Juno News - What’s at stake at the UCP AGM？

00:00:00.000 Hi, I'm Candice Malcolm, and this is The Candice Malcolm Show. Thank you so much for joining us

00:00:07.580 today. A bit of a big story to report today. According to the CBC, this came out last night,

00:00:13.580 Ottawa and Alberta are agreeing to broad outlines of an energy deal, including support for a

00:00:20.600 pipeline. So this could be a big deal for Alberta Premier Danielle Smith for the future of our 0.99

00:00:27.060 country, for the future of our economy. We may be at a point where people in the West, people who want

00:00:33.140 Canada to have a working economy, a functioning economy, get our resources and our energy to

00:00:38.320 markets around the world. We may finally be starting to make a little bit of progress and to dig into

00:00:44.420 this a little bit more with me today. I'm pleased to be joined by Wyatt Claypool. Wyatt is a political

00:00:48.840 commentator and the founder of the National Telegraph. So a couple of stories on this over at the CBC.

00:00:54.540 But really, the main thing is that Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Daniel Smith

00:00:59.580 have agreed to some kind of a memorandum of understanding, some progress on making steps

00:01:07.320 towards building pipelines. So what is your take on this news story, Wyatt? And what do you think

00:01:12.560 about Daniel Smith's abilities here? Well, first off, memorandum of understanding is the most Mark

00:01:19.760 Carney thing I've ever heard in my life. Somehow he didn't stick the word catalyze in that small

00:01:25.360 title as well. With this, I do think it's a step forward because it's normalizing the idea of

00:01:31.800 actually getting a pipeline done for so much of the country. I think they just never thought it was

00:01:35.960 actually going to happen. And this at least, you know, tips its toe into the pool of saying that we

00:01:41.720 might do it. The problem is, this is kind of in the same vein of what I've been saying that Mark Carney's

00:01:47.820 going to do for a while now is that he will keep saying yes, and then he will outsource saying no

00:01:53.400 to other people. He's not just saying yes to a pipeline. It's a memorandum of understanding. We

00:01:58.660 are going to move towards a pipeline. There may be a pipeline. But he is still holding to standard

00:02:04.740 that the provinces have to say yes, indigenous groups have to say yes, and there will still be

00:02:10.480 environmental assessments and whatnot when it comes to pipelines. And if Mark Carney, like people

00:02:15.860 assume he is, is looking for an election well before 2029, then there's going to be no chance

00:02:22.600 that a pipeline is actually going to be in the ground being built before he either has a majority

00:02:27.840 government or he's out of office. Well, OK, let me just read a little bit from the story, because I

00:02:33.620 think you're right about the political calculation here. Mark Carney's side, like his, you know, his

00:02:39.320 constituents aren't exactly in favor of this kind of thing. So according to CBC, it says Mark Carney

00:02:44.280 and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith have agreed to broad outlines the memorandum of understanding

00:02:48.920 that would give Alberta special exemptions from federal environmental laws and offer political

00:02:53.320 support to a new oil pipeline to BC's coast. CBC has learned the deal is set to be formally

00:02:59.940 announced in a joint Carney-Smith news conference in Calgary this Thursday. It would be contingent

00:03:05.100 on Alberta embracing a stricter industrial carbon pricing regime and a multi-billion dollar

00:03:10.280 investment in carbon capture from the Pathways Alliance of oil sands companies, according to

00:03:16.040 sources who spoke to CBC News. So take with that, you know, grain of salt, we're talking about anonymous

00:03:20.760 sources here, but presumably this is going to happen on Thursday. We are going to see some kind of

00:03:26.920 an announcement. And I think that is a big step for Premier Danielle Smith. I mean, we saw from the

00:03:31.760 beginning, she was more optimistic about Mark Carney. A lot of us were a lot more skeptical of Mark Carney,

00:03:36.040 given his previous roles with the World Economic Forum, his past statements about sort of the like

00:03:41.480 the end of oil production and whatnot. And yet, Premier Smith was pretty optimistic about him and

00:03:47.320 said he's much better than Trudeau. And a lot of people are skeptical that, you know, maybe she's

00:03:52.360 working her own angle saying, you know, this is something that we all need. This is, this could be a

00:03:56.200 big W for the whole country if we start getting these pipelines in the ground. The CBC previously

00:04:02.360 reported, this is back on November 21 last week, that Carney is open to considering such a project

00:04:07.400 in Alberta as proponent conduits to necessary Indigenous consultations and negotiations with

00:04:13.720 the BC government. Among other conditions, Alberta will have to do the regulatory and constitutional work

00:04:19.320 required, and only then would Ottawa consider referring to the Major Projects Office to get

00:04:23.880 something done. You know, it's interesting because this is a pipeline that's going to go across

00:04:29.000 British Columbia. And we know the Premier of British Columbia is very, very opposed to this. We're

00:04:32.840 talking about a very hard left NDP Premier, David Eby. And just earlier this month, he came out,

00:04:40.280 we played this on the show before, but he came out and said that there will be no pipeline. There will

00:04:44.680 be no pipeline. He said that the only reason there might be some pipeline would be if taxpayers funded

00:04:49.640 it because he doesn't think there's any business case for it. I remember I showed this clip to you

00:04:53.320 before when you were on the show, Wyatt, but I'll play it again. This is Premier Eby out in British

00:04:56.920 Columbia basically saying it's not going to happen. I'll point out what is obvious to me and has yet

00:05:03.960 to fully sink in for some individuals, which is that there is no pipeline project across the north.

00:05:11.720 There is no route. There is no proponent. There is no financing. Simply because the Premier of Alberta

00:05:20.920 would like to get rid of the oil tanker ban on the north coast does not mean that anybody wants to

00:05:25.880 build this pipeline. I don't see any prospect of a pipeline unless it is fully taxpayer funded and

00:05:32.760 the federal government forces it through over provincial and indigenous objections.

00:05:38.280 And then, of course, there was a piece in iPolitics that we're speaking again to unnamed

00:05:43.160 Liberal MPs out in British Columbia. And they said, this is a quote from iPolitics a couple days ago,

00:05:48.440 it says, BC caucus colleagues, this is of course within the Liberal caucus, caucus colleagues are very

00:05:53.320 concerned and up in arms about supporting a pipeline, would put five to six seats in question with

00:05:58.840 little chance making pickups in Alberta, Western Canada. So it's very purely a political calculation,

00:06:04.840 just saying that if Mark Carney is to go ahead and push your pipeline, it could cost him seats,

00:06:09.640 it could cost him a potential majority government. So what do you make of Mark Carney being willing to

00:06:15.800 make this kind of a risk? The thing is, I actually don't think there's much of risk in terms of

00:06:21.800 normal middle class voters. If you build a pipeline, I think you will be more popular.

00:06:26.760 There are ideologues inside the Liberal Party who I think will give Carney a tough time and they'll say

00:06:32.280 that this will be bad simply because they don't like it. But I also do think that Carney probably takes

00:06:38.360 that sort of stuff seriously. So in his mind, it's a risk. So that's why I think he's going about this

00:06:44.120 in such an obtuse way. And there is an angle here where Daniel Smith could actually be hurt by this.

00:06:49.800 If she signs on to a stricter carbon capture standard and a higher industrial carbon tax,

00:06:57.080 and then we don't even get a pipeline, well, then it looks like, did you basically help Mark Carney

00:07:02.280 hurt the oil and gas industry just for the promise that there may be, might be some pipeline of some

00:07:08.840 sort someday? It's like that is kind of, I think the game Carney's playing. He will just keep saying

00:07:14.760 yes all day long, acting very, very green by forcing the Alberta oil and gas industry to take

00:07:21.400 on stricter environmental standards. And then he's never actually going to get a pipeline done because

00:07:25.880 he can just let David Eby keep vetoing it until the end of time.

00:07:29.000 Well, and then also, David, we mentioned the tanker ban off the West Coast. And so that's

00:07:34.280 something else. I mean, it's great. You can get a pipeline to Prince George or Kitimat, but then

00:07:38.840 if you can't have tankers up there, then there's not really a point. So there is still a couple of

00:07:43.960 regulatory hurdles, big ones that they're going to have to get through. We have a little montage here.

00:07:50.040 This is just a couple of liberal MPs asked about the pipeline deal, and I'll get you to react to it

00:07:56.280 afterwards.

00:07:59.560 Or an MOU with Alberta if BC Premier David Eby is against it.

00:08:03.000 You've heard the Prime Minister, you've heard Minister LeBlanc say a number of times publicly that

00:08:08.440 for any projects to materialize, those projects will have to be made with the accord, the agreement

00:08:15.800 of provinces. I think the Prime Minister was pretty clear that the projects would need the support of

00:08:21.320 the jurisdictions in which they're being built. So I think there's got to be some conversations

00:08:24.600 with the Premier. And in terms of First Nations, I mean, there needs to be significant support.

00:08:30.280 It doesn't necessarily have to be unanimous. It wasn't in the case of Trans Mountain, but there

00:08:33.560 needs to be significant support. And at present time, I don't think there is.

00:08:36.600 And Alberta would need to do some of the other elements that the government is looking to execute

00:08:43.480 on, including strengthening the carbon price. Do you think there's any openness among your

00:08:47.800 constituents for the federal government to lift or create any exemptions to that oil tank or moratorium?

00:08:53.080 I'd say that what I've heard from constituents is very much in line with what Premier Eby has said

00:08:59.400 very publicly about that. There has to be Indigenous consent. The province's impact

00:09:03.880 have to be on board. And those are the conditions. And right now, I don't see that. And it's all

00:09:08.680 hypothetical right now. But the government's position has been clear that the provinces have

00:09:12.200 to consent and that First Nations have to consent before any project. We'll go ahead.

00:09:15.240 Till there's a consent from Indigenous people and till there's a province of police 0.93

00:09:23.880 online with it, there will be no impact. Prime Minister has been very clear till those conditions are

00:09:30.360 met. They will not be okay. So you basically hear them all saying the exact same thing,

00:09:36.840 which is that First Nations get a veto and the British Columbia gets a veto. And so, you know,

00:09:40.680 what's the point of having a federal government? But you could clearly see that these MPs are not

00:09:46.040 really on board with the idea of pushing a pipeline through. What do you think, Wyatt?

00:09:49.640 Well, actually, what's funny is that Montauk started off with two of the MPs who actually potentially may

00:09:55.640 resign as well over the next several months, Stephen Gilboa and Jonathan Wilkinson. And so he would also,

00:10:01.960 the Prime Minister would have to be worried that especially of one of the DC-based MPs ends up resigning

00:10:08.440 to go take some other role somewhere that maybe he's going to have to test how popular his new position

00:10:13.960 is with the progressive left in that particular riding if it's in the Vancouver area.

00:10:18.680 Again, the thing is that they clearly have spoken to Mark Carney. They clearly know what Mark Carney's

00:10:26.280 actual standard is, or else they would all be saying different things. It's that, again, Carney

00:10:31.240 will just keep saying yes until the end of time. And he will let David Eby, he will let band councils

00:10:38.120 keep saying no. And he'll say, well, I'm not saying, I'm not saying no, we just need to negotiate more.

00:10:43.320 And then he basically sticks Alberta back into the same endless negotiations that lead to nothing

00:10:49.560 while acting like this is a real path to getting a pipeline. At the end of the day, the federal

00:10:54.680 government, it's their job for interprovincial projects to say yes. Nobody else has to say yes.

00:11:00.840 It's just the federal government. And the more Carney says that you have to talk to this person and that

00:11:05.080 person, he's just saying no in a very much longer way. Well, so do you think that Danielle Smith is 0.62

00:11:11.400 getting played then? Do you think that she's just falling into a political game and Mark Carney's

00:11:15.640 really the one with the upper hand here? Not exactly, in the sense that it would be

00:11:20.680 foolish for Danielle Smith to come into this situation acting cynical, like, oh, of course,

00:11:25.560 there's going to be no pipeline, not taking it seriously, acting like she doesn't need this with 0.99

00:11:30.760 Carney. The thing is that she can turn around later on if it does turn out to just be complete

00:11:36.760 nonsense and that he's going to force her to again, trying to note negotiate with EB to get

00:11:41.080 a pipeline done, which is impossible. And she can say I was optimistic. I came into this with just

00:11:49.000 maybe even naive optimism. But what I want to do was get a pipeline built and I was willing to do

00:11:55.480 anything to do it. And they pulled the carpet out from under Alberta when we were actually getting

00:12:00.680 close to actually getting a deal done. That's what she could easily say. And she could say, well,

00:12:05.000 you know, now Mark Carney's definitely fueling the separatist movement in Alberta

00:12:09.640 by pretending, toying with the idea that things will get better and then just ending it five

00:12:14.840 seconds before we could have actually gotten something done. Well, it's not an easy predicament

00:12:19.320 that they found themselves in, but it is still good to see, you know, her out there in good faith,

00:12:23.560 trying to negotiate, trying to show optimism for the future of our country. I want to switch gears

00:12:29.320 and stick with Premier Danielle Smith. So the United Conservative Party is having its annual general

00:12:34.040 meeting this weekend in Edmonton, November 28th to 30th. And there's a whole bunch of really

00:12:39.080 interesting policy resolutions that are up for debate. Some of the ones that are relevant only

00:12:43.960 to Alberta, other ones are main cultural issues we talk about all the time here at Juneau News. So

00:12:48.440 I want to go through a couple of them with you, Wyatt, and get your thoughts on them. So one of the

00:12:52.360 ones that stood out to me, there's a policy resolution that will make it so that only official

00:12:56.200 government flags, specifically Canada, Alberta, and then any municipality may be flown at provincial

00:13:02.200 buildings, which would be great, because you know what, I don't like driving around and seeing

00:13:07.000 the various iterations of Pride progress and Pride flags. So get rid of the Rainbow Mafia from 1.00

00:13:12.200 government buildings. There's also another one, sort of similarly, but a resolution that would require

00:13:18.280 all third party resource materials related to gender identity, sexual orientation, human sexuality,

00:13:23.560 being used in an Alberta school, be pre-approved by the Ministry of Education, and very importantly,

00:13:28.920 made available to parents of the school upon request. So these are two big steps, potentially,

00:13:35.320 in again, fighting against this sort of cultural madness that has taken hold of Canada over the

00:13:41.080 last several years. My opinion, a step in the right direction. What do you think?

00:13:45.240 Absolutely. This is especially a fear of the UCP turning it back to just sleazy electoral politics.

00:13:51.160 This is stuff that the average middle-class family definitely wants to be tackled,

00:13:56.280 because the news media can pretend like Canadians are these sort of downtown Toronto far-left

00:14:02.120 progressives, even though most people in Toronto don't agree with this stuff either.

00:14:05.640 But what this ends up, like this is basically the kind of bread and butter issues for a lot of people

00:14:11.160 at this point, is they want cultural normality. They want the flags on the buildings to just represent

00:14:18.120 the place that they're in as if you walked out of your house in 2005. I just want things to be normal,

00:14:24.440 and when my kids go to school, I don't want to be worried with what random materials the teacher's

00:14:30.360 going to pull out and force them to read, because they had heard that this is like, you know,

00:14:35.400 the new progressive way of teaching when they got their degree in teaching recently. Like,

00:14:40.200 I've always heard there's a big divide between people who graduated and became teachers maybe five

00:14:45.880 to ten years ago, and those who have been teachers for 20 years, and have a very different

00:14:49.800 outlook on what you should be educating children with. Well, that is true, although I've heard 0.99

00:14:54.440 just anecdotally again that a couple schools, especially even like private schools, it'll be

00:14:58.200 like there'll be one hardcore activist teacher who's LGB, and they basically set the agenda for

00:15:04.520 the whole school. They could be older, could be younger, but they're the ones that push it. And so

00:15:07.880 it's like if you have one or two of those people in your school, regardless of what age they are,

00:15:11.880 they're gonna push it. To me, a flag is supposed to be a symbol of unity, right? So a Canadian flag is

00:15:17.320 something that we all belong to. It's something that unifies us and that we all identify with,

00:15:21.400 right? So when I pull up to a building or a school and I see a weird political far left logo that gets

00:15:28.280 changed every few years to add another aggrieved group, I just think it's it's a symbol of dividing

00:15:33.160 our country, of dividing our culture, pitting people against them, the whole dichotomy of oppressor

00:15:39.320 versus oppressed, and the idea that fundamentally the rainbow flag is a flag about sexuality. And that

00:15:46.840 has no place in a building educating children, like children, small children. There is no room 0.98

00:15:54.120 for somebody's sexual orientation to be promoted as like the main symbol of a school. My husband

00:16:00.520 and I were looking to put our kids into a school. We pulled up, saw the rainbow flag, literally turned

00:16:04.200 around and left. It's like there's no point in us even entertaining the idea of putting our children

00:16:08.440 in the school because I know there'll be like a fundamental values dislocation. So I think that's a

00:16:14.360 great one. And then obviously parents should be made aware of the perversions that are trying to 0.98

00:16:19.960 be taught at school. I want to talk about a couple of other ones with you here. Wyatt, there's another

00:16:24.200 resolution number four here, ensuring access to provincially funded health care and social benefits

00:16:29.240 for Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and recognized refugees only. So temporary workers, 0.65

00:16:34.440 or sorry, temporary residents, visitors, undocumented individuals, and those with unsuccessful asylum

00:16:40.520 claims should be responsible for paying their own services. That just seems like such a basic thing.

00:16:45.800 That seems like something that should have been the law in Canada already. Interesting that it isn't.

00:16:50.920 There's a couple of other ones related to immigration. They want to make it so that only Canadians can 0.98

00:16:57.320 purchase farmland or something like that. I can't see it in front of me here, but there's that one.

00:17:03.400 There's another one to replace the Canadian pension plan with the Alberta pension plan. Another one to

00:17:08.120 increase the ability of Albertans to legally protect themselves, their family, and their property.

00:17:16.280 Yes, really good ones. Any thoughts on any of those ones I just read out?

00:17:20.600 Those are all great. The only one I would basically caution the UCP on in passing is the Alberta pension

00:17:25.880 plan one. That one, when you look at the polling, it's like 30% of people are on board, 70% of people are

00:17:32.600 against. Is it irrational? Yes. Technically, an Alberta pension plan would perform better on every

00:17:38.440 metric than a Canadian pension plan because you're not having to carry the rest of the country. And,

00:17:43.160 you know, being the disproportionately wealthy country province, doing the pension plan itself

00:17:48.440 would be better. But I think there's a lot of Albertans out there who just get queasy when they

00:17:53.800 think, oh, you're touching my pension. It's like, well, your pension is going to be stronger,

00:17:57.640 more robust after this. But there, again, I think that's just something that the UCP probably doesn't

00:18:03.320 want to have to take on in an election just simply because it's a super easy issue to give to Nahid

00:18:08.040 Nenshi and the NDP where they can say, well, see, we're protecting your pension. But everything else

00:18:13.320 there is great, especially around requiring non-citizens, non-permanent residents to pay for their own 0.99

00:18:20.520 health care, requiring basically just actually protecting the public institutions for the tax

00:18:28.760 paying members of the public. Again, basic common sense. It's crazy that a visitor just visiting the

00:18:35.400 country could come and use our health care. That doesn't even make any sense to me. Imagine getting

00:18:41.000 on a plane to Mexico and using their health care and then assuming that the Mexican taxpayers will pay

00:18:46.520 for it. It just doesn't make any sense. My party in BC proposed a bill on that,

00:18:53.160 and I think we did get everyone to vote for it on the opposition side except for the Greens.

00:18:58.920 But we had people online saying, oh my goodness, well, that's so bigoted. They are paying taxes

00:19:03.720 because they're temporary foreign workers. I'm like, how much tax are they really paying? They 0.99

00:19:08.600 haven't exactly been here for 10 working years of paying taxes to make it worthwhile. And we had just

00:19:14.680 proposed you have to put up $5,000 to basically cover any potential medical expenses you have if

00:19:20.760 you go to the hospital. You get it back at the end of the... If you never use it, you can get it back,

00:19:25.560 but you can't just enter the country to get every medical service that you need then leave.

00:19:30.600 That's how the NHS is going down and Canada's health system is in worse shape than even the NHS.

00:19:37.240 Like, I'm sorry, but any country in the world, right? If I went and got a visa and lived in Australia

00:19:43.320 or something like that, I would have to pay for my own healthcare, right? Like, if you go to Italy,

00:19:46.280 you're working, whatever, you have to pay for your own healthcare. Like, that's just the sort of basic

00:19:49.880 standard of how places work. I'm sure there's a couple of places that you mentioned. If you pretend

00:19:54.280 to be a refugee and you go to the UK or parts of California, you might get it. But basically,

00:19:59.560 most places in the world have the standard. I want to talk to you about another very important

00:20:03.640 policy resolution here that is very important to me, and it's related to something in the news.

00:20:08.600 Policy number 29, cease public funding for third trimester abortions, except for in cases where

00:20:14.600 the physical health of the mother is at risk. And I mentioned that because there was a huge breaking

00:20:18.840 story last week, some intrepid investigative journalism and undercover footage by an advocacy

00:20:25.320 group called Right Now. So this undercover footage from the pro-life advocacy group shows doctors

00:20:30.760 providing advice to a woman who's going undercover with a camera, and how to get a late-term

00:20:37.720 abortion, how to abort a baby that could survive outside the womb. You know, the people on the 0.77

00:20:42.920 left, basically every political party in Canada, Wyatt, has this same kind of stance on abortion, which is

00:20:50.040 that they don't want to talk about it. And so because of that, we have no restrictions, no real

00:20:54.440 restrictions on abortion. In this country, everyone says, oh, there's no such thing as late-term abortion,

00:20:58.680 it doesn't really happen. Well, they proved that it does happen, happens with some frequency, and it's not

00:21:04.440 just someone saying it, it's not just an accusation. They literally prove it, because I'm going to play

00:21:08.920 the tape, it's about a minute long, but the doctor says, yes, it's very possible. 30 weeks, no problem.

00:21:14.120 I'll tell you exactly where to go, it happens all the time, this is what you do, right? So for people,

00:21:17.960 the pro-abortion side to say, this doesn't happen, this is lies, whatever, no, this is literally happening,

00:21:23.480 and they proved it on tape that it's happening in Canada. So I'm going to play this clip again,

00:21:29.480 undercover reporting from the group right now. I know you're right at our limit, you're very close,

00:21:34.680 you have another leak here. Our limit is 24. Canada doesn't have a limit, okay? Our limit is 24.

00:21:43.640 But there's a hospital that sometimes people come here, they're not so sure, they need more time,

00:21:49.080 under a house car limit, and they end up deciding, yes, I do want it, but we can't do it anymore.

00:21:54.840 I send them to women's college hospital. It's a hospital that's close by, it's 10 minutes from 0.79

00:21:59.560 here. They don't have the limit, they sometimes go up to 32, I believe. I can tell you that once

00:22:05.880 things reach 35, 36 weeks, it might be impossible to find someone that would do it, okay? 24, up to 30

00:22:13.880 weeks, it's very possible. The system certainly doesn't get too far. And do they have, you know,

00:22:21.400 sometimes you hear, like, oh, your health has to be in danger. They'll beat us at, like,

00:22:26.520 some classic abortion care. That kind of abortion care hasn't been in Canada since, like, the 1960s.

00:22:33.480 So they don't ask you anything, you don't have to work through, like, oh, I'm at risk, or anything like

00:22:38.520 that. Absolutely. And so pretty clearly, they're saying that there doesn't have to be a medical reason.

00:22:44.520 We can do it, no problem, six months, no problem, seven months, you know, once you get into the final

00:22:49.240 few weeks of pregnancy, probably not. But really, and to me, what this proves is, yes,

00:22:56.200 the political parties all have an aversion to talk about this stuff, like Pierre Polyev doesn't want

00:22:59.240 to come out and say this stuff is outrageous. Dr. Lesson Lewis, a Conservative MP, came out and did

00:23:04.680 mention that Canada is the only Western nation with no legal gestational limits on abortion,

00:23:09.880 which means that abortion can happen at any point in pregnancy, even in the nine months,

00:23:13.720 according to law. And I just noticed that on social media, she was sort of getting pilloried by 1.00

00:23:18.280 all the same voices saying like, oh, this isn't true. This is lies, whatever. It is true. They

00:23:22.680 just proved it, right? It was on the front page of the National Post, the undiscussed truth about

00:23:27.160 late-term abortions in Canada. This should be something that we can all agree on, okay? This 0.55

00:23:31.560 is something very basic. If a child can survive outside the womb, then you cannot end the life.

00:23:38.280 Like, it cannot happen. It should be straightforward, easy. I'm happy to see that Alberta has this written

00:23:46.520 into a policy resolution. I hope it passed, and I hope Premier Danielle Smith imposed it. I don't

00:23:50.600 know that the investigative journalism that we saw there was in Toronto. I don't know if it's the same

00:23:55.160 thing that's happening in Alberta. You might know a little bit better, but to me, it's unconscionable

00:23:59.240 that we don't have laws on this kind of thing in Canada. It would basically be everywhere because,

00:24:05.000 again, our national standard is absolutely no standard. It's not like any province has a restriction

00:24:10.520 on it. This is absolutely something I'd hope would pass, because the thing is that even from

00:24:17.320 the electoral politics perspective, I actually do think this is a winning issue for conservatives.

00:24:22.120 Not only on a moral level should they be running on it because you should obviously want to be

00:24:26.280 protecting life, but the thing is the left is so overextended on this issue. The thing is that other

00:24:33.000 countries have the left who also is considered to be too far on abortion. We have literally the furthest

00:24:39.320 current establishment on this issue possible, and I think if you actually move for a restriction,

00:24:45.480 they will then have to actually defend the practice of extreme late-term abortion. Who wants to actually

00:24:51.800 sit down and start trying to argue about that and actually say, no, no, no, yes, the child could survive, 0.99

00:24:57.720 but we basically just need to kill it. You're just covering evidence at that point. At that point of 0.92

00:25:02.760 pregnancy, you're just basically just trying to get rid of the child so you don't actually have to 0.95

00:25:06.600 speak its name one day. That's getting to the point where you're not just pro-abortion or pro-choice

00:25:12.760 as a political party. You're just a goblin at this point. You can't let just the child survive. 0.96

00:25:18.920 Do you know that every single liberal MP voted against a policy to just upgrade criminal sentencing

00:25:26.360 for murdering a pregnant woman? The conservatives put up that bill, every single conservative

00:25:31.480 voted for it, and no liberal could actually vote for that, which is insane because they make the stupid 1.00

00:25:36.920 slippery slope argument. Oh, well, if we vote for this, you might ban abortion before birth or 0.99

00:25:42.600 something like that. It's like, guys, I don't know what to tell you. So literally, the child is worth

00:25:48.600 so little to you that even if you murder a pregnant woman or assault her, there's nothing owed. It's

00:25:54.280 just a basic assault. It's unbelievable. And I think you're right. I think that the average,

00:25:59.000 typical, normal Canadian sees this third trimester stuff and is horrified and is grossed out. And it's like,

00:26:04.680 you know, we have something wrong morally with our country if we can't agree that a child that can

00:26:09.240 survive outside the womb is not a child, right? And, you know, the complication stuff, they want to

00:26:15.560 pretend that really it's about denying access to health care, but it's not. She made it very clear

00:26:20.840 there, even if there's no health risk to the mother and the lady, the doctor said, no problem.

00:26:25.480 I think that this is something that could be a winning issue, Wyatt. But I also think that other

00:26:29.960 cultural issues like transing of children could be a winning issue for conservatives,

00:26:34.600 but they're just too afraid. They're too afraid to embrace it, to talk about it, to try to persuade

00:26:39.560 Canadians. They would rather just take the extreme, ghoulish, liberal position. Like, I think that

00:26:46.120 Pierre Polyev is just as pro-abortion as Mark Carney and any other left-wing politician in the country,

00:26:51.240 because he'd rather just not make it an issue. And that is the real problem that we have.

00:26:55.960 Well, the funny thing is, Polyev actually had a very pro-life voting record up until he became

00:27:00.840 leader. And I think when you get into that position, it's like your team starts making

00:27:05.320 you overdose on conventional wisdom and they're like, you can't touch anything. This is a third

00:27:09.880 rail. That's a third rail. Never talk about it. It's like, okay, well, we've tried never talking

00:27:14.920 about it and the left attacks you anyways. So what's the point? Like, I've told people this in the past,

00:27:20.680 the thing, the worst of both worlds position is that you are not willing to be pro-life, but the left

00:27:27.640 still attacks you as anti-abortion. Okay, well, why don't you just be pro-life then? At least you'll

00:27:33.000 actually have the pro-life groups show up and help you in your elections, because you still get accused

00:27:38.760 of it. And everyone who wants to believe it will still believe that you're against abortion. So why not

00:27:45.160 just be against abortion then? You'll actually get the pro-lifers out. You'll actually increase

00:27:49.240 your evangelical and Catholic vote turnout. Why not try it? Right. And you'd be surprised how

00:27:56.120 much common sense there is among the Canadian population for some middle ground, you know,

00:28:00.520 like for some restrictions. I think everybody agrees with that. Well, Wyatt, really appreciate

00:28:04.840 your time and insights. Thanks so much for joining us. Absolutely. Thanks for having me on, Candace.

00:28:09.000 All right, folks. Today's episode is sponsored by Albertans Against No Fault Insurance. So did you know

00:28:13.720 that the Alberta government is overhauling its auto insurance system under a new model called Care

00:28:19.000 First coming into effect in 2027? Most Albertans injured in car accidents will no longer be able

00:28:23.960 to sue the at-fault driver. Instead, decisions about care compensation will be made by the insurance

00:28:29.640 companies, not your doctor, not the courts. Critics say the system puts insurance companies first and

00:28:34.680 removes key insights from victims and their families. Albertans Against No Fault Insurance is a campaign

00:28:39.480 raising awareness about these changes. They're calling on the government to rethink this decision

00:28:43.480 before it is too late. To learn more about how these changes could affect you and your family

00:28:47.720 in a car accident, visit AlbertansAgainstNoFault.com. And this is related to what we're talking about

00:28:53.960 in the show today because one of the policy resolutions that will be discussed in Edmonton

00:28:57.400 this weekend for the UCP convention is policy resolution number two, repeal the no-fault insurance

00:29:03.880 legislation in Alberta and return to a tort-based system, also known as at-fault-based insurance. I

00:29:10.600 wanted to delve into this a little deeper to help the audience and myself understand what these changes

00:29:14.840 are and how it will impact the province. And so I'm pleased to be joined by Fred Litwinok. I believe

00:29:20.760 I'm pronouncing that correctly, Fred. Fred is the owner of Litco Law. He's one of Alberta's most prominent

00:29:26.680 personal injury lawyers and a long-time advocate for maintaining Alberta's right to sue negligent

00:29:32.520 drivers. Litco has represented accident victims for decades. Fred has been outspoken in warning about

00:29:37.640 this move to no-fault or restricted rights model, which would benefit insurers while harming injured

00:29:44.040 Albertans. So, Fred, welcome to the program. Thank you so much for joining us.

00:29:47.880 Thanks, Candice. It's a pleasure to be here with you and your audience.

00:29:50.600 Okay. Well, why don't you tell us a little bit about the changes that are being made

00:29:54.440 and where they're coming from, why they're coming, and why you think it's a bad idea?

00:30:00.120 Yeah, I think the thing to start with is that Albertans were feeling the pressure from

00:30:06.920 increased auto insurance premiums. And I think that's something that, you know, Canadians across

00:30:11.480 the board are feeling regardless of the jurisdiction where they are. And, you know, because of that,

00:30:16.840 I think our government felt some pressure to create some sort of relief for Albertans. And so that is,

00:30:24.040 I think that those are the good intentions behind the Care First system. But unfortunately,

00:30:30.520 the system that has been proposed is not going to deliver savings and you don't have to take my

00:30:35.880 word for it. It's the Insurance Bureau of Canada that's saying that. So, the $400 savings that

00:30:40.440 were promised are not materializing. And I think Albertans are already seeing that indeed rates are

00:30:44.680 going up and will continue to go up. And it is, frankly, it's a 1920s solution. It's not a modern

00:30:51.560 solution. It's something that's been around for a hundred years and has basically failed in every

00:30:55.720 place that it's been tried. So, I don't see how it's going to benefit Albertans generally or injured

00:31:02.760 Albertans specifically. Well, it is case, you know, I'm from British Columbia and British

00:31:07.160 Columbia has a model where we basically, you know, you only have one choice when it comes to

00:31:11.240 insurance and it's the government and, you know, the premiums are very high and there's a lot of

00:31:15.640 parts of it that aren't fair. I mean, that's what happens when you have a government monopoly about

00:31:19.480 just about anything. And so, I'm wondering like why, you know, I feel like Premier Daniel Smith and UCP,

00:31:25.720 they're pretty innovative when it comes to policies are usually pretty connected to the grassroots. So,

00:31:29.800 why do you think that they selected this sort of like, like you said, like a 1920s solution?

00:31:35.160 Under Martin Baum, yes, you know, cost of living is going up in increased premiums. It's there for

00:31:40.200 every part of life. And so, it's not that surprising that would happen to insurance as well.

00:31:44.440 Why do you think they chose this as a solution? And what would you, what would you say would be a

00:31:47.880 better alternative? I think, I actually don't think it's Premier Smith's fault. I think she's been

00:31:53.880 misled, unfortunately, by insurance companies and they made some promises, which included

00:31:58.120 some massive reductions in premiums. I think the promise was $400 per person and those are just

00:32:02.920 not materializing. And now that that's coming out, you know, I think that's why there is a grassroots

00:32:07.960 movement to go back to the fault-based system. I mean, it's a lot to give up. You're giving away

00:32:13.960 all of your rights to sue and going to, you know, something like a WCB type system for injuries.

00:32:20.760 But what are you getting in return? The promise was $400 reduction in premiums for every Albertan.

00:32:26.760 That promise is not coming true. And in fact, rates are going up. So, the question becomes,

00:32:33.160 why do it at all? And I think that's the question that many Albertans are asking. And I think there

00:32:38.040 are other better alternatives, including the system that we currently have. So, you know, I just,

00:32:44.520 I'm very concerned that giving away your right to sue, giving away your right to challenge the

00:32:51.560 insurance companies is a dangerous thing. Because as you know, when rights are taken away,

00:32:58.040 it's really hard to get them back. And so, you know, if you can't challenge the insurance companies,

00:33:02.520 you can be sure that they're going to challenge you. Well, 100%. And so, I guess we should be

00:33:07.400 like, pleased or reassured to see that there is this policy resolution to repeal this no-fault

00:33:13.400 legislation and return back to the previous thing. You know, the UCP members appears to be ready

00:33:19.240 for, you know, to reject the government's direction. What do you think is driving this grassroots

00:33:25.480 resistance? Do you think it's because premiums haven't gone down as promised? Or do you think,

00:33:29.720 you know, Alberta's, when I think of Alberta, I think of, you know, it's the land of freedom,

00:33:33.960 right? People want to be free. They want, you know, there's another resolution in there to be

00:33:36.760 able to stand your ground. Something like Castle Law, someone breaks into your house,

00:33:40.280 you can use reasonable force to stop them from harming your family. That's the same kind of,

00:33:44.840 you know, spirit that you think of Albertans. Like, you know, if someone is acting recklessly and puts

00:33:50.120 you and your family at risk and at harm, whether it's someone breaking your house or someone driving

00:33:53.960 recklessly, you know, you should be able to have that right to fight back and to stop them.

00:33:59.080 I think that's true. I'm a born and raised Albertan myself. And I think that property

00:34:04.680 rights are incredibly important to Albertans. I know they are to me. And I think what other property

00:34:10.440 is there except your body? You know, you're talking about a case like this, where you're

00:34:14.920 really turning over decisions about what kind of care you're going to get and what kind of

00:34:19.160 compensation you're going to get to insurance companies and having no recourse really to do

00:34:24.200 anything about it. And I think that that is just something that goes against Albertan values. And

00:34:29.480 so, yeah, I don't view this policy resolution as a rejection of the government, but rather saying to

00:34:35.000 them, hey, we want something different. We want something innovative. We would like to have,

00:34:41.160 you know, we would like to have savings on our insurance premiums. This isn't going to deliver

00:34:44.920 it. And it's just giving up too much to, you know, for nothing really in return. And if you think about

00:34:51.560 it, you've got, you know, at least with the WCB, you've got one body, so you can ensure consistency.

00:34:56.680 But in this case, a private no fault system, you're turning over the decision making to 40 plus

00:35:01.880 different insurers. So who's to say that each insurance company will administer the benefits

00:35:07.560 fairly and in the same way, it seems pretty unlikely. And so, you know, will your quality of

00:35:13.000 care, the benefits you get depend on the choice that you made when you purchased your insurance? That

00:35:18.280 doesn't seem fair. And so I think that's what the grassroots is saying. I mean, we talked to

00:35:24.120 injured Albertans. We talked to Albertans of all stripes, physiotherapists, doctors. It's not just

00:35:29.000 it's not just lawyers who are concerned about this. It's everyday Albertans who are worried that, hey,

00:35:33.720 we're giving up too much and we're not getting anything in return.

00:35:36.200 Well, it sounds right. So, you know, if you could communicate one message directly to UCB members,

00:35:41.400 people going to vote at this convention, people going up to Edmonton this weekend,

00:35:46.440 what would you say to them about this particular resolution? And then do you think that it will

00:35:50.920 pass? Do you think that it has the support of the base?

00:35:55.480 I think it does. I really do. I truly do. And I've seen that, you know, a similar resolution

00:35:59.800 has been passed in the past by this party. And so that's why I think this proposal is so surprising.

00:36:08.440 I think, you know, in terms of messages that I'd want Albertans to hear and understand,

00:36:13.800 and this is something that the people aren't talking about, this is really a massive transfer

00:36:19.000 of wealth and power from Alberta to Ontario, because most insurance companies are in Ontario.

00:36:24.840 And this means a loss of jobs and a loss of money, thousands of jobs and billions of dollars being

00:36:31.080 sent to Ontario at the expense of everyday Albertans. And I don't think that's something

00:36:35.880 that resonates with Albertans. I think they'd rather see a made in Alberta solution

00:36:40.360 than a send more money to Ontario solution. Wow. That's quite a way of putting it. I hadn't

00:36:45.160 even thought of the fact that most of these insurance companies aren't even necessarily Alberta-based.

00:36:50.360 Yeah. And I think, you know, the other problem that I think really came out when

00:36:56.200 the government had the meat chart leaked, right? And that's sort of the list of injuries and the dollar

00:37:03.960 amounts. I think, uh, there was one on there that people found particularly offensive and that was

00:37:08.200 the $13,000 for the loss of an unborn child. Um, you know, my, my wife and I struggled personally

00:37:15.080 with fertility challenges and, you know, thankfully we're blessed with two incredible children, but

00:37:20.120 I just think of, you know, it, it just makes me sad to think about, you know, people who are trying

00:37:25.000 to have children and you're in an accident and the loss of your, the loss of your unborn child's life

00:37:30.920 is $13,000. I mean, I think that's, I think that's incredibly offensive to most Albertans,

00:37:36.280 if not all. And I think when you look at any sort of meat chart like that, I think,

00:37:40.680 I think it is offensive, um, to think that, you know, you can put these price tags and that every

00:37:45.800 single person in Alberta deserves the exact same amount for the exact same injuries. And so I just

00:37:51.560 think that, you know, we're calling on, we're, you know, our, our group is calling on the Alberta

00:37:55.720 government to create an Alberta first solution, something made in Alberta, not, not made,

00:38:01.560 you know, in the United States a hundred years ago and perfected by, you know, Manitoba. Um, 0.75

00:38:07.400 and I think this is also, you know, a slope to a public insurer. So if we believe in private

00:38:12.520 enterprise in Alberta, I think this is the first step and who knows in the future, there may be

00:38:16.440 another government who is more excited about a public insurer. Right. And, and in those systems

00:38:22.520 where they have public insurance, a lot of times people say, well, that's great. I mean,

00:38:25.720 I get cheaper insurance in, in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, um, maybe not BC, but there's a couple

00:38:32.440 of things that I would want Albertans to think about. Number one is we are the richest province.

00:38:38.360 We have the highest incomes and, you know, we drive the newest cars. Um, and so naturally our

00:38:43.800 premiums, um, are going to be higher, but number two, the, while the premiums on the face of it may look

00:38:48.760 lower, every single one of those provinces has had to shore up their public insurer with taxpayer

00:38:53.800 dollars, every single one. And so, you know, that's the slope that we find ourselves on. I

00:38:59.080 think it's, I think it's dangerous. So I think we want private enterprise. We want to keep jobs in

00:39:04.040 Alberta and we just want the government to come back to the table and create something innovative and

00:39:09.720 new that actually serves Albertans and, and not the insurance companies. Well, it sounds like, uh,

00:39:14.920 there's some movement on it and, uh, that policy resolution will be up for debate over the weekend,

00:39:19.320 folks. So we will keep the audience informed as to how Albertans and UCP members, um, vote on that.

00:39:24.440 But Fred, we really appreciate your time and expertise here. Thanks for breaking it down, uh, for

00:39:29.480 us and joining the show today. Oh, it's my pleasure, Candice. Thank you. All right, folks. That's all the

00:39:33.960 time we have for today. Thank you so much for tuning in. We'll be back again soon. I'm Candice Malcolm.

00:39:37.800 This is Candice Malcolm Show. Thank you and God bless.

00:39:44.920 Thank you.

Juno News - November 25, 2025

What’s at stake at the UCP AGM？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript