John Bolton - Jeff RATH FIGHTS for Alberta Independence - 1st Nations arguments fall flat

00:00:00.000 Hi, it's John and welcome to the channel. Hope you're having a great day today. And today we've

00:00:08.120 got a guest, as you can see on the channel. I've got Jeff Rath here, a constitutional lawyer,

00:00:14.000 an advocate for independence, working with the Alberta Prosperity Project, representing Mitch

00:00:19.040 Sylvester in court last week. I got a chance, Jeff, to watch quite a bit of it. I saw a lot

00:00:24.720 of what happened on Wednesday. I heard a lot of what she said, most of which was on Thursday,

00:00:29.260 and I heard the wrap-up on Friday as well. Tell me just exactly what was going on here. I know you

00:00:36.080 were facing off with a number of lawyers here from about five First Nations groups.

00:00:41.820 Well, and on top of it, not just lawyers from five First Nations groups, but two so-called

00:00:47.520 friends of the court or amicus curiae that were appointed by the court, one of them being Professor

00:00:52.300 Adams, Professor of Constitutional Law Professor Adams from the University of Alberta, and then a

00:00:57.480 lawyer by the name of Woodley from the Reynolds Mirth firm in Edmonton, right? And what was really

00:01:03.800 shocking to me about all of them, including the law professor and the so-called expert

00:01:09.500 constitutional litigator, Mr. Woodley, was that none of them were addressing the real issue.

00:01:14.660 And the real issue is, you know, how can the mere gathering of signatures or the mere holding of a

00:01:19.880 referendum on independence that the Supreme Court has said is a purely political exercise? This is

00:01:25.520 the secession reference, has said in the secession reference, is a purely political exercise that

00:01:30.420 does not affect anybody's legal rights. How could that in any way contravene the Constitution when

00:01:36.640 it's a constitutional process that's already been approved by the Supreme Court? Not one of them

00:01:41.560 wanted to address that question, right? And with the First Nations, what really bothered me about

00:01:46.720 what they were doing was that they don't understand what a huge opportunity Alberta independence is

00:01:53.320 for the First Nations, excuse me, of Alberta, because they're all ignoring, they're all talking

00:01:59.860 about Section 35 and talking about treaty rights. And, you know, in some of them in a really, really,

00:02:04.980 you know, strange kind of way, like one of the issues was, well, what about people that are

00:02:09.640 criminals? Like, what about criminals, you know, crossing international borders? Well, there's no treaty

00:02:14.780 right, you know, to carry out your modern way of life throughout the track surrendered. If you're

00:02:20.660 a criminal, I mean, if somebody's locked up in the Edmonton Max, in the Edmonton Max, they can't go to

00:02:25.560 the warden and say, well, I have a treaty right that says I can carry on my way of life throughout

00:02:30.240 the track surrendered, as if I'd ever entered into treaty. So you got to let me out of prison. So I,

00:02:35.220 you know, I can go do that again, you know, that I can go do that and maybe kill a few more people 1.00

00:02:41.000 while I'm at it. Right. Yeah. That's ludicrous. Right. So nobody, nobody addressed any of that. 1.00

00:02:45.920 And then on top of it, there's this one lawyer for, it was on for Miccosuke Cree and Sturgeon Lake,

00:02:51.220 you know, Orlo Kelly, like she went out of her way to try to tell me that I didn't know who my own

00:02:55.900 clients were because at one point, um, this poor lawyer that was representing ACFN, you know,

00:03:01.920 really doesn't know anything about Aboriginal rights or Aboriginal rights law or First Nations

00:03:06.060 in general. So the court asked him whether he knew if there were any other Dene First Nations besides

00:03:11.860 his client in Treaty 8, he didn't know the answer. Right. So I stood up and I said to the court,

00:03:19.300 because I know because I've acted for dozens of them. And I said, well, I said, there's quite a few

00:03:23.280 other Dene First Nations in Treaty 8. I said, there's all of the, you know, the, um, uh, the 1.00

00:03:27.840 people in Northeastern British Columbia. I said, there's horse lake, at least horse, the horse lake

00:03:31.360 in Alberta. And then I've been since reminded by other friends of mine and Cree elders and other

00:03:35.300 people that I know, you know, Fort Mackay, um, Janvier, Dene Ta, you know, all these other First

00:03:40.420 Nations that are, um, that are, uh, that are Dene First Nations in Alberta. Um, and, but Orlo O'Kelly

00:03:46.860 for Miccosuke thought she should stand up and tell the court that the people that I formed, that I've

00:03:52.420 represented in Northeastern British Columbia on huge cases, were not Dene people, but they were

00:03:57.760 the Dene Zaw beaver people, you know? So, and of course you just Google it. And of course the Dene

00:04:03.200 Zaw beaver people, like the Caribou people of, you know, Fort Chippewan, like the dog rib people of the 1.00

00:04:09.140 Northwest Territories, they're all Dene. Sutena down near Calgary is Dene. But of course, this woman 1.00

00:04:14.440 thought she had to stand up and correct me on a completely irrelevant point. And, you know, and was wrong

00:04:20.480 about it. I mean, that sort of tells you the quality of the representation these poor people

00:04:24.000 have. And Jeff, you've represented a lot of Aboriginal groups and you know a lot about it,

00:04:28.800 obviously from that, which you just said there, but getting back around to what this was about,

00:04:33.520 when I was watching, I heard about sections, section two, four of the Alberta Citizen Initiative

00:04:41.680 Act. And this is the process we're going through here to get a petition, get the signatures and get a

00:04:46.700 referendum. Section two, four says an initiative petition proposal must not contravene sections

00:04:52.500 one to 35.1 of the Constitution Act 1982. You should know your rights one to 15. Those sections

00:04:59.360 are very important when it comes to your personal rights, when it comes to things like a right to

00:05:03.060 religion and a right to freedom of the press and right to not to have improper search and seizure.

00:05:08.660 But when we get to 35, it talks more about the rights of first nations people and the treaty rights

00:05:14.400 of people. And I heard that a lot. Was this, this was all about section two to four, which I do,

00:05:20.940 two, four, which I mentioned, and this is what we got away from so much. Right. Well, yeah, but again,

00:05:25.080 section two, four says an initiative petition proposal. So there's a lot of emphasis on the word

00:05:30.880 proposal, what's being proposed, right? You know, must not contravene any rights contained in the

00:05:37.380 Constitution, you know, specifically sections one to 35.1 of the, you know, of the Constitution Act

00:05:46.820 1982. Well, first of all, 35.1, by putting forward this proposal, we're not convening section 35 or

00:05:55.500 contravening section 35.1. We're triggering section 35.1. The section 35.1 says, if there's any

00:06:05.100 constitutional amendments that are going to impact on treaty and aboriginal rights under 35 or the

00:06:12.120 division of powers under 9124 and shift federal powers for Indians and Indian lands to, you know,

00:06:17.360 to a province, in this case, a country, you know, there has to be a constitutional convention where

00:06:23.800 the First Nations are able to participate. And this is where you, this is where you jumped in a lot last

00:06:29.140 week and you're saying, listen, this is a great opportunity for First Nations. It's going to be the best

00:06:34.340 thing they've ever had, really, right? Oh, 100%. I mean, you know, when Parliament, the Imperial

00:06:39.020 Parliament in Great Britain created Canada out of thin air in 1867 by the Imperial Act of the

00:06:45.080 Parliament, First Nations weren't consulted. When the Imperial Parliament in Great Britain

00:06:49.440 transferred Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territory to Canada in 1868, you know, First Nations

00:06:56.900 weren't, didn't participate and weren't consulted. When Alberta became a province in, well, when any of the

00:07:03.780 provinces were created, including Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, First Nations

00:07:09.360 weren't consulted or allowed to have any say in the creation of those provinces or those provinces

00:07:14.080 joining Canada. When the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement was entered into by an act of Canadian,

00:07:20.800 the Canadian Parliament in 1930, First Nations didn't have a say and weren't consulted. This will be the 0.99

00:07:26.160 first time in Canadian history that First Nations have had a meaningful say at the constitutional table

00:07:31.640 to ensure that all of the rights that are violated on an ongoing basis by Alberta and Canada, right,

00:07:39.300 are actually respected at a constitutional table. So they should see this as a real opportunity

00:07:44.700 to completely resolve all of their outstanding grievances. I mean, that's in part why I'm doing this.

00:07:51.380 I think this is an amazing opportunity for First Nations. And certainly, if you read the value of freedom

00:07:56.800 document that was created by Alberta Prosperity Project, if you look at the Indigenous policies of the Alberta

00:08:03.700 Prosperity Project, you'll see that, you know, the Alberta Prosperity Project, you know, both in its policies

00:08:09.300 and through the value of freedom, have nothing but respect for the treaty and Aboriginal rights of the Indigenous

00:08:14.840 people of Alberta. And we, our goal is to lift the Indigenous people of Alberta out of the crushing poverty and

00:08:21.840 destitution that Canada has placed them in and has kept them in.

00:08:25.620 You even, you even brought up, and I think it might have been on Wednesday, you said, you know,

00:08:29.220 we've still got people in Alberta who haven't got clean drinking water here. And you aren't very

00:08:34.180 complimentary of the lawyers that were representing the First Nations either, were you?

00:08:38.680 Well, I just thought it was shocking that they could actually bill for the services that they were

00:08:43.840 providing. I mean, you know, it was, you know, watching them stumble and stammer and, you know, not know how to

00:08:49.560 answer questions from the court, you know, not knowing, you know, the ethnography of the clients

00:08:54.740 they're representing. In Orlo O'Kelly's case, misrepresenting the ethnography of other First

00:08:59.620 Nations in Alberta simply because she thought it was important. And I still can't figure out why she

00:09:04.260 thought she should try to make that point, you know, that she should contradict me, you know,

00:09:08.360 on an ethnographic issue that has little or nothing to do with anything before the court and then be

00:09:13.100 wrong about it. Right. You know, I thought, frankly, you know, it was embarrassing to watch.

00:09:19.620 It was embarrassing to sit through. And as somebody who's worked, you know, for 34 years advancing the

00:09:24.400 rights of Indigenous people in this province, you know, I'm certainly of the view that First Nations

00:09:31.100 rights and First Nations interests were not well represented by the lawyers that they had in that

00:09:36.040 courtroom. The other thing that I thought while I was watching it, and I'm no lawyer, I didn't take any

00:09:40.980 law at all. And at times it was hard to follow. But I heard, and I've mentioned to you when I was

00:09:47.580 talking the other night, setting up an interview saying, they looked like they were getting way

00:09:51.900 ahead of themselves, getting over their skis. We were getting way down the line, three or four

00:09:57.540 processes down the line, as opposed to addressing the actual issue.

00:10:01.800 Well, and that's the fault. That's the fault of the so-called constitutional experts,

00:10:05.440 you know, the amicus curiae, right? They came up with this bizarre theory of, you know,

00:10:10.020 let's put the word proposal together with the word contravene. And proposal means what

00:10:14.220 you're ultimately seeking to do. You know, Mitch Sylvester ultimately wants Alberta to

00:10:19.120 be independent from Canada. Well, that's not in evidence before the court. The only thing

00:10:23.840 in evidence before the court is Mr. Sylvester has put forward a proposal, right, to ask a question

00:10:30.480 about whether his fellow Albertans wish to become independent from Canada or not, right?

00:10:36.940 That's it. That's the proposal. People say yes, or they say no. And then once, if they say no,

00:10:42.480 it's over with. And if they say yes, then it's completely out of Mr. Sylvester's hands.

00:10:46.840 And it's in the hands of the government of Alberta. So this idea that we sort of look at this,

00:10:52.640 you know, look at this question, you know, try to figure out what the ultimate end of it's going to be,

00:10:57.620 hold it up sideways, look past the referendum process to, you know, 15 years in the future,

00:11:02.920 and say that that is what you have to look at and determine whether that, whatever it might be

00:11:08.760 15 years from now, or whatever it is, is going to contravene anyone's rights is ludicrous. I think

00:11:14.660 it's a silly proposition. And one of the things we were talking about, I want to jump on quickly. 0.88

00:11:19.080 Sure. Sorry, I'll let you ask the question and then I'll talk about the word contravene.

00:11:22.480 Okay. Well, I was just wondering, the question is, do you agree that the province of Alberta shall

00:11:26.420 become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada? It's a pretty,

00:11:29.600 pretty specific question. I think it's to the point as well. And, and I, and obviously it was

00:11:35.180 chosen very specifically so that it, it, it did. Yeah, to comply with section one, sub three of the

00:11:40.860 idea. Yeah, it really did. And I wanted to ask you about, um, Court of King's Bench Justice Colin

00:11:45.680 Feasby, who was overseeing this as well, uh, for somebody who isn't a lawyer, it seemed to me that

00:11:51.100 he was being at times, uh, kind of argumentative. Is that his job?

00:11:55.280 No, you can't read anything into that. That's his, that's his style. Um, you know, he gives

00:11:59.700 lawyers on both sides of the courtroom, I think an equal, you know, equally hard time. Um, you know,

00:12:04.400 it's, you know, it's kind of Socratic, you know, it's kind of a bit of a Socratic method.

00:12:08.120 Um, I really like appearing in front of Justice Feasby because he's probably one of the strongest

00:12:12.920 constitutionalists on the court. I think that's why he was assigned to this case. He's very learned

00:12:18.060 it in the law. He's very thorough. He reads everything that's in front of him. Um, you know,

00:12:23.400 so, you know, and on top of it, I think it's going to be because he's so serious about the law and

00:12:28.100 understands his role as a judge is to apply the law and not to try to change or warp the law.

00:12:34.560 He understands the difficulty that he has. And he said as much at the end of the hearing,

00:12:39.440 um, in ignoring the Supreme court and what the Supreme court said in the secession reference,

00:12:44.300 I don't think he can do it. I mean, the Supreme court said clearly that, um, a referendum question

00:12:49.760 doesn't affect anybody's legal rights. It's a political process. I haven't made this argument

00:12:53.980 yet, but I probably will when I get another chance to be back in court on the 5th of December,

00:12:57.640 but you know, I mean, the Mitch Sylvester's referendum question, no more affects the constitution

00:13:03.980 than if I were to stand on a soapbox outside of the legislature and, you know, basically scream

00:13:09.900 and yell about how every section of the, you know, of the charter, you know, needs to be amended,

00:13:14.380 uh, for whatever spurious reason I could come up with. Right. I mean, you know, nobody's rights are

00:13:20.320 amended, uh, you know, by somebody asking a question or other people answering a question.

00:13:25.260 Right. You know, I mean, I, you know, I understand that I don't, you know, I personally,

00:13:29.220 I don't think that justice fees be crazy about the idea of Alberta independence. He thinks that

00:13:33.860 there's a lot of potential pitfalls to it or whatever, but do I believe that he's going to

00:13:37.880 apply the law faithfully? Yes, I do. I think he's a great judge. You, you wanted to come back around

00:13:42.280 and I heard it a lot. The word contravene, there seemed to be a lot of argument about the word

00:13:47.660 contravene over these three days. Why? Well, because the, because the friends of the court

00:13:53.500 of the amicus have taken that word and have stretched it all out of, you know, like, you

00:13:57.700 know, it's like, they think that that word is a piece of saltwater taffy that they're stretching

00:14:01.560 to be a hundred miles long. Right. Um, it doesn't, they start out with the normal definition of

00:14:07.280 contravene, which is to violate or to break a law. Right. Um, and then they stretch it into,

00:14:13.020 you know, violate, breach or infringe directly or indirectly now, or at some point in the future.

00:14:18.580 Right. Yeah. So, you know, they stretch the word past all normal meaning. And of course I made an

00:14:24.040 argument that, you know, sort of on the one in my argument in chief that you have to look at the

00:14:28.560 structure of the statute itself and how the word is used in the context of the statute. And then

00:14:33.460 Eva Chipiak hopefully took it one step further for me. And she went through and she counted all of

00:14:38.800 the times the word contravene was used in the statute and pointed me to all of the specific paragraphs

00:14:43.940 in the statute where it's used. And it's clear on, in terms of how that word is used in the statute,

00:14:49.760 it means violate or break period. You can't put any other meaning on it. So how do you violate or break

00:14:56.740 a constitutional right? You know, by simply asking people a question, right? You know, through,

00:15:02.940 through, through a process that the Supreme court has called a purely political process that doesn't

00:15:07.940 affect anybody's rights. You know what I mean? So that's the, that's the, that's the question.

00:15:11.940 That's the issue before the court that everybody wants to ignore.

00:15:16.560 How do you think you did? And I know you mentioned, you alluded to it just a moment ago. You've got

00:15:21.320 to continue. There's still more to go here. I know at the very first part of Wednesday's court,

00:15:27.640 there were some people who are still wanting to, are interveners, I guess, that you'll be talking to

00:15:34.200 in December. So how do you think you did over the last three weeks and what's coming up?

00:15:37.900 Well, I mean, obviously, you know, um, if you look, if you look at the online comments and if I look at

00:15:43.500 the feedback that I've received and the, uh, uh, you know, and, uh, objectively, you know, how the

00:15:49.500 arguments went in and then on top of it, if you listen to my, um, 14 year old daughter, I was clearly

00:15:55.060 the best lawyer in the courtroom.

00:15:56.520 Well, I would agree. Yeah.

00:15:59.040 So anyway, no, but I mean, I thought it went very well. And I think, I think more importantly,

00:16:04.320 we got a, you know, we got a fair hearing and, um, uh, I think we're going to continue to get a

00:16:09.260 fair hearing. And I think that justice fees be is going to have a very, very, very hard time

00:16:13.420 on the law ruling against us. Cause like I pointed out to him, I said, okay, you know,

00:16:18.160 you're opening the door to chaos. If you accept what the other side is saying,

00:16:22.160 because if you want to ignore what the Supreme court says about secession referenda, not being

00:16:27.660 legally binding and not affecting anybody's rights, you want to ignore that and rule against

00:16:32.200 us and accept this crazy definition of the word, you know, uh, proposal and contravene that the

00:16:37.680 friends of the court have come up with, you're opening the door to chaos because then people

00:16:41.580 will say, oh, okay, I guess the secession reference isn't binding. And whatever the Supreme

00:16:45.620 court said about, uh, uh, unilateral declarations of independence being illegal, we can ignore.

00:16:51.160 And because we can ignore that in the secession reference, we can ignore it in the clarity act

00:16:55.500 and Alberta should just declare itself independent from Canada and move on. Right. Right. I mean,

00:17:00.360 that's what he's opening the door to. And I think, you know, I think he understands that I made that

00:17:03.940 argument to him very clearly. Are you, um, is it universal declaration of independence? Is that

00:17:09.480 correct? Unilateral, unilateral, sorry. Unilateral. Yeah. And basically for that, all you'd need is a,

00:17:15.320 is a government to recognize. Yeah. You just need a government that has the guts to declare itself

00:17:19.420 independent from Canada in much the same way. You know what? I made that point to justice fees,

00:17:23.420 but he didn't think much of it, but I mean, the government of Quebec effectively declared itself

00:17:28.380 outside of the constitutional order of Canada this summer, May 27th, my birthday, right? The government

00:17:34.540 of Quebec handed me an awesome birthday present. They declared that Quebec was no longer bound by or

00:17:39.980 recognize the crown period. And didn't they present something to the King when he was here too? I think

00:17:44.860 they presented something, didn't they present something to King Charles? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They

00:17:47.820 actually delivered the resolution, hand delivered it to him while he was in Ottawa saying that the

00:17:52.460 parliament buildings belonged to the Algonquin. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He did a landing dog. 0.79

00:17:57.580 So I mean, if Quebec doesn't recognize the sovereignty of his majesty, King Charles,

00:18:02.060 and that the entire Canadian constitution rests on the sovereignty of King Charles III,

00:18:07.740 right? And his heirs and successors, Quebec has effectively declared itself outside of, you know,

00:18:14.380 the scope of the Canadian constitutional order, you know, in a manner that I would suggest amounted

00:18:19.340 to a unilateral declaration of independence. Yeah. There was an article the other day.

00:18:22.940 So, you know, and if that's, if that's the case, we don't even need to worry about the amending

00:18:26.380 formula anymore because Quebec isn't part of the constitution. We need to have a constitutional

00:18:31.260 conference to address that. And of course, the funny thing about that, that most people don't remember,

00:18:36.220 but it was Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, the leader of the Parti Quebecois. It was the one that put that

00:18:42.780 resolution for, for the Quebec National Assembly. Right. Yeah. And Legault was stupid. Couldn't,

00:18:49.340 you know, like to say face politically, couldn't say, Oh no, we can't have that resolution. So Plumondon tables the

00:18:55.980 resolution. Right. And they voted unanimously to kick the crown out of Quebec.

00:19:01.260 There was an, there was an article in the national post about this the other day where they were,

00:19:07.020 they were talking about Quebec, just unilaterally saying that they were an independent country,

00:19:11.500 basically. Right. Yeah. And what actually Plumondon was in, I think it was in Calgary last week.

00:19:16.540 Well, we met with him for four and a half hours. We met with him for four and a half hours when he

00:19:20.060 was here, Mitch and Dennis and I, we had a wonderful dinner with them. We were, you know,

00:19:23.740 we had a really lively conversation over, over a bottle of wine or two and really, really enjoyed meeting him.

00:19:29.180 He and I actually have a very similar background. We're both, we both started out as big firm lawyers,

00:19:33.500 right? He was at the Psych Benelian. I was at Burnett Duckworth in Calgary. And then

00:19:39.100 he saw all the crap and corruption that was going on in Quebec because he was a senior, 0.99

00:19:44.060 he was counsel on the ad scam inquiry. Right. And you know, and then he also, 0.99

00:19:49.900 we both went to university in England. So he did a, I think a master's at, or an MBA at Oxford. And I did

00:19:57.260 my law degree at the London School of Economics. So we kind of have that, you know, sort of shared

00:20:01.260 history, you know, big firm experience, uh, you know, university, you know, uh, English university

00:20:06.300 experience in common. So he and I actually sort of speak very close to the same language.

00:20:10.860 So I want to ask you what's coming up, but then I want to move on to something else. Big,

00:20:14.140 a big day, um, coming up with, uh, Carney and I know, I know, I know that there's just a little bit

00:20:20.620 more to do on this before we'll get a ruling. Um, you're going to be talking in December.

00:20:25.660 There's some other people intervening or whatever that Colin Feesby is going to, um, be part of,

00:20:31.020 and you're going to get your opportunity to talk a bit more. Um, when will this, we may get a ruling

00:20:36.620 on this and then we can move on from that. Yeah. He, well, he promised that, uh, you know,

00:20:41.020 because of the new intervenors having a decision out before Christmas, he said it's possible, but

00:20:45.820 unlikely, but he basically said, you know, scouts honor, you know, judges honor that he'll have it

00:20:50.300 to us before the 15th of January. And I have no reason to think that he won't. So, um, you know,

00:20:55.500 we're looking forward to seeing his decision one way or another. We are feeling as one way or another,

00:20:59.740 we will win, right? Because if he rules against, if he rules against this, then the ball's squarely

00:21:05.020 in Danielle's lap. And after promising a referendum and then screwing up the legislation that's 0.97

00:21:10.780 prevented us from moving forward, she's going to be forced to call the referendum 1.00

00:21:14.540 under section one of the referendum act, or there's going to be all hell to pay within the

00:21:18.300 party. Because I mean, right now the, uh, you know, Alberta prosperity project and people in

00:21:22.860 favor of independence are literally, you know, uh, 60 or 70% of the base of the UCP right now.

00:21:29.020 So, you know, it's, uh, and then we'll find out after this weekend, whether or not we fully

00:21:33.020 control the board of directors again. So yeah, that's right. The AGM is coming up. So I want to ask you

00:21:39.420 about this, um, big announcement. I think it's happening in Calgary, isn't it? I think they're

00:21:44.860 going to be, no, no, the UCP AGM is in that. No, no, no. I'm talking about, I'm talking about

00:21:49.660 I'm sorry, the, the, the, the ridiculous announcement of the, uh, of the, uh, the,

00:21:54.220 I call it the memorandum of underachieving, not understanding. It's a memorandum of underachieving.

00:22:00.940 So I think it's happening in Calgary. Anyway, it's happening here in Alberta. Daniel

00:22:04.860 Smith is entertaining Mark Carney. He's probably on his way here if he's not here already to

00:22:09.740 announce this memorandum of understanding, to put a pipeline to the coast. What are your thoughts on

00:22:15.340 this? Well, I mean, my thoughts are the same as Pierre Paulyev's. I mean, he sure for somebody

00:22:21.020 that's supposed to be, um, uh, you know, Daniel's friend, I mean, she idolizes him. I mean, I've heard

00:22:26.620 stories that when she wanted to repatriate the constitution a couple of years ago, he begged her not

00:22:31.900 to do it or we're not the constitution repatriate the Alberta, the Canadian pension funds that belong

00:22:36.380 to Alberta to an Alberta pension plan. Yeah. Paulyev begged her not to do it and she listened to him.

00:22:42.300 So, you know, she, you know, she, uh, uh, has always seen Pierre as being the savior of Alberta.

00:22:48.620 We need to get him elected because he's going to come and save us. And every time you turn around,

00:22:53.100 he's pulling the rug out from underneath her feet. Right. So there he was in parliament referring

00:22:57.420 to her MOU, which she sees as her political salvation. Right. Watch my video. Watch my

00:23:03.660 video on Wednesday. Yeah. Yeah. Speaking of Canadian interest, this prime minister opposed

00:23:10.380 the pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific, just like his previous liberal pre-assessor blocked

00:23:16.700 that same pipeline on Thursday. He'll make one of his grand announcements waving around a meaningless

00:23:22.460 memorandum, so-called memorandum of understanding. If it's anything other than a public relations ploy,

00:23:28.700 why won't he say on what date will construction begin on a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific?

00:23:42.140 Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, sometimes the question reveals everything.

00:23:47.900 The memorandum of understanding that we're negotiating with Alberta creates necessary

00:23:55.260 conditions, but not sufficient conditions because we believe in cooperative federalism.

00:24:00.700 We believe the government of British Columbia has to agree. We believe that First Nations right

00:24:06.060 holders in this country have to agree and support all stakeholders after that. That's one parent.

00:24:13.420 Well, I can. I'll stick it in here. Oh, okay. Yeah. So yeah, play the clip. So yeah. So

00:24:17.980 he basically refers to it as a meaningless, his exact words were meaningless public relations ploy.

00:24:25.180 Right. And then, um, you know, and then Carney himself basically says, oh, well, you know, the MOU

00:24:30.940 creates necessary conditions, but not sufficient conditions, you know, blah, blah, blah, because the

00:24:36.460 government of British Columbia and the BC First Nations still have to agree. So he's basically saying they have a

00:24:41.660 veto. Right. So that whole thing with Carney, it almost reminded me of the old Mackenzie King story

00:24:47.100 when they tried to pin them down on conscription. And he said, you know, conscription of necessary,

00:24:51.820 but not necessarily conscription. Right. It was just more liberal gobbledygook and doublespeak and

00:24:57.740 whatever. But it's made Danielle look like a putz. You know, now she has to put on a nice face tomorrow 1.00

00:25:02.780 and she's probably going to, we'll see if she's going to wear a little, you know, Canada flag costume, 1.00

00:25:06.700 little red blazer and white shirt, right. Dress up like a Canada flag to try to address this,

00:25:11.420 to announce this MOU. Right. Right. And, uh, and, and everybody's already said that it's a joke.

00:25:16.780 Well, you know, and then, and then keep in mind, so vague promises from the liberals that will never

00:25:21.660 come true, but hard promises from Alberta to spend billions on Pathways Alliance carbon

00:25:27.020 sucking machines, decarbonizing Alberta oil, screwing our oil patch left, right and center with this 1.00

00:25:33.260 stupid net zero bullshit. Sorry. You know, I'm going to speak oil patch now. Right. 1.00

00:25:37.420 Net zero bullshit that Danielle's gobbling up with a fork and spoon because little her boyfriend 1.00

00:25:42.380 Mark is serving it to her on a plate. And, um, and we don't have a pro hard promise of a pipeline. 0.99

00:25:47.980 We have a pipeline subject to the wishes of BC and BC first nations. So good luck. She's no further

00:25:56.060 ahead than she was six months ago, except now I would argue that she's substantially further behind

00:26:02.140 because, and I've said this before, I mean, she's burning her political capital, like a drunk 1.00

00:26:06.380 lighting cigars with a hundred dollar bills. Right. And, um, you know, she looks foolish. I mean,

00:26:12.060 Carney and keep in mind Carney, Nenshi, Ebi, right. All working in concert. Nenshi was a card

00:26:18.380 carrying liberal until he affected a reverse takeover of the Alberta new Democrat party on behalf of the

00:26:24.460 liberals in Ottawa. Carney, Ebi and Nenshi are literally running Danielle into a box Canyon to slaughter

00:26:31.580 her. And she's, it doesn't have the wit to see it. That's what really bothers me.

00:26:35.660 It's interesting. You say that because you have to look at it this way. And I didn't really think

00:26:40.060 about this until you just said that, but there's, there's nothing that Mark Carney would like to see

00:26:45.340 more than having an NDP government here in Alberta and not have the UCP and Danielle Smith.

00:26:51.180 He would love to do her in, he would love to destroy. Oh, absolutely. Yeah.

00:26:56.140 And like, and it's the same thing when Trudeau was in power, right. Trudeau and Nenshi would

00:27:01.180 whipsaw Kenny. So like Kenny wouldn't be moving fast enough for Trudeau on, you know, locking people

00:27:06.380 in their homes and forcing shots into their arms or whatever. And then, then she would come out on

00:27:10.860 the Monday after meeting with Trudeau and having a little tete-a-tete and the two of them would

00:27:14.940 snuggle and, you know, agree on what they're going to do to do to the rest of us. And then Nenshi would

00:27:19.260 get out on Monday and throw a full blown Nellie fit about you're lucky people. If you don't do

00:27:27.260 something, I'm going to act on my own. And then Kenny would fold like a cheap suit. Right. So it was

00:27:33.820 awful. And they're doing the same thing again. It's like Nenshi and Carney and, uh, Carney, Nenshi

00:27:39.100 and Abby are all just jerking Danielle around. Like she, like, like, and she doesn't have a clue. 1.00

00:27:44.540 So let me ask, I'm embarrassed to be an Albertan right now.

00:27:47.900 Okay. So what I want, what I want to do some, I, I want to send people, you've got a sub stack.

00:27:52.700 I get an email from you every once in a while. It's called the road to freedom. And the one I

00:27:55.900 got the other day was, if you think Danielle Smith is going to negotiate Alberta's way to 1.00

00:27:59.260 freedom within Canada, you're not paying attention. That was the opening line, I think, from it,

00:28:03.260 or at least part of it anyway. But, and if, if there is a pipeline announced tomorrow in, in regards to

00:28:09.740 the independence movement, do you think this will change anything at all?

00:28:14.300 No, because we don't care about pipelines. We care about censorship. We care about losing our

00:28:19.020 freedom of speech. We care about having our guns stolen from us. We care about every time we turn

00:28:24.220 around, Mark Carney and the liberals find some new way to screw us over as Albertans because they don't

00:28:29.900 like us. Don't like our culture. Don't like our resentment of government. We don't comply. We don't

00:28:34.860 obey, you know, all of that stuff. Right. If they were serious about this, right. Why do we still have a

00:28:42.220 West Coast tanker band? Like Danielle thinks she's getting this big, you know, whatever it is. Right.

00:28:46.380 How can she even, how can we even raise money to get the capital for a pipeline if it's illegal to 1.00

00:28:53.340 take oil out of the pipeline and put it in a ship? Right. How can we increase our capacity, you know,

00:28:59.260 if, you know, to drill oil or gas or whatever it is in Alberta, when, you know, Carney continually jacks

00:29:05.420 up the carbon tax, who's going to invest in the Alberta oil patch when we're being carbon taxed

00:29:10.140 to death and there's zero carbon taxes in Texas. All the money's going to Texas right now. It's not

00:29:14.940 coming to Alberta or it's going to the UAE or, you know, all these other places where Mark Carney

00:29:19.740 and Brookfield do business. Right. They're not doing business. Brookfield's not investing in the

00:29:25.020 Alberta oil patch. They're investing in the UAE. You know, it's, it's just completely despicable what's

00:29:31.340 going on. And Danielle doesn't seem to have the wit to understand it. Jeff, I got to leave it there.

00:29:35.580 Um, you know, what's funny. I, this video has been recorded at about four o'clock in the afternoon

00:29:40.220 on Wednesday. It's going up on Thursday morning and you've gone through my whole video from

00:29:44.380 Wednesday. You got to go watch it because everything you've said here. Well, there you go,

00:29:48.140 John. Great minds think alike. Absolutely. No, it's unbelievable. I'm sitting here going,

00:29:52.940 that's what I said this morning. That's what I said this morning. I brought up Polyev. I used

00:29:56.060 Polyev's clips from CPAC and that's why it's great. It really is. Jeff, it's always a pleasure to

00:30:01.020 talk to you. It always is. I have to get you back on again. Have fun at the AGM this weekend.

00:30:06.220 Oh yeah. Believe me. I'll see you there. I'll be the six foot four guy at a cowboy hat and we'll be

00:30:10.780 having, we'll be having a good time. I can't, I can't wait. I can't wait for, to ask Danielle,

00:30:17.180 um, how many people she thinks in the room support Alberta independence and then ask the room to raise

00:30:21.900 their hands if they support Alberta independence. They're not going to let me near a mic. I'll tell

00:30:25.580 you that. Get your camera. I won't be, I'm not going to be there. I wish I could be,

00:30:28.780 but I can't be there this weekend. I wish I could. I was hoping that we could have a beer together,

00:30:33.020 but yeah, well, I don't, I don't, I don't quit drinking about 30 years ago, Jeff. So don't,

00:30:38.060 don't hold it against me. Maybe we can get you to do what, maybe we can get you to do a report

00:30:43.020 or something early next week on what you thought about it. Yeah. I'd love to. I'll happily come back

00:30:47.100 on. It'd be awesome. Jeff's always a pleasure to talk to you. Thanks so much. Okay. Thanks John.

00:30:51.580 Over out. If you like this video, give it a thumbs up, subscribe to the channel,

00:30:55.180 ring the bell for notifications. I'll see you in the next one. Thanks John.

John Bolton - November 27, 2025

Jeff RATH FIGHTS for Alberta Independence - 1st Nations arguments fall flat

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript