fbpx
Monday, June 30, 2025

GUEST OP-ED: “Virtue science” reigns

Christopher Essex is Emeritus Professor of Mathematics and Physics at the University of Western Ontario. He is the coauthor with Ross McKitrick of the award-winning book Taken by Storm: The troubled science and policy and politics of global warming.

I was trying to preserve my sanity by avoiding the endless hyperbolic news stories on cringeworthy science-based policy. But, despite my best efforts, the tale of the Dutch farmers came to my attention.

Those poor folks have their backs against the wall because their government has declared war on nitrogen! They might lose their land and livelihoods over this war, not to mention creating needless hunger in the world. 

Now Canada aims to do something of the same ilk to farmers here. Like many grand policy actions of modern governments, it’s completely bananas.

Nitrogen? That’s 78% of the atmosphere’s volume. N2, which is how nitrogen gas manifests, is rather inactive as molecules go. There’s no connection to the so-called greenhouse effect. You and I breathe it in and exhale it with our every breath and are none the wiser. So is this war on N2? Well, no. 

Scientific technicalities are not in play here. Virtue rules. So we must guess at what is really meant by “nitrogen” in “virtue science.” As the c-word (i.e. climate) has been deployed, nitrous oxide (i.e. N2O) is likely meant. 

“Virtue science” weirdly strips oxygen from the molecule’s name, just as it strips oxygen from carbon dioxide to call it “carbon” instead. If this “stripping” were applied consistently, the oceans would be described as “hydrogen” instead of H2O.

H2O may simply be excluded because many don’t know its importance in greenhouse world. But then H2O’s presence is dominated by poorly understood natural hydrology, not human activities to which morality can be attached. H2O is more important in the greenhouse world than all of the other such gases combined. Accurate atmospheric models with nothing but H2O have been made! 

But that said, CO2 gained a small foothold because one of its absorption bands (i.e 15 microns) coincided with a small hole in the otherwise comprehensive, strong infrared H2O spectrum. It is known as the H2O “window.” Without it, you would never have heard of CO2.

CO2 has another band at just over four microns, but it has little effect because H2O is dominant in the radiative transfer problem there. The same is true for methane (CH4). There is no H2O window for cow farts. No matter how strong the molecular absorption lines, and no matter how long CH4’s atmospheric lifetime is, H2O rules the actual radiative transfer problem. 

And finally we come to poor N2O. Like the others, it arrived at the party too late. H2O has already eaten all the food and drank everything. 

If you put N2O in a computation and compare to the radiative transfer problem with no N2O, there is no discernible difference: all the important optical paths are completely saturated by H2O.

N2O and CH4 are nothing, from a radiative transfer/greenhouse point of view. There is no c- word reason to be controlling nitrogen or cow farts, or farmers. This was generally known decades ago. That should have stuck! 

But “virtue science” is not about what’s known, but what’s moral. 

Instead of policy based on science we have the weird inversion of science based on policy.

There are many “narratives” among scientists. Science proceeds by contenders knocking the rough edges off of each other’s opinions. 

In science for virtue, there is only one “correct” narrative, enforced by exterior political power. If a scientist deviates from this “truth,” the scientist becomes not only “wrong,” but worse than wrong. That is how science has been captured and corrupted. 

Normal science becomes moribund and “virtue science” reigns.

I did not fully appreciate what we were dealing with over these years until the Covid mayhem captured the imagination of government officials, the courts, and the press. There were so many obvious clues. 

For example, one does not wear masks to protect oneself, but to “protect others”— moral reasons, not scientific ones. There was the redefinition of illness, of causes of death, of vaccination. There were the sketchy test-number-free case count data, and much more. There where the medical researchers who were frozen out, delicensed, or fired because of not following the narrative. There were the demonized alternative therapies, and the foolish discrimination against those who had reasonable doubts about what was being so harshly pushed.

So much harm has been done and will be done by policies that lack any sort of common sense. 

Who knew that loony ideas, like cutting fertilizers to save the planet, would ever go beyond the fanatical fringe. But the fanatics have come to power because we let them.

There is a simple solution to this corruption: give scientists who do not support whatever emerges as the narrative a fair hearing. 

That is not happening because too many do not comprehend the nature of science. Beware of expressions like “consensus,” or “the science.” You could be being “handled” by some politician. Finessing, and fooling their opponents though they may, nature cannot be fooled. Attempting to do so can only bring tears and despair.

Conservative MP threatens to leave party if Poilievre becomes leader

Quebec Conservative MP Joel Godin says he may leave caucus and join efforts to form a new party if Pierre Poilievre becomes the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

As reported by iPolitics, the Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier MP told Radio-Canada that he is a “progressive conservative,” and that he shares no common ground with Poilievre.

Godin says he may resign, sit as an independent, join another party or even help form a new party if Conservative members choose Poilievre.

“I could participate in the creation of a new party. There are many possibilities.”

Godin, who endorsed former Quebec Liberal Premier Jean Charest, says he takes issue with Poilievre’s attack on the leadership candidate.

“Mr. Poilievre has taken tangents, strategies attacking his opponent (Charest) in the leadership race.” 

Godin also claimed that Charest is offering good policies, while Poilievre is not.

“Can you name me one policy that Mr. Poilievre has presented in this leadership race?” said the Quebec MP. ”Look at the internet site of Jean Charest, and you will see what Mr. Charest is offering Canadians.” 

Godin took issue with Poilievre’s proposal to fire Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem and his stance on Bitcoin, saying the two policy proposals are “pretty weird.”

He also claimed that only Charest can bring together the Conservative Party’s two separate fractions – social conservatives and progressives.

Godin says that he believes “there is a clear risk that the Conservative Party of Canada will be divided after the election of a leader who will not have the capacity, the necessary qualities to unite our party.”

The Quebec MP also claimed his goal is “to have a Conservative Party that is united and is an alternative to win power in the next election to replace the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau.”

True North reached out to Godin to ask if he is worried a new party would lead to vote splitting and ultimately the re-election of the Liberals, and if he thought Poilievre would make a worse prime minister than Trudeau. He did not respond in time for publication. 

The Poilievre campaign also did not return a request for comment.

Godin is not the first progressive conservative to publicly denounce Poilievre’s leadership. 

Disqualified leadership candidate Patrick Brown had previously said that he would not run for the party if Poilievre was elected as leader, claiming the latter is unelectable in the Greater Toronto Area.

Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and former Senate Government Leader Marjorie Lebreton have also shared concerns about the state of the Conservative Party amid Poilievre’s leadership run.

While there has been opposition to Poilievre’s potential leadership, the Carleton MP has received a total of 69 caucus endorsements, the most of any leadership candidate. In addition, a number of high-profile conservatives have endorsed the Carleton MP, including former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The winner of the Conservative leadership race will be announced on September 10.

LEVY: Cancelled teacher continues fight against woke Waterloo school board

Former Waterloo Region District School Board teacher Carolyn Bujorski has accused the board and its chairman Scott Piatkowski of trying to “gaslight” the community into thinking she is using her $1.7-million defamation lawsuit to silence them.

In a video posted this week on her website – www.cancelledteacher.com – Bujorski calls the board’s statement of defence nothing short of ironic considering she was ejected from a board meeting in January and called transphobic simply for questioning the age appropriateness of board materials pertaining to gender ideology.

“This Board seems to think they can gaslight an entire community and even the court into believing the exact opposite of what is actually true,” she says.

Burjoski filed her $1.7-million defamation suit against the board and Piatkowski in early May alleging they made widespread claims she was “transphobic” and had used “hate speech” during a January presentation to the board.

The 20-year ESL teacher alleges Piatkowski made defamatory statements to the media calling her presentation “disrespectful” to trans people and that it would even cause them to “be attacked.”

On June 21, she filed a second lawsuit in which she asks the Superior Court to conduct a judicial review of Piatkowski’s decision to end her presentation prematurely amid claims it violated the Human Rights Code.

Piatkowksi has not only refused to step down but is running for re-election in October.

Burjoski barely got through four minutes of her Jan. 17 presentation – which objected to the age-appropriateness of two highly sexualized books contained in the board’s elementary school libraries – when Piatkowski stopped her and expelled her from the meeting.

She was put on home assignment, warned to keep quiet and threatened with the cessation of her retirement benefits.

She retired Jan. 31.

The board’s statement of defence was filed in mid-July by pricey Bay St. law firm Borden Ladner Gervais. Two partners are on the file.

In the statement of defence, the board denies all allegations pertaining to defamation as well as claims that the Burjoski has suffered  “actual damage to her reputation” as a result of the January incident.

The statement of defence, which comes across as arrogant as Piatkowski and his cabal of virtue signalers on the board, says it was “entirely appropriate” for Piatkowski to speak to the media – that the chairman had a “duty” to convey information to the broader Waterloo Region community.

The statement says the statements about Bujorski’s transphobia were “fair comment, made in good faith and without malice” – that discrimination faced by the LGBTQ2S+ community is recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The defence claims, with an amazing degree of gall, that in fact Burjoski has brought forward her defamation suit to silence others who wish to raise matters of public interest – in particular the support of the LGBTQ2S+ community.

As a member of the LGBT community, I believe the latter is an outrageous stretch.

Burjoski says in her most recent video that she supports any and all advocacy for the dignity and human rights of the LGBT+ community.

“What I do not support is the Board’s silencing, shaming and punishment of anyone who criticizes the age-appropriateness of board policies based on gender theory,” she says.

Burjoski insists she’s in this for the long haul despite a sense that the board will drag out the lawsuit as long as possible to wear her down, burn her out and force her to run out of money.

“I am in this to the end,” she says. “I will not run out of will or energy and with your help, I will not run out of money,” she says in her video.

Burjoski has raised $30,000 so far from her GoFundMe campaign.

Justin Trudeau blasted for apparent lack of masking on RCAF plane

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau received criticism after a video surfaced suggesting he and his family did not wear masks on a Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) plane to Costa Rica.

A video posted to Twitter showed the Trudeaus disembarking their plane in Costa Rica Monday, with none of them wearing masks. It is unclear if masks were worn inside the plane.

The prime minister is headed to the Central American country for a two-week vacation and is planning to stay at the same place where he vacationed in 2019. 

According to the feds, “all passengers (on planes) must wear a mask throughout their entire journey except for brief periods while eating, drinking, or taking oral medication, or unless otherwise exempt.” 

The Trudeau government says the rules apply on flights to, from and within Canada, regardless of one’s vaccination status.  

True North reached out to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Department of National Defence, who is responsible for the government’s fleet, to ask if Trudeau’s flight was not subjected to a mask mandate.

Neither party responded in time for publication.

Many critics pointed out Trudeau’s Covid hypocrisy as the government continues to enforce travel mandates.

Conservative Party of Canada transport critic Melissa Lantsman tweeted “rules for thee, but not rule for me” and called on the Covid theatrics to end for all Canadians.

Conservative Party leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre also commented on the matter, calling it “unmasked hypocrisy.”

“Trudeau demands you still wear a mask on planes and trains. But on his private jet to a Costa Rican vacation, the masks come off,” said Poilievre on social media.

According to the Canadian Press, Trudeau is required to fly on an RCAF aircraft for security reasons. The Trudeaus’ 2019 vacation cost taxpayers nearly $200,000, according to records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Some have also questioned if there is a need for Trudeau to fly on an RCAF plane for a personal vacation, given that other world leaders including UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson have flown economy class on personal trips.

This is not the first time that Trudeau has been accused of mask hypocrisy. The prime minister previously made a maskless appearance on a B.C. train, while he continues to enforce a mask mandate on federally regulated trains like Via Rail.

Dr. Hinshaw gets a $227,911 Covid bonus

This week, Albertans were shocked to learn the province’s chief medical officer of health Dr. Deena Hinshaw received a $227,911 Covid bonus, in addition to her $363,634 salary. This marks the largest cash benefit payout of any provincial civil servant.

Plus, United Conservative Party (UCP) leadership candidate Leela Aheer took on an unlikely opponent this week – a raging bull! Aheer jumped in front of a bull and pushed it off a boy it was trampling at the Strathmore Stampede during the Running of the Bulls event.

And UCP candidates share their vision for a provincial police force – a policy that has long been discussed as a means to give Alberta more autonomy. All but two candidates are in favour of the policy – Rebecca Schulz and Brian Jean.

These stories and more on The Alberta Roundup with Rachel Emmanuel! Tune in now!

SUBSCRIBE TO THE ALBERTA ROUNDUP WITH RACHEL EMMANUEL

Government to ban import of legal handguns without Parliamentary approval

The federal government is planning to ban the importation of legal handguns into Canada as of August 19 without the oversight of Parliament, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino announced Friday. 

Mendicino and Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly said the government is moving forward with the importation ban weeks before Parliament resumes in late September using regulatory measures, the Toronto Sun reported

The measure aims to prevent “nearly all” individuals and businesses from importing handguns into Canada.

Joly and Mendicino said these new regulations will effectively “speed up” the planned ban announced in May.

“This ban is a stopgap while the handgun freeze in its entirety moves through the parliamentary process, preventing shelves from being restocked in the immediate term,” Joly said.

Details of the coming regulatory restrictions have yet to be released. Joly says she will exercise her authority as Foreign Affairs Minister to deny any export or import permit application.

“Working with Marco, we came up with this idea of creating this new system of requiring permits, but meanwhile, we will deny any permits from any commercial entity or people wanting to bring handguns to Canada,” Joly said. 

“Given that nearly all our handguns are imported, this means that we’re bringing our national handgun freeze even sooner,” Mendicino said. “From that moment forward, the number of handguns in Canada will only go down.”

True North’s Andrew Lawton, a legal firearms owner and producer of the documentary series Assaulted: Justin Trudeau’s War on Gun Owners, said there’s a key word missing from Mendicino’s comments.

“The number of legal handguns in Canada will go down, but illegal handguns will continue to be smuggled into Canada and circulate on our streets,” Lawton said. “The import ban is political posturing and pretends that the legal firearms market is the source of gun crime, which simply isn’t the case.”

In May, the Trudeau Liberals tabled Bill C-21, which would implement further restrictions to the legal access of handguns in Canada. The bill would effectively stop the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns in Canada.

Joly said the Liberals have decided to do this because after Bill C-21 was announced, there was an “uptick” in guns being purchased in Canada.

“I’m continuing to call on all MPs to read the bill, to study the bill and to put it into law as quickly as possible. We’ve made some good headway… Unfortunately, it’s the Conservatives who continue to obstruct the passage of this bill,” the Mendicino said.

Numerous law enforcement experts have criticized the Trudeau government’s move to ban handguns as an ineffective proposal that would not lower the amount of gun violence. 

“People can’t be naive to the realities of how it works with organized crime and smuggling,” said the President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Adam Palmer.

“There will always be an influx of guns from the United States into Canada… Heroin is illegal in Canada, too, but we have heroin in Canada.”

Federal budget won’t be balanced until 2041: taxpayer group

The Canadian federal budget is on track to be balanced – but it won’t happen until 2041.

That’s the warning from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), a taxpayer advocacy group known for exposing the dangers of high government spending and rapidly increasing debt.

“Taking another two decades to balance the budget is too long and even that target won’t be met if interest rates tick up, the economy doesn’t grow every single year or politicians can’t find the willpower to say no to new spending,” said the federal director of the CTF Franco Terrazzano.

Earlier this week, the CTF released a report using data published by the Parliamentary Budget Office, looking at the trajectory of the federal government’s 2022 budget. 

The CTF believes debt interest charges will cost taxpayers $802 billion by the time the government balances the budget.

In its report, the taxpayers group outlined a number of conditions that would need to be in place in order for the federal budget to be balanced by 2041, including an average annual interest rate of 2.5% and no new spending announcements.

However, Terrazzano is skeptical about the government’s ability to stop spending. 

“When campaigning to be prime minister, Justin Trudeau initially said he would run a few ‘modest’ deficits before returning to a balanced budget in 2019. The government was set to miss that balanced budget by $20 billion even before the pandemic,” said Terrazzano.

“Taxpayers have every right to be skeptical that this government can exercise enough restraint to balance the books by 2041.”

The economic situation in Canada is growing dire on a daily basis, with many economists predicting a looming recession.

While the Trudeau government originally dismissed the inflation crisis as a “global phenomenon,” the government unveiled its “affordability plan” as a means to combat inflation in June. This plan included $8.9 billion in government programs.

Many economists have pleaded with the government to stop spending, arguing that the burden of lowering inflation is falling on the private sector as the government continues to spend at record levels.

GUEST OP-ED: Trudeau delaying his second carbon tax is good news for Canadians

Michael Binnion is the Executive Director of the Modern Miracle Network, whose mission it is to encourage Canadians to have reasoned conversations about energy issues.

In an unusual – and good – move, quietly enacted by the Trudeau government, the Clean Fuel Standards (CFS) – or as some have referred to it, a second carbon tax – was delayed seven months until July 2023. Why is this good, one may logically ask?

Two main reasons – affordability and practically reducing emissions.

First, affordability. 

The CFS threatens to add up to 13 cents per litre to the price of gas over the next few years. This is on top of the expected 40 cents per litre that the $170 per tonne carbon tax will add in 2030. This is at a time when most Canadians are struggling to cope with rising inflation and borrowing costs. Many provinces have already realized the impact of rising energy prices on all aspects of life.

Alberta, for example, dropped their gas tax of 13 cents per litre at the pumps. Ontario did the same with drivers saving 9 cents per litre starting back on July 1. Canadians, worried about the skyrocketing cost of living, urged the feds to do the same. But Trudeau and Co. resisted. Even President Biden gave temporary relief from gas taxes. 

However, the Minister of Natural Resources, John Wilkinson, claimed that the same “tax holiday” approach President Biden called for would be “irresponsible to do” in Canada. 

On the other hand, environment Minister Steven Guilbeault has delayed the CFS and the price increase that it would cause. Promised by the feds back in 2016, they released their final plan in July with a big surprise. Instead of going into effect this year, as previously announced, it’s been delayed until July 2023 with the first compliance check in December 2023.

This is welcome relief for Canadians already battling inflation and suffocating under a bevy of taxes, especially on energy.

Now on to the second reason the delay is good for Canadians: it will actually help the industry reduce emissions, especially if the government gets on board.

We can all agree that reducing negative impacts from oil and gas production is good. That’s what government needs to focus on. 

The problem with the carbon tax is it penalizes people for going to work and heating their homes. It hasn’t been effective in cutting emissions, which was its intended goal, but instead just added to the cost of living for Canadians. In delaying the CFS, another carbon tax in all but name, the government has given itself a chance to get it right.

We need a pricing system that incentivizes investment in carbon tech instead of penalizing citizens for living their lives.

And it’s not too late.

Canadian oil and gas producers – who account for about a quarter of the country’s emissions – continue to implement new and evolving technology when it comes to reducing carbon emissions. 

No technological innovation is perfect at first, as MP Mark Gerretsen recently pointed out. Electrical vehicles are still very far from perfect with unreliable batteries made from rare-earth metals which require intensive mining, often in conflict zones, and simply store energy produced by other means – such as natural gas or even coal in some areas.

But carbon tech is rapidly advancing – and has the potential to significantly reduce emissions. 

Carbon tech has been recognized as an important solution to our emissions problem by international bodies like the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency

A 2021 report by Woods Mackenzie noted that if all proposed carbon tech projects in Canada came online, the country’s emissions could be reduced by 115 million tonnes of CO2, about 60% of our 2030 climate goal. Minister’s Guilbeault and Wilkinson even admitted carbon tech’s important role in reducing emissions.

Yet we have a government still too focused on taxing Canadian families instead of investing in innovation that we can use now.

Delaying the CFS helps Canadians now and in the future, and gives time for us to get this right. The delay  allows industry to continue investing in innovations that work – and reduce future emissions – while delaying an unnecessary tax with significant societal ramifications. It gives the government time to rethink their plan, to focus on the elements that work – like industrial carbon pricing and encouraging investments in carbon tech – and drop those that don’t.

Are Guilbeault and Trudeau beginning to shift towards a practical approach to policy rather than one driven by ideology? 

It’s too early to say, however, delaying the CFS may be a welcome step in the right direction, for now.

Fighting Trudeau’s travel mandate in court Part. 1

This week, Rupa broke a bombshell story that proves the vaccine mandate imposed on Canadians was not based on science as the government claimed, but rather on politics.

An ongoing court challenge to the travel vaccine mandate has exposed the inner working of Covid Recovery – a government coordinated panel that was tasked with implementing the mandate. Not only did Rupa’s report highlight the fact that not a single member of the Covid Recovery panel have a science or medical degree, but the group was panicking to have scientific and medical justification for the mandate they imposed on Canadians that was never given to them.

On this week’s special two-part episode of The Rupa Subramanya Show, Rupa sits down with the two plaintiffs challenging the government – Shaun Rickard and Karl Harrison and their lawyer Sam Presvelos. Shaun, Karl and Sam break down their challenge of the government’s mandate and explain why they decided to take the bold step to challenge the government in court.

Read Rupa’s article in Bari Weiss’ Common Sense.

Watch Part 2 of this interview.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE RUPA SUBRAMANYA SHOW

Drag queen defends doing story hours for young children, claims activity is age-appropriate

A prominent Quebec drag queen is defending story hours for young children, claiming the activity is age-appropriate.

Barbada de Barbades, the drag personification of elementary school teacher Sebastien Potvin, spoke with True North about the “family friendly” concept and the controversies surrounding it.

Potvin has been performing drag queen story hours in libraries, bookstores and daycares since 2016. His website states that the activity is meant for kids 3 to 6 years old, but younger children are also welcome. 

Potvin previously told Global News that he believed his drag queen story hours were age-appropriate.

True North asked Potvin why he thought young children should be exposed to drag. 

“It’s important (for children) to see and understand and know… any type of art, any type of job… especially in a world where they will be living with so many different people from so many different views.” 

“I think it’s important for them to discover as much as they can… I wouldn’t say earliest as possible, but yeah, definitely at an early age,” he added.

A video of a story hour hosted by Barbada de Barbades, Potvin’s drag persona, at the Pointe-aux-Trembles library in 2019 shows the performer reading a children’s story by Andree Poulin and Marie Lafrance titled “Deux garçons et un secret” (two boys and a secret). The story, meant for those aged 5 to 9, touches on the topics of homosexuality and gender. 

Potvin defended reading the book, telling True North the story was vetted and is appropriate.

“There’s never a mention of homosexuality,” he claimed. “There’s a mention of love between two people, but at no moment, is there a motion, a notion or a mention of sexuality.”

A criticism of drag queen story hours has been that children are too young to understand the concept of drag, and hence it is confusing to younger audiences.

But Potvin believes drag can be made understandable for young children.

He also said it is important for kids to be introduced to drag appropriately, given that it is likely they will be exposed to it eventually while kids are browsing the internet.

“The thing is if I don’t do it, you know, be in a very respectful way for the kids… in a way with words that they understand, in words that they comprehend in order to understand at their level what drag is, they’re gonna learn anyways,” said Potvin.

“They’re gonna see stuff on TV. They’re gonna see stuff online, they’re gonna see stuff on Instagram.”

Children’s drag shows became very prominent this summer and caused outrage among many Canadians. 

Some members of the LGBT community have warned that the controversial events threaten the progress made in terms of LGBT tolerance and acceptance.

Political commentator Brad Polumbo, who is openly gay, shared his concerns in a Based Politics piece.

“I am gay and have been to a handful of drag shows. It’s not really my thing, but if people enjoy it, there’s nothing wrong with it — for adults. But it’s absolutely not appropriate for children.” 

“Many may have good intentions and fail to see why what they’re doing is so inappropriate and harmful.”

Potvin does not think his story hours shed a bad light on the LGBT community, telling True North that once people actually understand the concept, they view it differently.

However, he did admit that some drag shows are inappropriate for children, and said he doesn’t recommend that parents let their kids watch Rupaul or Canada’s Drag Race.

“I don’t think personally you should have them watch Drag Race and shows that have a warning before the show that clearly says it’s for adults only.”

Potvin compared these drag shows to superhero movies that have PG-13 or PG-16 labels.

In the United States, there have been children’s drag shows that do not appear to be PG, including one in a Texas bar.

Multiple videos posted by the social media account Libs of TikTok also showed questionable performances at various children’s drag events.

However, Potvin says he always conducts himself in a professional and appropriate manner when minors are present.

“If I know that there might be kids because it’s a family or an outdoor event for example, then obviously the choices of song and the choices of hosting and the jokes change,” he said.

“If I know that it’s a kids oriented show or a kids oriented story hour, like the one I’m doing, then obviously it’s a whole different thing.”

Potvin added that he believes some people do not take the time to distinguish his “family friendly” drag shows from those that are not age-appropriate.

In addition to teaching and doing drag shows, Sebastien Potvin also has a Radio-Canada (CBC) children’s music show.

Related stories