Juno News - January 28, 2020The Andrew Lawton Show： Red Carpet for Omar Khadr
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
163.07947
Summary
A hero s welcome for Omar Khadr, a CBC leadership candidate takes aim at cancel culture, and what the road to a better equalization deal looks like for Alberta. The Andrew Lawton Show starts right now.
Transcript
00:00:06.660
This is the Andrew Lawton Show, brought to you by True North.
00:00:15.880
A CBC leadership candidate takes aim at cancel culture
00:00:18.860
and what the road to a better equalization deal looks like for Alberta.
00:00:30.000
Hey, welcome everyone to another edition of the Andrew Lawton Show
00:00:35.460
here on True North, Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show.
00:00:41.240
Going to be talking about Western alienation later on in the program
00:00:45.460
and specifically whether Alberta can drive this discussion without national buy-in.
00:00:51.860
And this is something that we see unfolding, a dialogue about whether Alberta,
00:00:56.360
which, under Jason Kenney's government, is at least trying to advance this fair deal notion,
00:01:02.560
can force the federal government to the table, essentially.
00:01:05.880
So we'll be talking about that and a great essay that was written on the subject
00:01:09.320
by a University of Calgary professor later on in the show.
00:01:13.000
Also, a couple of little odds and ends that have come up in the last week,
00:01:16.560
such as the effects of a compelling campaign launch video,
00:01:21.160
which I know is just a riveting topic, but bear with me.
00:01:23.860
It's an interesting video we saw from Aaron O'Toole this week.
00:01:27.280
But I have to begin with a little bit of personal news
00:01:31.380
in the sense that it involves something I'm going to be doing.
00:01:35.100
It's not me in the capacity as Andrew Lawton, the random guy,
00:01:38.040
but Andrew Lawton, the True North fellow and host of the Andrew Lawton Show.
00:01:42.340
On February 10th, which is, I guess, less than two weeks away,
00:01:46.740
I'm going to be going to Halifax, where I will be attending to report on
00:01:52.200
Omar Khadr's keynote address at Dalhousie University.
00:01:56.800
This is his first time speaking at a live public event.
00:02:00.880
He did appear before a studio audience on that CBC show last year,
00:02:05.140
Tout le monde en parle, but this is the first time he's putting himself forward like this
00:02:09.540
to speak before an audience at a ticketed event, a public event.
00:02:13.020
I'm going to be there, and this is something that I will say, first off,
00:02:18.120
we are crowdfunding because it's important that we, as an organization,
00:02:21.740
not getting that media bailout money are able to lean on our supporters
00:02:27.400
But I also think it's important that there is a fair and honest accounting
00:02:32.520
of what he talks about and what unfolds at that event.
00:02:37.100
And True North, as it so happens, broke the story of this event,
00:02:41.560
which had been announced by Dalhousie, but didn't get any coverage or pickup.
00:02:47.200
It's called Children's Rights Up Front, Preventing the Recruitment and Use
00:02:52.800
It's an event at Dalhousie, co-hosted with the Romeo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative.
00:02:59.560
And at this event, Omar Khadr is going to be speaking alongside Ishmael Beah,
00:03:07.180
So you've got all the boxes checked here, and that's Nala Ayyed.
00:03:11.540
And as the event description says, it's, quote,
00:03:14.300
a rare opportunity for public discussion around the complex issue of child soldiers.
00:03:20.420
Mr. Khadr and Mr. Beah will highlight their experience in conflict
00:03:24.880
and why they are passionate about the protection of children.
00:03:29.320
Okay, let's unpack this a little bit if we can.
00:03:35.860
The child soldier narrative is an important one to dismantle here because
00:03:42.420
When we hear child soldiers, that has a very specific meaning.
00:03:46.120
Child soldier designation was actually something that never applied to Omar Khadr.
00:03:53.020
And this was testified to by Howard Anglin, who's a lawyer,
00:03:56.260
formerly the executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation,
00:04:00.260
also worked in Stephen Harper's prime minister's office.
00:04:04.800
And the whole point about this dynamic is that if you call him a child soldier,
00:04:10.400
it naturally follows that everything else has to be awash, that nothing else matters.
00:04:16.400
And Omar Khadr is, as a matter of fact and as a matter of law,
00:04:22.100
Now, we understand he wants to appeal that murder conviction.
00:04:26.580
We understand he has since recanted his confession when he confessed
00:04:30.320
to throwing the grenade that killed Sergeant Christopher Spear and injured Sergeant Lane Morris.
00:04:36.360
We ultimately have this idea that has been put forward that we are not to criticize him
00:04:49.500
Number one, doesn't apply as a matter of law, given the circumstances.
00:04:56.380
But also, I think the bigger dynamic here is that we are to accept the media narrative
00:05:02.020
that this is not someone who can be challenged, not someone who can be questioned,
00:05:05.800
and not someone who should be criticized, but rather someone who should be celebrated.
00:05:12.100
And I said a couple of years ago, I've been following the Cotter case for quite some time,
00:05:17.260
that if you accept at face value what the media is saying,
00:05:20.780
they're going beyond just the idea that you can't criticize him.
00:05:25.480
They're saying this is something to be celebrated,
00:05:27.900
and this is why he's been getting the red carpet treatment.
00:05:30.960
I remember when he first was released from custody.
00:05:34.260
He was released on bail, and he went to his lawyer's house in Edmonton, Dennis Edney's house,
00:05:40.620
and he had a little mini press conference in the driveway.
00:05:45.140
And what happened in that was one of the questions was like,
00:05:47.560
what are you having for dinner tonight, I recall?
00:05:50.240
And what are you most looking forward to doing?
00:05:53.680
And questions that you would never see asked of anyone else
00:05:57.940
who had just been released on bail from a murder conviction.
00:06:05.920
So this double standard that the media has had with him is absolutely insane,
00:06:12.800
And the more time passes between his release from jail and now,
00:06:17.480
or the more time passes from when that initial firefight in Afghanistan happened and now,
00:06:22.920
the easier it becomes to whitewash everything that's happened in Omar Khadr's life.
00:06:28.260
And the facts of the case are actually quite simple.
00:06:30.880
He went over as a teenager to Afghanistan, was part of a terrorist group.
00:06:39.160
He was not just involved in that firefight where he had, again,
00:06:48.280
And we know that IEDs have killed dozens of soldiers, Canadian and other allied forces.
00:06:54.760
He may have even more blood on his hands than we previously acknowledged or previously understood.
00:07:15.180
whether he condemns the family members that if you accept the victim narrative,
00:07:23.380
these are relevant questions that I don't see asked.
00:07:26.800
Now, he's done the interviews with the Toronto Star,
00:07:29.980
and he's only really done interviews with people that are going to give him softball questions.
00:07:35.580
In fact, at that press conference with Dennis Edney at his side,
00:07:40.260
one of the things that Dennis Edney said at the beginning is,
00:07:42.520
if we hear any questions we don't like, we're going inside.
00:07:44.860
So there was basically a groundwork laid there that you could only ask him questions
00:07:52.980
So let's have an honest and fair discussion of Omar Khadr.
00:07:58.260
But that involves if he is going to go down this road of being a public figure,
00:08:06.400
So far, though, no one is actually asking them.
00:08:12.060
I mean, this event is moderated by a CBC journalist.
00:08:19.840
So already, CBC has its personality complicit in an event that is aimed at promoting him in a positive light.
00:08:28.700
So CBC, which expects us to believe it's fair and transparent and unbiased and accountable and all of these things,
00:08:35.420
CBC is driving this event and the discussion of the event.
00:08:40.040
And it's not going to be a hardball question because the basis of the event is that Omar Khadr is a victim
00:08:47.420
And this is happening at Dalhousie University, potentially with public money,
00:08:53.080
which brings me to the interesting aside to this discussion,
00:08:58.140
which I think is not the most important aspect of it,
00:09:04.660
which is whether he is being paid by Dalhousie.
00:09:11.520
But I also think that with that freedom does not come a guarantee of being subsidized.
00:09:18.280
So if Dalhousie is using tuition money or government money to pay for Omar Khadr,
00:09:26.340
I asked the Dalhousie University Media Relations team.
00:09:29.680
I asked the Romeo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative.
00:09:33.720
And they wouldn't even respond to a very simple question.
00:09:37.540
Is Omar Khadr receiving a speaking fee or honorarium?
00:09:42.400
Is Omar Khadr receiving any speaking fee or honorarium for his participation in the event?
00:09:48.360
And even if he's not, you still have to deal with travel from Alberta,
00:09:57.120
And I think everyone on Twitter was dealing with the idea that,
00:10:01.640
oh, well, if there's not answering, the answer is probably yes.
00:10:08.380
Now, I am, if you have not heard, a free speech absolutist.
00:10:26.200
If he is walking free and should be behind bars, that is a failure of the justice system.
00:10:32.620
But the answer to a failure of one system is not to deprive rights that are ultimately
00:10:39.200
would, that depriving would ultimately indicate failure in another system.
00:10:44.540
So I believe that if he is in the eyes of the law walking around free,
00:10:50.540
he has a right to speak freely as an individual.
00:10:56.960
Now, this does not mean that he has the right to be guaranteed a platform.
00:11:01.540
It also does not mean that he has the right to be subsidized, which gets back to the question
00:11:08.440
Now, I do not have any tolerance for deplatforming.
00:11:13.120
So I will be very upset if someone pulls a fire alarm to cancel his speech, like people
00:11:21.540
Or if people shout him down when he's trying to talk and basically disrupt the event so
00:11:29.640
And I don't think it's what anyone else should be about.
00:11:33.420
It is, in my view, a gross error in judgment that he was invited.
00:11:39.200
It speaks volumes about the priorities of Dalhousie and of the Romeo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative
00:11:49.980
And in this particular context, the proper course of action is to let it go on.
00:11:55.500
Lest there be any doubt, I'm not going to protest, I'm not going to demonstrate, I'm
00:12:00.660
What he says is going to enter the public record.
00:12:03.740
And because the media has not been asking him any tough questions, we have very little
00:12:09.620
from him to really establish what it is that he thinks and what it is that he feels.
00:12:15.220
And I actually got into a bit of a Twitter back and forth, I won't say a fight, with Jordan
00:12:20.220
Goldstein, a name that may ring a bell because he was on the show last week.
00:12:23.600
And he took aim at a True North petition that was calling on people to sign and remind Dalhousie
00:12:31.820
that Omar Khadr is a convicted terrorist and murderer.
00:12:34.200
And what I said to Jordan is that it's not my petition, so I don't have any skin in the
00:12:38.840
But I do think that it's important to note the petition that True North is doing or did
00:12:46.480
If anything, it was to have the proper context of the speech and of the speaker understood.
00:12:52.820
It was to have people remember what Omar Khadr's background is.
00:12:57.220
Now, Jordan said, yeah, but, you know, people do this with conservative speakers, get them
00:13:04.660
And Jordan Goldstein is coming at that not from a place of being a sycophant for Omar Khadr,
00:13:13.500
So it was something that I very much took as a constructive dialogue.
00:13:18.960
And it actually got me thinking a fair bit about this.
00:13:22.800
Is Omar Khadr the same as anyone else who wanted to speak at a campus in the eyes of
00:13:31.080
I mean, he's had some restrictions and many of them have been taken away.
00:13:34.860
I don't know which ones are left, but speaking rights were never curbed.
00:13:38.740
So in the sense that he has a constitutionally protected free speech, I agree.
00:13:43.940
And in the sense that he has a guarantee of a platform, like I said before, no one has
00:13:51.080
an obligation to be invited and paid a speaking fee by a university.
00:13:55.140
But if they decide to do that, that is their and by extension, his platform.
00:14:05.420
But I also don't think that that's the discussion people are having when we say, what on earth
00:14:15.800
We're talking about a guy who served time in Guantanamo Bay, which does not make him
00:14:21.640
It reminds us of the circumstances that led to that.
00:14:26.340
And a guy who on one hand says, oh, well, no, it's just my father and that, but still
00:14:34.720
In fact, his sister, Zainab Khadr, who has said that even if he did kill Sergeant Christopher
00:14:41.040
Spear, it's not a bad thing, she's lionized and supported Osama bin Laden, he wanted to
00:14:47.120
get bail restrictions eased so that he could have a better relationship with her, so that
00:14:52.180
he could visit her without supervision and talk to her.
00:14:55.400
So correct me if I'm wrong, but if your family was the problem and your past actions were
00:15:03.280
a result of your family's mistakes, why would you want to actively fight to be in touch and
00:15:12.600
And this is one of the several anomalies that we see in the Omar Khadr case, and again, an
00:15:18.860
aspect of this that the media just is not discussing and needs to discuss.
00:15:24.420
So I get very frustrated when people say, oh, he was just a boy.
00:15:33.340
And I also think we do as a society need to do a better job at letting people grow, giving
00:15:39.240
them the opportunity to grow, giving second chances when they're due.
00:15:43.120
But we're not talking about a guy who he tweeted something unpleasant when he was 15.
00:15:47.240
We're talking about a guy who, by his own confession, killed someone and was involved in a family and
00:15:53.760
an organization and a network that was, in fact, linked with radicalism and family that continues
00:16:04.780
So you can't say these aren't relevant questions.
00:16:07.120
You can't say he gets a permanent pass, and you can't say that this is the guy that should
00:16:12.040
be on the cross-country lecture circuit, getting potentially subsidized by taxpayers and getting
00:16:17.920
CBC contributing to the red carpet treatment, which is exactly what's happening when CBC is
00:16:29.240
The people that are saying we shouldn't ask these questions, the people that are giving him
00:16:34.360
this red carpet treatment are people that are essentially turning a blind eye to extremism.
00:16:40.600
They're turning a blind eye to terrorism, and they're turning a blind eye to one of the
00:16:45.660
most notable examples in Canada of radicalism and terrorism.
00:16:52.820
And that is what happened with Omar Khadr overseas and the family network that was a very high rank.
00:17:06.720
And then it all comes full circle because she was later married to Joshua Boyle.
00:17:10.480
But I won't even get into the Joshua Boyle stuff in this particular episode of the show.
00:17:15.380
So these are all real questions, and the media just isn't asking them.
00:17:20.080
And to challenge Omar Khadr to say, hey, I think we need to understand who he is and what
00:17:26.240
he is and what he said and what he's done is not anti-free speech.
00:17:30.020
You can support his right to speak while criticizing the judgment of those who are making that speech
00:17:37.360
And you can support the right for people to say, yes, I'm a big fan of Omar Khadr,
00:17:42.020
while also not being a fan of the narrative that they're peddling, which is one that just
00:17:50.520
So I still continue to believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, which is why we're
00:18:04.520
And I must stress, I don't want people to shut it down.
00:18:08.740
This is something that would make us no better than the left and its cancel culture that we
00:18:18.940
And yes, I realize there's a difference between someone who's a convicted terrorist and Jordan
00:18:25.100
I mean, I don't think there's any equivalence there.
00:18:27.400
But I do think it's amusing to look at the double standard of the left.
00:18:31.340
The same people that think Jordan Peterson's opinions on gender identity are violence are
00:18:38.680
fully prepared to accept someone who has actually been convicted of violence, which I find is
00:18:47.100
But again, we're not talking about stooping to that level.
00:18:51.880
If you can contribute to this, like I said, we don't get the $600 million bailout fund.
00:19:00.640
Or if you just go to andrewlottonshow.com, there's a link to donate.
00:19:04.180
And we'll actually be doing the show live from Halifax the day after the event.
00:19:09.280
So we'll do a bit of a postmortem of what's happened there.
00:19:12.300
We got to take a quick break when we come back.
00:19:14.800
More of the Andrew Lawton Show here on True North.
00:19:26.020
You know, the downside of doing a show that's pre-recorded, even if it's recorded a few hours
00:19:31.240
before it's released, instead of doing something live, is that you sometimes just narrowly miss
00:19:37.300
news, which is exactly what happened last week on the show when we had a great chat with Spencer
00:19:43.420
We were talking about the Conservative Party of Canada leadership race, had a grand old time.
00:19:47.880
And then literally as the episode was uploading to YouTube and iTunes and all of these other
00:19:54.620
services, the news broke that Pierre Polyev was bowing out of the Conservative leadership race.
00:20:01.440
And at this point, it's too late to do anything about it.
00:20:03.620
And it was great, though, because in the interview, Spencer Fernando was like, oh, yeah, you know,
00:20:07.100
I think Pierre Polyev's got a really good shot.
00:20:08.820
And then as people listen to that, he's already gone.
00:20:16.900
And one of the things is that with Pierre Polyev out of the race, it's really left a lot
00:20:23.520
of room on the right because Peter McKay is many things, not a fire-breathing blue Tory,
00:20:31.640
And we've seen in this vacuum some renewed interest from people that previously said
00:20:37.100
they were out, most notably Candace Bergen, who said she was out.
00:20:40.640
And now she says, well, you know, according to a National Post piece, she is considering
00:20:45.560
You also have the idea of potentially now Aaron O'Toole running as a fire-breathing blue Tory,
00:20:53.320
which brings me to his launch video, which I actually thought was pretty great.
00:20:58.620
Who's going to fight for auto workers who just saw the last car roll off the line?
00:21:03.240
Who's going to fight for forestry workers who just watched another mill close?
00:21:07.140
Who's going to stand up for those who wear a uniform of service to protect us at home
00:21:12.300
Who's going to defend our history, our institutions against attacks from cancel culture and the
00:21:20.100
I'm Aaron O'Toole, and I'm running to unite conservatives on the path to victory.
00:21:24.360
Yeah, using terms like cancel culture and radical left, these are things that I do.
00:21:31.000
So it certainly made my ears perk up when I saw and heard Aaron O'Toole take aim at that.
00:21:36.720
And I think the particular context was just the egregious tendency we see of removing statues,
00:21:43.660
because there was actually the image behind of one such statue being removed.
00:21:47.840
I believe that one was from Victoria, but this idea that he is going to be taking aim at the
00:21:56.660
It's not the Aaron O'Toole we've seen historically.
00:21:59.780
I've always seen him as a bit more of a consensus builder.
00:22:02.800
But he also said in a follow-up in a National Post article that I'm going to pull up that the
00:22:11.680
And I think this was actually fascinating because Aaron O'Toole was saying that it will
00:22:18.060
just be a liberal party if Peter McKay is the leader, and Aaron O'Toole needs to be the
00:22:23.480
leader for it to remain a conservative principled party.
00:22:26.940
So this is something that I think is very fascinating because Aaron O'Toole is a smart guy.
00:22:36.240
He is someone who's been in the private sector as well.
00:22:40.760
So he's got experience inside and outside of government.
00:22:44.940
And he also knows that the conservative party needs to be a conservative party.
00:22:50.500
And this is something I was talking about weeks ago, I think in the very first episode of
00:22:54.340
the show, that if the conservative party just becomes this extension of the Canadian centrism
00:23:01.880
fantasy that, well, it's a party that just depends, as many people have heard me say before,
00:23:08.800
just basically a list of promises with blue colors.
00:23:13.020
So I think that the conservative party needs to take this leadership race and really go back
00:23:19.780
to the basics and say, what are our non-negotiables?
00:23:24.820
And what are the things that you can't live without as a party and as a movement?
00:23:28.580
And if the answer to that is something like, take the carbon tax, there are conservatives
00:23:42.160
So apparently in 2017 in the leadership race, there are conservatives that like the carbon
00:23:46.900
Well, the conservative party is not a pro-carbon tax party.
00:23:50.020
So if you're a conservative who likes a carbon tax, is that a non-negotiable?
00:23:55.680
You're not a conservative in the current context, which means that the conservative movement has
00:24:02.880
to be filled with people that are prepared to take stock of their values, of the party's
00:24:07.440
values, and decide, is this a party in which I fit?
00:24:14.740
And this is the dynamic we've talked about with social conservatives in the past, where
00:24:18.860
they have to decide, okay, you know, maybe the party is not a pro-life party, but is it
00:24:24.620
a party that has a respect and an allowance for pro-lifers?
00:24:29.120
And if the answer to that is yes, that might be enough for a pro-life conservative to say,
00:24:34.300
all right, I have a place in the conservative party.
00:24:37.120
Whereas if the party has a leader that's actively hostile to that, and we talked about that Pierre
00:24:42.320
Pollyev comment in La Presse where he was basically saying, you know, you're not going
00:24:50.420
So this is where there's going to be a lot of introspection, I hope.
00:24:56.120
And Aaron O'Toole is saying, listen, we've got to be a conservative party.
00:25:00.200
Now, if he is authentic in this, and this is something that'll come up when we sit down
00:25:04.520
for an interview throughout the course of this leadership campaign, then I think he's
00:25:09.020
really going to take a good chunk of support from Peter McKay and pretty much pick up a lot of the
00:25:16.220
support that Pierre Pollyev would have had, who seemed to be previously the one running as that
00:25:21.080
blue Tory. So that is, I think, fascinating. And just on the note of political videos here.
00:25:27.600
So his launch video, I thought was great for a couple of reasons. I think it was punchy.
00:25:31.840
It gave a bit of his story. It had all the right notes for conservatives.
00:25:36.660
You look at Peter McKay's On the Alternative, and epileptics should not watch it. It's just like
00:25:43.320
flashing rapidly words at you. But if you string the words together, it's like someone did political
00:25:49.260
slogans by Mad Libs. It's like, Canadians are strong because Canadians make it strong. And
00:25:54.460
strong Canadians strong make strong man Canadians. And I actually think that's his slogan for the
00:26:00.360
general election campaign already done. So my gift to you, Peter McKay. And then like Canadians are
00:26:05.560
free because Canadians make it free. And if you look at these, I'm like, I have no idea what he's
00:26:11.500
saying. I have no idea what he stands for. I have no idea. And again, I'm going to listen. I'm waiting
00:26:16.860
for the platforms. And if he comes out and has a really great solid platform, I'll reevaluate.
00:26:22.240
But I get a lot more of what Aaron O'Toole stands for from Aaron O'Toole's launch video than I do about
00:26:29.220
what Peter McKay stands for from Peter McKay's launch video. And that's a huge problem. Because
00:26:35.240
when you're running, not to Canadians, but you're running and directing a campaign only towards
00:26:42.680
conservative members, or potential conservative members, you got to tell them what kind of conservative
00:26:47.120
you are. And you've got to tell them what kind of conservative party you want. And if you don't do
00:26:53.340
that, it's easy to just blend in and be noise, especially if there is a larger field of candidates,
00:26:59.140
probably not 2017 large. But still, you've got a number of people that are running, I think our
00:27:04.140
tally, I don't even know the number now, but we're up to three, four people from caucus that are well,
00:27:09.600
three people from caucus plus Peter McKay, who's formerly from caucus, you've got at least four people
00:27:15.520
from outside of elected office. So you're already up to eight right there. Nine, because Rick Peterson
00:27:20.820
also got in, he got a point 67% of the vote last time. And maybe this is his year, who knows. So
00:27:27.360
that's something that will be interesting to watch as well. Just as a bit of an odd one, I say that I
00:27:33.980
like politicians to give you some clarity about what they stand for. Sometimes they give you too much
00:27:39.420
clarity, such as the case with Luke Fernandez, a Quebec politician who suggested that the coronavirus
00:27:46.400
has had a positive outcome for the city of Wuhan in China, because it has reduced the carbon footprint
00:27:54.340
in Wuhan, China. Yes, he said that there's no automobile traffic, no air flights. And now Wuhan
00:28:01.740
is the only city that will meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. The way to this necessary
00:28:06.980
degrowth will happen when all the debates have been in vain. And he claimed when he was criticized
00:28:14.860
that he was just trying to convey that we need to take climate action. And I don't think when you
00:28:19.420
celebrate that something that killed people has lowered the carbon impact, that that is the most
00:28:26.320
effective climate change argument. Although previously, and by previously, I mean like three
00:28:31.560
days prior, Monsieur Fernandez had announced that perhaps legalized suicide, assisted suicide should be
00:28:39.840
available for people who want to reduce their carbon footprint. And there's no better way to reduce
00:28:45.640
your carbon footprint than by dropping dead, apparently. So this is going to be the next frontier
00:28:50.580
as the government goes through the assisted suicide battles. But he had said, could we, quote,
00:28:56.400
for environmental, social and economic reasons, decide that we want to receive help to die,
00:29:02.720
so as not to be a burden for our family or society in general. So this is great. So now if you're
00:29:10.020
mentally ill and you want to commit suicide, you just have to claim you're doing it for the
00:29:14.600
environment and no one can stop you. My goodness. Quebec. I mean, Quebec, it's a part of the country.
00:29:19.880
I get it. But no politician in Ontario or Alberta could get away with that. So maybe there's something
00:29:25.400
to learn from Quebec, at least about, you know, electing more interesting politicians. We've got to take
00:29:31.380
a quick break when we come back talking about equalization and Western alienation here on the
00:29:36.720
Andrew Lawton Show. You're tuned in to the Andrew Lawton Show. Welcome back. The topic of Western
00:29:51.500
alienation is a big one and one that I hear nonstop from people. And I think that the longer it goes on,
00:29:58.080
the more time passes from the federal election, the more pessimistic a lot of Albertans are
00:30:03.300
that Alberta will have a seat at the table and Alberta will get a fair deal. And that's actually
00:30:08.520
the name of the panel that the Alberta government has convened, the fair panel. And I spoke about
00:30:13.580
this back in Red Deer at the Freedom Talk with Drew Barnes and MLA with Danny Hozak, this idea of what
00:30:20.880
it would take. And that conference was, you may remember, broken up into three parts. There was
00:30:25.880
people who believe in separation, people who believe in confederation, and the what ifs,
00:30:31.540
the people who, OK, if we were to do it, what would we have to keep in mind? What would we have
00:30:36.640
to look at? And I think that the anger is certainly there. The frustration is there. But what would that
00:30:44.360
process look like? What needs to happen to get there? I want to talk about an aspect of this
00:30:49.180
with Professor Reiner Knopf, who's a professor emeritus of political science at the University of
00:30:54.440
Calgary and a Fraser Institute senior fellow. He wrote an essay on this refining Alberta's
00:31:00.320
equalization gambit, looking at really the constitutional realities of the dynamics that
00:31:06.420
Jason Kenney wants to inject into this. Professor joins me on the line now. Thank you very much for
00:31:12.440
joining me. It's good to talk to you, sir. Well, thanks for having me on. So let's talk about this idea
00:31:17.640
of how you get to that discussion, because there seems to be a lot of disagreement from people,
00:31:24.100
certainly those outside of Alberta, about whether Alberta can force this national dialogue,
00:31:34.020
Well, it's a very good question. I mean, the title of my piece is Refining Jason Kenney's
00:31:40.820
Equalization Gambit, and let's think a little bit about what gambit means. It's a move in a game like chess
00:31:48.740
or a political game, where you take the risk of losing something in order to gain an advantage elsewhere.
00:31:56.900
And I think that's what Premier Kennedy is doing here. He wants, you know, equal, he wants, he says he wants to
00:32:09.520
take equalization out of the Constitution. But he knows that that requires an amendment,
00:32:17.760
getting the consent of Ottawa and seven provinces, having 50 percent of the population. And he knows
00:32:23.200
that's highly unlikely, impossible, I would say. So what's his real goal? He's risking a loss there.
00:32:32.000
Well, he just wants to get people to the constitutional negotiating table,
00:32:35.920
so he can fight his good fight for fairness against things like discriminatory tanker bans,
00:32:45.120
no more pipelines laws, getting the TMX pipeline built. And if things don't work in the regular
00:32:55.600
political fashion, then he's saying, well, we'll have a constitutional conference on an
00:33:01.360
equalization amendment in order to elevate our fight for fairness to the top of the national agenda.
00:33:09.280
And that, of course, assumes that he can force people to come to the negotiating table. He thinks
00:33:17.360
he can do that with a referendum. The point of my paper is to argue that that's not enough.
00:33:23.760
He's been bedazzled by arguments about referendum. He still has to have one. But he needs another tactic.
00:33:34.160
So let's talk about two aspects of this. I want to get to what that other tactic might look like in
00:33:40.800
a moment. But there is, I think, an impracticality in that if you can't get other provinces to agree or the
00:33:47.840
country to agree on a lot of those policy issues you mentioned, like pipelines and energy, how likely is it
00:33:53.920
you're going to get them to agree on constitutional reforms, which have a much higher threshold, as you
00:33:59.920
mentioned earlier, to get anything done? Well, it's getting them to the constitutional table
00:34:10.000
is a way of, as Kenny keeps saying, elevating the issue higher up. You don't actually have to get
00:34:19.280
an equalization amendment. You just have to get them around the table to talk about these things.
00:34:25.440
He says many times that no particular outcome is guaranteed. It's just, let's get everybody around
00:34:36.560
the table. I mean, he's trying to do all of this politically in many, many other ways now. And he's
00:34:45.040
quite clear that if some of the things that I mentioned a few moments ago about, you know, the TMX
00:34:51.520
pipeline getting built, some modification of pipelines law, scrapping discriminatory tanker
00:34:59.440
bands, if some of those things happen, then he won't pursue this other option.
00:35:06.400
Let's talk about the duty to negotiate, because this was, you note in your paper,
00:35:11.120
declared by the Supreme Court in the 1998 secession reference as a tool, in Kenny's view,
00:35:17.600
to bring reluctant governments to the table. But you say there's not, there still is a flaw to his
00:35:23.280
belief there. Well, that case, the 1998 secession reference, was about Quebec's secession.
00:35:32.240
And the court introduced this idea of a duty to negotiate. If Quebecers voted on a clear majority,
00:35:42.320
voted in favor of a clear question on secession, there was a duty of the rest of the country to
00:35:47.280
negotiate. Everybody was bedazzled by this new duty to negotiate. And the argument ever since has been
00:35:53.280
mostly about whether that applies outside the secession context. And Kenny thinks it does.
00:36:05.520
It does. But the vast majority of constitutional scholars, now including me, I've changed my mind
00:36:13.200
on this, think it does not. There are too many strong arguments against that. But what nobody's
00:36:21.520
paying attention to, and what I'm trying to focus some attention on, is that the Supreme Court in that
00:36:27.200
same case did say, in very general language, that there was a duty to negotiate just about any kind
00:36:34.720
of amendment, including an equalization amendment, that requires multilateral consent, if that's,
00:36:43.440
if that's initiated in the constitutionally prescribed manner. What's right in the Constitution
00:36:48.560
Act 1982, which is legislatively initiating it, through a legislative resolution. It's a very simple
00:36:55.840
thing. It's a lot simpler than a referendum. Kenny still has to have his referendum for reasons we
00:37:03.280
can talk about. But if he relies just on that, he's inviting other governments to ignore him, pointing
00:37:11.440
to all the constitutional scholars who say that a referendum can't force anybody to the table, except
00:37:17.120
in the case of secession. So, I mean, there are two aspects to this. There's obviously the political
00:37:24.080
route that he might take, and how that impacts the standing of Alberta and other provinces and
00:37:29.760
the federal government, public opinion. And then there's the legal route. And which would you say
00:37:34.160
on the legal side is the path of least resistance to get that outcome that Alberta wants?
00:37:41.760
Well, I mean, path of least resistance is the right formulation. There will always be resistance.
00:37:48.960
But the path of least resistance, he has to have a referendum because, well, let me turn it around.
00:37:57.200
He has to introduce a legislative resolution in favor of an amendment on equalization. That will
00:38:05.360
get people to, I mean, that clearly triggers the duty to negotiate laid down by the 1998 secession
00:38:13.520
reference. He still has to have a referendum because Alberta has a law on the books called
00:38:19.600
the Constitutional Referendum Act, which says we will not introduce a resolution on a constitutional
00:38:28.080
amendment, the constitutionally prescribed mechanism. We will not do that unless we've had a referendum
00:38:34.160
first. But he does have to do, and so I'm saying he's got to do both. He still has to have his
00:38:39.200
referendum, but he can't just rely on that to bring people to the table. So the referendum, though,
00:38:44.800
is this, I mean, I would argue that the referendum is necessary to obviously go through those legal
00:38:52.240
checkboxes that need to be checked, as you mentioned. But I think that's also important on
00:38:56.160
the political side as well, because he needs to basically show that he's got a lot of strength going
00:39:02.240
into any negotiation. That's true. There's a political dimension to this. So let's imagine,
00:39:13.200
Jason Kenney holds a referendum. He gets a massive support to delete equalization from the Constitution.
00:39:20.640
He calls up all his fellow premiers, and he says, let's come to the negotiating table. And some of them
00:39:28.160
say no. And he says, well, you have to, because the Quebec secession reference said you did.
00:39:33.440
But they might come because of the political pressure you're talking about. But they can
00:39:39.040
ignore him if they want to. And they will ignore him if they really want to. If he adds this very
00:39:47.360
simple second step of the legislative resolution that's prescribed in the Constitution, they can't
00:39:52.640
ignore him. That's all. I mean, people can negotiate at any time for any reason. The question is, can he
00:40:02.560
force them to? Yeah. And I also, though, think that old adage that leading a horse to water doesn't mean
00:40:10.400
you can make a drink applies here is that even if you can compel people to the table, there's no guarantee
00:40:15.920
of any outcome or certainly not a favorable one. And he himself, Premier Kennedy, says that
00:40:24.880
consistently when he talks about this. He says there is no guaranteed outcome. He also indicates
00:40:31.680
that we're not going to do this for a couple of years unless other things fail. It's kind of a last
00:40:37.440
resort mechanism. There is no guaranteed outcome, but it will at least force things a little higher on
00:40:45.600
the agenda by putting everybody around. They may not stay around the table very long. They may tell
00:40:51.040
them to forget about it. But that itself provides opportunities for political pressure. I know it gets
00:41:03.520
outside of the essay specifically in this case, but I do think there's a worthwhile point to put to the
00:41:11.040
table here. Do you think that just with looking at other dynamics in Canadian history and even in
00:41:17.440
Quebec's case, do you think that the solution is going to come from outside of the Constitution here?
00:41:23.360
Well, I think ultimately it will. But, you know, Peter Russell years ago wrote a very famous piece
00:41:31.520
on the political use of legal resources. And constitutional arguments are always invoked in political
00:41:42.000
controversies or certain kinds of political controversies. Legal cases provide legal resources
00:41:48.080
that, you know, each side will try to leverage. And that's what this is all about. I mean,
00:41:54.560
it's ultimately a political question for sure that's the case. But legalities make a difference.
00:42:05.040
Very much so. The essay is Refining Alberta's Equalization Gambit. The author,
00:42:09.840
University of Calgary Political Science Professor Emeritus Reiner Knopf. Professor,
00:42:14.720
thanks very much for your time today. Great chatting. My pleasure. And I don't know whether that's a cheery
00:42:20.560
note or not for Albertans that are wanting more independence. I mean, obviously the answer is that
00:42:25.680
there's no such thing as a seamless route to get what you are looking for out there. But I also think
00:42:31.840
that it stresses that the referendum is pivotal, not just on the political side, but also on the
00:42:36.960
legal side. So one way or another, there needs to be public input on this. And I would say public buy
00:42:43.120
in from Albertans. So we'll be following the Western alienation dialogue. And I'm actually going to be
00:42:48.240
in April back at another conference on this subject. I was at one in November in Red Deer,
00:42:53.600
and I think the other one's in Red Deer again. The Freedom Talk conference put on by Danny Hozak,
00:42:58.320
who I ended up interviewing for True North. And we'll be talking a lot, especially as the fair panel
00:43:05.760
will have gone further along about where things are standing there. But that's coming up in a few
00:43:10.080
months. We got to get to that point first. In the meantime, thank you all for tuning into the show.
00:43:14.480
Thanks to Rainer Knopp and everyone who supports the program. We'll talk to you in a couple of days.
00:43:21.520
Thanks for listening to The Andrew Lawton Show. Support the program by donating to True North at www.tnc.news.