I actually have a lot ofsympathy for the individuals who
worked with them.
We do know that many of thepeople who wanted to work in
(16:07):
Indian residential schools overthe past hundred years were not
the most well-intentionedindividuals, that going up into
the middle of nowhere andworking with kids was not
something many people wanted todo, and some of them had
perverse incentives, darkincentives and harmful ideas on
what they would be able to do ifthey ran those so like a bunch
of, so the government recruiteda bunch of murderers to go off
(16:28):
and like kill kids like I.
Candice Malcolm (16:29):
I just I'm trying to understand the
accusation because again, likebecause we're writing about this
is a super controversial topic.
I've heard from a lot ofcanadians.
I really respect what you'resaying and I'm happy to continue
this conversation as long asyou want because I think I can
learn from you in this instancebecause you're a lot more
connected to it than I.
But I've heard from people whosay you know, there was an
Indian residential school in mycommunity and they got more
(16:49):
money than the public schools orthe Catholic schools and they
had more resources and they hadbetter teachers and they had
nicer buildings.
And I've talked to people whowere graduates of these
residential schools and they saythat it changed their life and
it made them on a better pathtowards succeeding in a modern
economy.
So like there's two sides to it,right, it's like I'm sure a lot
(17:11):
of people went to school andhad a miserable experience and
they were homesick and they weresad.
A lot of people really wantedtheir children to attend these
schools because they saw it asan opportunity for betterment.
Like I said, the schoolsweren't compulsory, they weren't
mandatory, they weren't goingand scooping people up from
their house, despite there's asort of a thought that that was
happening, that the Canadianpolice were going door to door
(17:33):
and scooping kids up and takingthem to these schools.
That's a myth, as far as I canunderstand.
People wanted the schools andsure, like in any environment,
there's going to be an abuse ofpower.
There was abuse and there washorrible, unspeakable abuse and
it's tragic and anyone who wasinvolved in that should be held
accountable.
There's a reason we got rid ofthis program.
(17:53):
It obviously failed.
It didn't work, although somepeople did benefit from it.
Aaron Pete (17:59):
But fair to say that churches have had a system to
protect their own, not just withindigenous people, but there's
documentaries about how they'vemoved people around to avoid the
exact accountability thatyou're describing what churches?
There uh, there's man off thetop of my head.
There's a um, a netflixdocumentary called like mother
(18:20):
something, and she was a nun andshe worked within the system
and canada, in the us, okay, andthat she was murdered and that
a few of her colleagues weremurdered and the priest.
They have documentation that hewas committing these atrocities.
They have documentation thechurches knew and that they were
deliberately moving him around.
I can't remember the name ofthe documentary off the top of
(18:41):
my head but like this isn'tcontroversial that this has
happened.
Candice Malcolm (18:45):
Yeah, I think that there's been abuses in
power, and they used to happenat churches and now they happen
in other places.
Aaron Pete (18:52):
Number six is John Rustad.
Our conversation cut throughpolitical politeness and struck
a nerve across the province.
I asked him plainly would youfire Bonnie Henry?
His answer didn't come from aprepared script or a cautious
politician's filter.
It came from conviction.
What followed was a detailedcritique not just of the public
(19:15):
health decisions but of thevalues guiding them.
Rustad didn't hedge.
He argued that ideology hadtaken precedence over evidence
and the decisions made in thatmindset were doing real harm.
Whether you agree with him ornot, what matters is that he
showed his work.
In politics that's pretty rare.
(19:37):
This conversation reminded methat tough questions aren't just
headlines.
They're about accountabilityand in a democracy we can't
afford to forget that.
Would you fire Bonnie Henry?
John Rustad (19:51):
Yes, Well, sorry, I don't know if we need to fire
her, but we would terminate hercontract in whatever form that
would be.
I look at like Bonnie Henry didthe best she could during COVID
.
When you look back at it, youcan really question a lot of
decisions she made.
It seemed to be driven more byideology than it did by science.
But I'm not a doctor, I'm not ascientist, you know.
(20:13):
I can't question that myself.
When you compare the resultscompared to some other
jurisdictions okay, maybe ourresults weren't as good as what
we're led to believe, but Ilooked at it particularly from
the perspective of not hiringback our healthcare workers.
Every other jurisdiction inNorth America hired back our
healthcare workers, as far as Iknow, every other jurisdiction
in the world and yet we didn't.
And I asked Bonnie Henry why weweren't doing it and she, what
(20:38):
she essentially told me was ifhealthcare workers are not
prepared to take a vaccine, thenthey should probably be
thinking about working in adifferent field.
In other words, it wasideologically driven.
It was not driven based onhealth.
It was not driven based onrisks.
Every other jurisdiction didthis.
We didn't.
To me, that's somebody who'sactually causing harm to our
(21:00):
system and that should be thefirst order of a doctor.
You know, do no harm, thatthere's harm being done to our
system.
And I also look at Dr BonnieHenry, who went out to Ottawa
and made the argument on behalfof David Eby and his government
that we should be expanding safesupply, that safe supply should
be available you know, instores, that we should be
(21:25):
doubling down ondecriminalization.
I mean, these have been utterfailures in our society.
Experts are telling me we havethe highest level of addicts per
capita anywhere in NorthAmerica and it's particularly
acute, of course, withindigenous populations.
And I look at that and I thinkthis is not the direction we
should be going.
And if this is what shebelieves we should be doing,
(21:46):
then I think she needs to findwork elsewhere.
Aaron Pete (21:48):
Number five is Chris Sims.
When it comes to taxes, fewpeople are as clear and
relentless as she is, and,whether you agree with her or
not, her ability to break downpolicy into plain language makes
her a powerful communicator.
We talked about the carbon taxwhere it started, how it evolved
(22:09):
and what it means for ordinaryCanadians, but the real value of
the conversation wasn't in thenumbers, it was in the framing.
Chris reminded me that behindevery tax policy is a family
trying to make ends meet, asenior heating their home, a
truck driver filling their tank.
This wasn't a rant, it was areality check.
(22:32):
Let's go to that clip.
Kris Sims (22:34):
The first.
You might be surprised I mightnot be telling you something you
don't know.
Actually, you probably alreadyknow this, but the first
political party in Canada to runa campaign against the carbon
tax that even said ax the taxwas the British Columbia NDP.
That's right.
So back when Carol James, theformer finance minister, was
(22:56):
leader of the NDP, she calledGordon Campbell's idea to have a
revenue neutral carbon taxlipstick on a pig.
I agree that was a really goodquote.
And then she ran an entireelection campaign on axing the
tax because she thought it wouldbe unfair to punish people for
heating their homes and drivingto work and eating food.
(23:17):
She was right then, and I can'tfor the life of me explain to
you why the provincial NewDemocrats in British Columbia
have lost sight of that.
In fact, there's footage ofJohn Horgan, before he became
premier, in the oppositionbenches railing against the
(23:38):
carbon tax in BC, and that wasback when it was about five
cents a liter carbon tax in BC,and that was back when it was
about five cents a litre.
You guys are more than 30 centsa litre right now with your two
carbon taxes.
So my point of all this is ispoliticians can change their
minds and the NDP reallyreversed course on the carbon
tax, unfortunately, and we wantthem to see them go back to
(24:00):
axing the tax.
Aaron Pete (24:01):
Number four is my guy, amon Zahabi, ufc fighter
coach and strategist.
But what impressed me mostwasn't his physical training, it
was his mental discipline.
We talked about mindsetpressure and doubt and the
decision to bring on a mentalcoach to sharpen his edge.
In a world where fighters oftenpresent themselves as
(24:24):
invincible, amon's honesty abouthis need for mental strength
stood out because it was humble,it was real.
The lesson Everyone, no matterhow tough, needs help staying
sharp.
Greatness, as he put it, isn'tabout being great once, it's
about repeating it.
And that hit home for me.
(24:45):
Let's jump to that clip.
I'm wondering if you can talkabout choosing to work with a
mental coach, how that decisioncame about and how you find
somebody who's maybe the rightfit to work with you about your
mental game.
Aiemann Zahabi (24:58):
Yeah, well, I hired Mindset Mike because my
friend suggested it for me.
Like, listen, I got a coach foreverything else right.
So why not have a coach for themind?
Because, in the end, the finalpiece is the mindset right.
When you get to the top 15,everyone's well-conditioned,
everyone's got skills,everyone's got their path to
victory.
But if I can have someone whocan have me run through a system
(25:22):
that guarantees that I'm goingto be performing my best on the
night, that counts.
Why not take that advantage,right?
So that's kind of the reasoningbehind hiring him.
Because you know to be great.
It's about repeating thatgreatness over and over again.
You know, if you're great onenight, who cares?
You got to keep repeating thegreatness for people to be like
(25:44):
oh wow, how does he keep beinggreat?
That's what really makes peoplelove you, right?
So that's kind of like the thereasons why I wanted to hire one
.
And, uh, so far, like the twotimes we worked together, I had
no doubt that I was going toperform well, because I was.
My mind was so clear.
You know, I knew exactly what Ineeded to do, and especially in
this last one, where I ran intosome trouble near the end and I
(26:07):
used some of the techniques tomake sure that I ended up on top
.
Aaron Pete (26:11):
Coming in at number three is Chief Clarence Louis, a
man who speaks like he's got notime for fluff Because he
doesn't.
Every word he shared isgrounded in a belief in
Indigenous self-reliance and aneven deeper understanding of how
economics drives communitysuccess.
What stuck with me was howunapologetically practical he is
(26:36):
.
He's not here to pander or toguilt anyone to change.
He's here to build, to employand to get results.
His vision isn't built ontheories.
It's built on experience.
It's built on decades ofleading his community, not just
through words, but through realaction.
The clip we're about to hearreminds us that, whether you're
(27:00):
talking about education, healthcare or cultural programs, the
money has to come from somewhere, and if we want sovereignty, we
need economic power.
It's a message that empoweringas it is, challenging, and one I
think about constantly.
Chief Clarence Louie (27:19):
One of the national chiefs once said it's
the economic horse that pullsthe social cart.
Well, yes, it is, but most ofour people don't realize that
they're trying to put the cartbefore the horse.
You know, they all talk aboutall these social programs,
social elders programs, youthprograms, education.
Everything costs money.
(27:40):
Health costs money.
I've never met a teacher thatworks for free.
Nurses and doctors don't workfor free.
Everybody wants a paycheck.
There's nothing wrong with that.
That's just normal and natural.
Everybody wants a paycheck,even when I see healers, these
native healers that go around.
We have to pay them.
(28:00):
Nobody, unless you're going tolive off of welfare.
The majority of our people wanta decent paycheck and they have
to realize that those paychecksthat come from and even if you
work in social services orschools or in education, that
(28:21):
paycheck comes from somewhere.
I mean the money, the fundedmoney that goes into health and
education, comes from economicdevelopment, comes from
corporate taxes, comes frompersonal taxes, natural resource
taxes, everything.
(28:41):
If you connect the dots, it allgoes back to economic
development.
Because unless you're a thirdworld country dependent on
foreign aid which I know, canadaand America and most GA
countries they end up givingmoney, they end up giving some
(29:02):
of their economic developmentmoney to these needy countries
because they depend on foreignaid.
But every government I don'tcare if it's the federal
government, provincialgovernment, municipal
governments, first nationgovernments every government
needs money to operate.
(29:23):
And if you connect the dots,dots, where does that money come
from?
It doesn't just fall out of thesky, people you know.
It just bugs me that nativescan't connect the dots.
They can't connect the dots ofwhere.
Where does this money come fromto pay my teachers, or to pay
our social service staff, or orwhere's the money come for youth
programs, elders programs, onit when we bury people, where's
(29:45):
that money come from?
It comes from economicdevelopment, it comes from
business development.
That's where all the moneycomes from to run the federal,
provincial, municipal, firstnation governments.
Money just doesn't fall out ofthe sky.
It comes from economicdevelopment.
Aaron Pete (30:05):
Coming in at number two is the great Brent Butt,
comedian, writer and the creatorof Corner Gas.
This episode was a reminderthat laughter isn't just an
escape.
It's a way of processing theworld.
I've had some heavyconversations on the show about
war, addiction, politics,climate change, but Brent
(30:29):
reminded me that you canapproach serious issues with a
light touch and that sometimeshumor gets to the truth faster
than outrage does.
Brent has this gift for makingyou feel like everything's going
to be okay, even if it's not,and in an era of cynicism, his
optimism grounded in honesty isrefreshing.
(30:51):
This conversation gave me asecond wind.
It reminded me why storytellingand, yes, even jokes, still
matter.
I grew up watching your show.
I grew up looking up to you.
I've learned so much throughyour journey of highlighting
individuals who are making adifference, and you've done such
a great job of reminding us tolook at the small moments, see
humor in it and make sure thatwe're being the best people we
(31:13):
can be, and I just I thinkyou're just such a positive
influence for people and I thinkI can't thank you enough for
doing this.
You've been a highlight ofdoing this podcast.
I can't appreciate you.
Shut up stupid.
Brent Butt (31:25):
How about that?
Put a little twist at the endthere.
Well, thank you, thanks for allthat Very kind words.
I appreciate that very much.
Aaron Pete (31:32):
Tober 3rd.
I think people shouldabsolutely read it.
We've got a dog cameo going onin the background for people who
are just listening.
And number one, premier davideby.
Not just because he's thesitting premier, but because
this conversation marked aturning point for me.
It validated the podcast in theeyes of many, but, more
(31:53):
importantly, it deepened my ownunderstanding of leadership.
Eby didn't dodge, he didn'tdeflect.
He leaned into that tension.
He acknowledged mistakes.
He tried to explain the why,not just the.
What what moved me most was hisreflection on trust In a world
where confidence in governmentis absolutely crumbling.
(32:16):
He didn't pretend that faithcould be won with slogans.
He talked about earning itbrick by brick, mistake by
mistake, correction bycorrection.
That's a rare kind of humilityfor someone in power and that's
why this conversation, for me,sits at number one.
(32:37):
How do you process, during thatstorm of reaction, whether or
not you're on the right track ornot, or whether or not there's
too much political pressure tocontinue?
David Eby (32:45):
Yeah, I mean, one of the things that you do see in
politics is there's alwaysanother side.
Even in issues where you thinkit should be pretty cut and
dried and during COVID it's agreat example like whether or
not you should get a vaccine, itfelt to me like a pretty
straightforward oh my God,there's vaccines, get a vaccine,
you know.
It felt to me like a prettystraightforward oh my God.
There's vaccines, like let'sget vaccinated.
But there's always another side, and one of the things is that
(33:09):
that we're really seeing is and,and some of it's just, you know
it's in in your example.
Anytime you're making a change,people, you're asking people to
trust.
You know we're making a change.
What's coming next is going tobe better and and I don't know
(33:29):
you know I wasn't alive inprevious times in human history,
but it felt like trust was alot higher in institutions and
government and in neighborhoodsand each other, and so this is a
time of of limited trust.
So, whether it's tearing down abuilding, or whether it's
taking a vaccine, or whetherit's you, it's any government
policy that's going to changethe status quo, people have to
trust that you're doing it forthe right reasons, yes, but also
(33:50):
that it's going to be apositive outcome.
And so that's the big challengeof politics, to my mind and
doing politics well or not isyour ability not just to
communicate where you're goingand where you want to go, but
that you're actually able tocome back after you made the
change and say, yeah, weachieved it, or earn trust by
saying, no, we didn't.
And maybe we could talk aboutdecrim, but we didn't achieve
(34:12):
what we wanted here, and so wehave to go back and try again
and to have the humility to say,yeah, we thought it was going
to have this outcome, it didn't,and we have to keep pushing and
changing 200 episodes and thesewere only just 10 moments, but
what they all share is thishonesty, courage and a
willingness to say what matters,even when it's hard.
Aaron Pete (34:35):
This isn't just a podcast.
It's a space to wrestle withideas, to challenge assumptions
and remind ourselves thatcomplexity isn't a flaw, it's a
feature.
Thank you for being part of thefirst 200.
Let's see what we can learn inthe next 200.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.