00:00:09.280Hi, it's John and welcome to the channel 358 a.m. Monday, March the 16th.
00:00:13.880I hope you're having a great start to your week.
00:00:15.860I hope you had a good weekend as well.
00:00:17.660Only a few days, about five days away now from the official start of spring.
00:00:22.140But you never know here in the north when snow is going to fall again.
00:00:25.920we do have some 17 degree weather expected in Calgary this week, which is just awesome. I took
00:00:30.460the big blue mug of coffee to you. I think this video will be of interest to you if you live
00:00:36.040outside of Canada, anywhere. If you're in Canada, I think you need to pay attention to what's going
00:00:41.900on here because the end of Canada is nigh. And from a standpoint of living here in Alberta and
00:00:47.920being part of the independence movement, we need to be very, very clear on what we're doing
00:00:52.840going forward with the process of independence. We need to have the facts on our side. I think
00:00:59.020it's quite evident that the other side, the pro-Canada people, they really haven't got a
00:01:03.720good argument as to why Alberta should stay into Canada. Simply patriotism doesn't work.
00:01:08.880The pro-independence side talks about the money transfers from Alberta to Canada, the fact that
00:01:14.000we really don't have a say when it comes to elections, the keeping of natural resources
00:01:19.020in the ground and other things are top of the mind here for many of us. I call Canada the country of
00:01:25.720no. I'm tired of hearing no from the east telling us what we can do here in the west. But it's
00:01:32.000becoming quite evident the tactic that the other side is going to use to try to keep us in or force
00:01:37.080us to stay in and it's using a group of people and it's these people right here. This article from
00:01:44.780the National Post just yesterday. I've seen other stories similar this week in the National Post and
00:01:50.400other media here in the country. And here we have a group of Alberta Treaty 6 chiefs standing on both
00:01:55.620sides of King Charles. Now, what's fascinating about this, and I mentioned this in my independence
00:02:00.760calendar yesterday, is these people standing on both sides of the king, they would refer to me
00:02:05.740and people who look like me as settlers, as colonizers. And here they are running to the king
00:02:12.620of the colonizers and the settlers looking for help, looking for cover, looking to stop the
00:02:17.560Alberta independence movement. Now, I don't like the title of this article, Separation Speed Bump
00:02:22.800Negotiating with First Nations. I prefer the word independence, but let's use the word in a different
00:02:27.660form. It's separating and then negotiating because the rules here in Canada are quite clear.
00:02:35.380And the reasons I say clear is because it's all laid out in the Clarity Act. I was watching a
00:02:41.400video with Corey Morgan yesterday on his channel. Link in the description. He talks about the
00:02:45.200Clarity Act. He brings it up. And in nowhere in this story is the word clarity. I actually
00:02:51.460searched for it. You can see it up here. Clarity not found. And that needs to be in every article
00:02:55.760like this because the rules are quite clear. The other thing I'd like to say about this picture
00:03:00.460is these people are standing with the king while the people they're supposed to be leading
00:03:07.700aren't doing so well here in Canada, despite the fact that Canadian taxpayers are putting about
00:03:13.700$32 billion into Native affairs in this country, or whatever we're calling it, Indigenous affairs
00:03:20.680in this country. It was $15 billion in 2015 when the Liberals got in under Justin Trudeau,
00:03:26.340and it's more than doubled, and they're not doing so well. Corey Morgan has been quite clear
00:03:30.700in the videos that he's shown on his channel, which he's been taken to court over.
00:03:35.560But doesn't that make you sick? And it's criminal. And what the independence movement wants is a
00:03:40.700better life for all of these people. So what is the Clarity Act? Have you ever read it?
00:03:49.060You know, a lot of people don't want to read government stuff because it can get long-winded
00:03:53.340and hard to understand. You know, it's the same thing with treaties. But if you read the treaties,
00:03:58.860they're not very long. They're pretty clear. They go back a long way. You kind of have to
00:04:02.800think about it a little bit, but they're not really hard to understand, and the Clarity Act
00:04:07.000isn't very long, and it's not hard to understand, so let's read a little bit of it to find out
00:04:12.720what's in there. Here is the Clarity Act. It's called Bill C-20. It received royal assent
00:04:19.660June 29, 2000, so this is almost 26 years old, and I'm not going to read it all, but I'll read
00:04:27.520the pertinent parts for you. I am not a constitutional lawyer. The parts in red are
00:04:32.660especially important to understand. There are poison pills in here, folks.
00:04:40.240And there's something, there's a four-word phrase we hear in the independence movement,
00:04:45.180which I'm going to get to in just a moment. But there are poison pills in here that could
00:04:49.400stop us. But we have to be strong. And I mean that figuratively and literally. So let's read
00:04:56.100a little bit about this. An act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the
00:05:00.720opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference. Okay, so this is in
00:05:06.520response to the referendum in 1995. There were never any clear rules. It took them five years
00:05:11.600to come up with this short document, and it's not very long. I'm going to read some of this to you
00:05:16.020so you'll have an understanding. So, again, you can go and read the whole thing. I've highlighted
00:05:22.060some spots here. Whereas any proposal relating to the breakup of a democratic state is a matter of
00:05:27.560the utmost gravity, it is of fundamental importance to all of its citizens. Whereas the government of
00:05:33.240any province of Canada is entitled to consult its population by referendum on any issue and is
00:05:38.980entitled to formulate the wording of its referendum question. Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has
00:05:44.380determined that the result of a referendum on the secession of a province from Canada
00:05:48.040must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it
00:05:54.500achieves. Some poison pills. More on that in just a moment. Now here in red, this is very important.
00:06:01.340Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that democracy means more than simple majority
00:06:06.960rule that a clear majority in favor of secession would be required to create an obligation to
00:06:12.800negotiate secession and that a qualitative evaluation is required to determine whether
00:06:18.580a clear majority in favor of secession exists in the circumstances. So, a simple majority rule,
00:06:26.160more than a simple majority rule, what does that mean? Good question. 50% plus one. Do you really
00:06:33.920think the rest of Canada will agree with Alberta leaving with 50% plus one? We need this to be
00:06:40.280much bigger than that. And here comes your four-word phrase you hear a lot about, too big
00:06:45.120to rig. It has to be too big to rig. What that means, I don't know. What the number is, I don't
00:06:52.380know. But 50% plus one might not be enough. Let's go back over here. Whereas in light of the finding
00:06:58.800by the Supreme Court of Canada that it would be for elected representatives to determine what
00:07:03.460constitutes a clear question and what constitutes a clear majority in a referendum held in a province
00:07:08.000on secession, the House of Commons, as the only political institution elected to represent all
00:07:13.120Canadians, has an important role in identifying what constitutes a clear question and a clear
00:07:17.980majority sufficient for the government of Canada to enter into negotiations in relation to the
00:07:22.920secession of a province from Canada. So that's another one of those poison pills. It will be up
00:07:27.500to the rest of Canada and the Parliament of Canada, the government of Canada, to determine
00:07:31.400on whether we can do this, okay? So we have to make sure that this is too big to rig. Moving on,
00:07:36.340The House of Commons shall, within 30 days after the government of a province tables its legislative assembly or otherwise officially releases the question that intends to submit to its voters in a referendum relating to the proposed secession of the province from Canada, consider the question and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether the question is clear.
00:07:57.800In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall consider
00:08:02.980whether the question would result in a clear expression of the will of the population of a
00:08:07.560province on whether the province should cease to be a part of Canada and become an independent state.
00:08:12.460Does that sound familiar to you? Because Mitch Sylvester and the folks at State for Alberta
00:08:16.460wrote the question thus. Do you agree that the province of Alberta should cease to be a part
00:08:21.780of Canada to become an independent state? I know a lot of people objected to the word state,
00:08:26.180But there it is right there. The province should cease to be a part of Canada and become an
00:08:30.920independent state. That's why it's there, because it's in the Clarity Act. And I think this question
00:08:36.200is quite clear. Do you not agree? Let's get back over to the Clarity Act just a little bit more
00:08:43.280here. And keep in mind, we're not even at the question on a ballot yet. We're still fighting
00:08:47.520over the question. And this paragraph here discusses that. In considering the clarity of
00:08:52.880a referendum question, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of a number of
00:08:57.360different groups. And that includes the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in this case,
00:09:02.780also legislative assemblies of any province or territory in Canada, the Senate,
00:09:07.940representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, especially those here in Alberta.
00:09:12.300And if the Government of Canada determines based on the views of all these different groups that
00:09:16.320the question isn't clear, there will be no question. So again, they're going to have the
00:09:20.460say and whether we get this question on a ballot, but I think it's quite clear. Now we move on.
00:09:26.120Where the government of a province following a referendum relating to the secession of the
00:09:30.240province from Canada seeks to enter into negotiations on the terms on which that
00:09:35.160province might cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall, except where it is
00:09:39.960determined pursuant to Section 1 that a referendum question is not clear, consider and by resolution
00:09:45.360set out its determination on whether in the circumstances there has been a clear expression
00:09:50.920of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province sees to be
00:09:56.080part of Canada. So what is that number? We do not know. We go back to too big to rig.
00:10:03.380Okay, we've got to be too big to rig. So they've got it in considering whether there has been a
00:10:08.920clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province, that province
00:10:13.840cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account, A, the size of the
00:10:18.920majority of valid votes cast in favor of the secessionist option, B, the percentage of eligible
00:10:24.900voters voting in the referendum, and C, any other matters or circumstances it considers to be
00:10:30.420relevant. Folks, we're going to have a fight on our hands over a lot of these things because they
00:10:34.680don't want to lose their sugar daddy, Alberta. In considering whether there's been a clear
00:10:40.960expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province sees
00:10:45.880to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political
00:10:50.380parties represented in the legislative assembly of the province whose government proposed the
00:10:56.180referendum on secession, any formal statements or resolutions by the government or legislative
00:11:00.960assembly of any province or territory in Canada, any formal statements or resolutions by the Senate,
00:11:06.360any formal statements or resolutions by the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of
00:11:10.740Canada, especially those in the province whose government proposed the referendum on secession
00:11:15.060and any other views it considers to be relevant.
00:11:21.100Okay, so it's going to be up to all these other groups to determine whether there has been a
00:11:26.060clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population. So again, there's a lot of
00:11:31.900hurdles to jump here. So let's get to the final couple of paragraphs of the Clarity Act. It is
00:11:38.340recognized that there is no right under the Constitution of Canada to affect the secession
00:11:42.780of a province from Canada unilaterally and that, therefore, an amendment to the Constitution of
00:11:48.420Canada would be required for any province to secede from Canada, which in turn would require
00:11:53.100negotiations involving at least the governments of all the provinces and the government of Canada.
00:11:57.520No Minister of the Crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to affect the secession of a province from Canada unless the Government of Canada has addressed in its negotiations the terms of secession that are relevant in the circumstances, including the divisions of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests, and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.
00:12:22.400So that is the Clarity Act. It's not a long document. But I think the most important paragraph, if you read it, is this one I've got in orange. And then we're going to wrap all this up.
00:12:30.720Whereas, in light of the finding by the Supreme Court of Canada that it would be for elected representatives to determine what constitutes a clear question and what constitutes a clear majority in a referendum held in a province on secession,
00:12:45.280The House of Commons, as the only political institution elected to represent all Canadians, has an important role in identifying what constitutes a clear question and a clear majority sufficient for the government of Canada to enter into negotiations in relation to the secession of a province from Canada.
00:13:03.660The House of Commons will determine the question, whether it's clear enough, and whether it's a clear majority, but it has to consult all the groups we talked about.
00:13:13.740And that would be the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Legislative Assemblies of all the provinces and territories, the Senate, Aboriginal peoples as well.
00:13:22.660And God, you know, a lot of them are going to try to say that it's not a clear question, which I think it is, and then they're going to get into whether it is a clear majority.
00:13:30.280And that gets us back again to the words, too big to rig. And what is too big to rig? To be
00:13:39.140determined, I guess. Is the question clear? I think it is. It's written directly from the
00:13:43.440Clarity Act. That's the reason why they wrote it that way. And will we have a clear majority?
00:13:49.040That's up for determination. And you have to realize that the rest of Canada, the House of
00:13:54.420Commons, the provinces, the aboriginal groups are going to fight like hell to keep us in.
00:14:39.420And there are a lot of Aboriginal people that would like to see the power taken away from the people standing in this picture on either side of King Charles.