PJ The Belt - May 17, 2026


“IT’S BIGGER THAN EVER” — Alberta Separation SURGES After Judge’s Ruling


Episode Stats


Length

16 minutes

Words per minute

189.49857

Word count

3,206

Sentence count

85


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

The Supreme Court of Canada threw out the petition calling for a referendum on Alberta's independence from Canada. What does this mean for the independence process? Is there still a chance for an independence referendum in Alberta?

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
00:00:00.000 This right here is probably why the mainstream media wants nothing to do with Jeff Rath.
00:00:04.300 You've been meeting with the Americans, like you've been going across the border, have you not, and talking to people?
00:00:08.800 We're not funded, we're not funded by the Americans.
00:00:10.660 Have you asked them for, but have you asked them for.
00:00:12.620 They don't instruct our court cases.
00:00:14.580 Okay, so yes, the government could try to move ahead with this referendum.
00:00:19.340 They would still have to meet the threshold of the duty of consult because they are acting on behalf of the Americans.
00:00:22.900 No, they don't, sir. You don't understand the law.
00:00:25.680 They're the crown.
00:00:26.220 They do not have to consult.
00:00:27.520 that's probably why they avoid the guy like the plague
00:00:30.760 so recently the government funded broadcaster the cbc brought one of the leaders of the alberta
00:00:38.780 independence movement for an interview and he reminded them exactly why they've been avoiding
00:00:43.420 him for months watch this i mean look at the guy's face already look at his face he's not
00:00:49.460 looking forward to this people leading that petition effort have to say about this i'm joined
00:00:55.160 now by jeff rath from the alberta prosperity project jeff rath it's good to meet you sir
00:00:58.920 thank you for giving us some time today uh you're welcome thanks for having me on you said after the
00:01:04.280 judgment came down yesterday that there are numerous errors of law in this decision that
00:01:08.220 you will be appealing what is your main argument that this decision should be overturned oh we have
00:01:12.360 so we have so many but i mean one of the you know one of the big ones is that she hadn't even ruled
00:01:16.880 on what the record was prior to the hearing so the province had brought an application to strike
00:01:21.840 huge portions of affidavits that were before the court um so we went through this hearing without
00:01:26.720 anybody actually even knowing what the record is there's a latin phrase it's called audio
00:01:30.080 terra parta you know and that is that you know you have to know the case that you have to meet
00:01:33.680 um you know it's a fundamental error for a judge to allow a case to go forward before she's even
00:01:38.320 defined what the record of the case before the court is but i mean that's actually even though
00:01:41.760 that's a fairly major ground for appeal you know that's the smallest part of the errors that she
00:01:46.480 made in this case right um one of the interesting things about this decision and this is what
00:01:51.040 creates the big political problem for Daniel Smith that you might want to talk about is that
00:01:55.940 she ruled in paragraph 76 that even though it's unconstitutional and illegal for citizens to
00:02:02.540 express themselves democratically by getting together and signing their names on a piece of
00:02:07.080 paper to communicate their wishes kind of like a letter to Santa Claus you know going to the
00:02:11.280 legislature saying we want a question on the ballot even though she said that's illegal she
00:02:15.640 ruled clearly and expressly that it's not illegal for premier smith to call the question herself
00:02:21.560 under section one of the referendum act right which is the same thing that justice fees be said
00:02:26.040 so you know one of our questions for the court of appeal is going to be logically how can the mere
00:02:32.120 act of citizens putting their name on a petition you know asking the government to do something
00:02:37.080 that they have the jurisdiction to do under section one of the referendum act in some way
00:02:42.360 offend a treaty or aboriginal rights well right because that's the reason that the judge who
00:02:47.480 threw out the alberta independence petition or put a stop to it at least temporarily that was
00:02:51.880 her argument is that this violates indigenous rights that this violates the rights of first
00:02:57.800 nations it's like how when we're just asking a question it's not like we're this petition is
00:03:02.680 at the point where we're already separating from canada the law already states as per the supreme
00:03:08.600 court that there will be consultation before we move forward with separation from canada if that's
00:03:15.240 how albertans choose to go the law already requires consultation so why is it that they
00:03:22.360 would cancel it because of course it's a political decision the judge that decided that is a trudeau
00:03:28.280 appointee of course she's gonna throw a wrench in the independence process well you know gathering
00:03:34.520 signatures you know was any treaty aid indian prevented from hunting in the northwest territory
00:03:38.600 saskatchewan or british columbia were they prevented you know from uh you know feeding
00:03:43.160 or trapping or anything by you know near signatures being put on a piece of paper
00:03:47.480 of course not well if if i can jump in just so the audience can i i can try to explain to the
00:03:53.400 audience here some of the reasonings the judge spelled out here i mean essentially the way the
00:03:57.320 the citizen initiative uh law works in in in alberta is that if you get the signatures and
00:04:02.440 they get certified, then it will go on the ballot. And because a referendum like the one you are
00:04:07.000 seeking is an issue of a constitutional question, the law says it would be binding. And what the
00:04:12.680 judge has essentially said is because it is a constitutional question and it would be binding
00:04:17.480 on the government to follow it, that would trigger a duty to consult under the principles of the
00:04:21.960 Haida decision, that if the government knows it might affect treaties, if they are contemplating
00:04:26.600 action that would affect treaties and recognize there would be potential adverse impacts on those
00:04:31.320 treaties there is a duty to consult whether it's a citizen initiative or a government initiative
00:04:36.760 so she's wrong wrong about all of that why sure well i'm just going to start with paragraph 76
00:04:43.080 of her decision where she says jeff brought the receipts you got to remember jeffy wrath is also
00:04:47.800 the lawyer for the alberta prosperity project and i think he was also the legal counsel for the
00:04:53.400 stay free alberta campaign the man is a constitutional lawyer he knows what he's
00:04:57.080 talking about. Lieutenant Governor Counsel retains discretion over holding a referendum
00:05:01.760 on any question relating to the Constitution of Canada or relating to or arising out of a possible
00:05:07.360 change to the Constitution of Canada. That discretion is not applicable to referendum
00:05:12.460 questions arising under the amended CIA. Well, how is it legal for the government to call the
00:05:18.300 question itself under Section 1 of the Referendum Act and perfectly constitutional, but it's
00:05:23.940 unconstitutional for citizens to just put their name on a petition say hey government we want you
00:05:29.340 to call a question but is the ruling that the signature process was unconstitutional or that
00:05:33.760 this process well it's it what's unconstitutional they argue is that the duty to consult wasn't met
00:05:39.540 before this process was allowed by the issuance of the petition okay but the problem is that she
00:05:46.440 doesn't understand the way that the duty to consult works in Canadian law okay there has to be an
00:05:52.480 actual infringement of an actual right and again you know try to keep up right how would anybody's
00:05:58.240 right infringe by people putting their signature on a piece of paper nobody's rights were infringed
00:06:02.800 by that how would anybody's right be infringed by uh the elections alberta counting these signatures
00:06:08.800 and transmitting that number to the government albert nobody's rights are infringed no no let
00:06:12.880 me finish okay just let me finish so and again even holding a referendum nobody's rights are
00:06:19.040 infringed because the secession reference of the supreme court makes it clear that even holding a
00:06:24.720 referendum and even if there's a yes vote in a referendum doesn't affect anybody's legal rights
00:06:30.640 and of course the judge completely ignored that in her decision and of course the only way that
00:06:36.160 rights would be illegally infringed under the canadian constitution were was if the government
00:06:41.520 were to completely disregard and that would take both canada and alberta in the event of a yes vote
00:06:46.800 if they were to completely disregard section 35.1 of the constitution act 1982 which says for
00:06:53.760 government powers with regard to indians treaties etc to be devolved to another government so
00:06:59.040 federal powers devolving to the province right there has to be a constitutional conference under
00:07:03.760 section 35.1 of the constitution act 1982 right so what that means what that means is that if
00:07:11.200 there was a yes vote and if the governments didn't convene a constitutional conference
00:07:15.920 or if first nations thought the rights weren't addressed in good faith in the context of that
00:07:20.400 constitutional conference right then they should come they could come to court but until then
00:07:25.600 this is all purely speculative and hypothetical and i can show you half a dozen decisions from
00:07:30.720 the supreme court of canada that say that you don't have an obligation to consult with regard
00:07:34.880 to speculative and hypothetical questions holy jeffrey ratchers gave him a categorical beating
00:07:42.400 categorical verbal beating on law here because the cbc guy thinks he knows about law and he's
00:07:48.660 trying to lecture a constitutional lawyer from alberta who's litigated multiple cases regarding
00:07:54.300 first nations they just put him in his place he just reminded them like look i know what i'm
00:08:00.200 talking about here and we don't have a duty to consult when we're just at that petition stage
00:08:05.920 we got to get to the point where we actually like albertans already voted yes and we're now headed
00:08:10.900 to a constitutional conference and we failed at consulting First Nations then. We're not at that
00:08:18.500 stage yet. We're at that petitioning stage, hopefully counting the signatures to get a
00:08:23.520 referendum. And after, only after Albertans, a majority of Albertans vote yes for independence,
00:08:30.460 then we enter negotiations and the duty to consult. So that's the law as we understand it.
00:08:36.660 Those are the issues that we're taking forward to the Alberta Court.
00:08:38.920 But on that point, just you pointed to paragraph 76, I'll point you to paragraph 232, where the judge talks about the conditions under the Hyda test.
00:08:48.400 And again, going back to the contemplated conduct, that if the Crown will act on something and acting on a successful separation referendum would obviously affect the treaty rights of treaty.
00:08:57.880 Okay, but she says that once an initiative petition is approved and the required signatures are obtained, the executive must hold a referendum and must implement the results of the referendum.
00:09:11.660 So if it goes ahead and you win, they are bound by the law to implement it, and then it will be too late to start the duty to consult because it will be happening after a decision has been made and found binding on the executive, and that infringes on the rights to be consulted in advance.
00:09:26.200 That is the fundamental argument.
00:09:29.000 What's that?
00:09:29.840 We say that's all wrong.
00:09:31.040 So, yeah, that's what the judge said.
00:09:32.420 We're obviously appealing our decision because we say that's wrong.
00:09:35.640 And the reason we say that it's wrong is because the Supreme Court of Canada itself,
00:09:40.420 in the secession reference, said that nobody's rights are engaged,
00:09:44.820 even in the event of a yes vote in a referendum.
00:09:47.840 Because simply citizens expressing their opinions on something doesn't affect anybody's rights.
00:09:54.460 The Supreme Court has made it clear that it's a political process. And what we have here is we have this is the second judge now that's decided that they want to engage in politics and they want to be a political actor rather than a judicial actor and to basically engage in politics while wearing a black robe with a red sash.
00:10:14.480 It's because they're activist judges, both appointed by the liberals, and they're acting politically. They're not acting based on the law. The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, already ruled that there is no duty to consult up until after a yes vote.
00:10:32.780 Like, there's no need to consult at the petitioning stage. And these judges from lower courts are just trying to make a political statement by trying to stop the independence movement because they're liberal activists. That's it. Simple as that.
00:10:48.560 And quite frankly, in our constitutional system, that's completely inappropriate.
00:10:52.520 So, Mr. Rath, you're going to appeal.
00:10:54.360 The premier says they're going to appeal because she's on your side, that she feels the judge has made a decision there.
00:10:59.100 The target for this referendum has been October 19th with the other nine questions the government is putting forward.
00:11:05.120 Can this all be resolved by October to actually get your signature certified and get your question on the ballot?
00:11:12.380 Or do you think it could push it past that window?
00:11:15.600 Oh, no, absolutely.
00:11:16.400 I mean, one of the first thing we're doing is we're obviously we're drafting and filing a notice of appeal, which we are going to have filed by either late tomorrow afternoon or Monday, for one.
00:11:26.360 And then simultaneous to that, we're working on a state of this decision, you know, effectively, you know, a court order from the Court of Appeal, setting this decision aside so that Elections Alberta can do its legislatively mandated job of counting our petition signatures or verifying our petition signatures and communicating that information, you know, to the Lieutenant Governor and Counsel through the Attorney General.
00:11:49.300 That being said, though, and this is the importance of paragraph 76 and actually the decision of Justice Feesby, both of those judges, again, as far as I'm concerned, playing politics, have made it clear that Danielle Smith herself can call the question anytime she wants.
00:12:05.640 So she can actually call the question, notwithstanding the fact that her government's appealing, notwithstanding the fact that there's ongoing court processes, she can put our referendum question on the ballot under Section 1 of the Referendum Act, regardless of any court processes going forward, and that's what 301,620 Albertans expect her to do.
00:12:28.080 And I think she's going to learn quite quickly that almost a unanimous base or the unanimous membership of the United Conservative Party expect her to do, because even the 33 percent or so of the United Conservative Party that are not in favor of independence are 100 percent in favor of democracy and are of the view that people in Alberta have the right to vote yes or no on this question.
00:12:51.480 So, you know, Danielle is literally facing politically what I consider to be an existential choice or an existential turning point in her leadership.
00:13:01.040 She can either decide to accede to the overwhelming will of her members or the members of her party, or she can lose all moral authority to lead the United Conservative Party and should likely go the way of Jason Kenney.
00:13:14.020 Well, and that's the reality politically here in Alberta. The premier knows that a large majority of her membership of her party, the UCP, the United Conservative Party, support independence. At this point, if she doesn't call for a referendum, which she's completely allowed to do, it's her imperative if she wants to do that or not. She's legally allowed to do it. If she doesn't call one, I don't see how she keeps her job, in all honesty.
00:13:42.020 Okay, so yes, the government could try to move ahead with this referendum.
00:13:46.500 They would still have to meet the threshold of the duty of consult
00:13:48.800 because they are acting on behalf of that.
00:13:49.880 No, they don't, sir. You don't understand the law.
00:13:52.560 They're the crown.
00:13:53.060 They do not have to consult.
00:13:54.560 And that's exactly what Justice Feesby said,
00:13:56.700 and that's exactly what Justice Leonard said.
00:13:58.780 They basically say you have to consult if you go under the Citizens Initiative Act,
00:14:02.100 but you know what, if you do it under Section 1 of the Referendum Act,
00:14:06.260 there's no ability whatsoever for the court to get involved
00:14:09.140 Because even Justice Leonard agrees at that point, the Supreme Court of Canada and the secession reference says the courts have no rule to play and no jurisdiction because it's a purely political issue.
00:14:20.700 So, you know, and I'm sure that the First Nations, because they're being funded by the Tides Foundation and funded by George Soros and funded by foreign money, will fight every single step of the way because they have billionaires backing them.
00:14:32.880 And this is a very important point he brings up.
00:14:35.180 Check this out.
00:14:36.000 This guy is one of the chiefs that is against Alberta independence and Alberta's right to self-determination, including his own people, because many band members signed the petition to get a referendum.
00:14:48.560 He had a scandal back in 2014 where he received over fifty five thousand dollars from Tides Foundation, according to reports.
00:14:56.360 So this is exactly what Jeff is referring to.
00:15:00.000 But at the end of the day, you know, we're you know, we are pushing ahead.
00:15:04.300 Our movement is not deterred by this, and we will have a referendum on October 9th.
00:15:07.780 Well, Mr. Rath, you've been dealing with the Americans.
00:15:10.100 You've been going across the border, have you not?
00:15:11.880 You're talking to people.
00:15:12.640 We're not funded by the Americans.
00:15:15.420 They don't instruct our court cases.
00:15:18.140 They don't hire our lawyers.
00:15:20.220 So please, let's be realistic here.
00:15:22.820 I just bring that up because the other side was raising these silly foreign interference arguments in the context of this court case,
00:15:28.900 when they're the ones that are actually being funded you know by foreign sources and you know
00:15:33.620 that are tied to communist china so you know let's be clear here and i've heard you talking
00:15:37.700 about this with other guests on your program and jason kenny and others so i just wanted to
00:15:41.860 sort of balance out the record because you know typically the commentary on your show is very
00:15:46.420 unbalanced when it comes to albert independence oh boy jeffrey rat just went in with a hammer man
00:15:52.900 holy he just told them you guys are biased as hell at the cbc you guys are not impartial you
00:15:59.700 guys are very unfair to alberta patriots when it comes to the alberta independence topic
00:16:04.500 and you always almost always except for this one time which i'm sure they're not gonna do again
00:16:09.700 you almost always bring people who are anti-alberta independence and you don't bring the other side
00:16:15.860 of the story you don't bring diverse opinions for all that diversities or strengths stuff you
00:16:21.380 normally bring people of the same opinion and that is anti-alberta anti-independence and i love to see
00:16:27.620 jeffrey rath he reminded everybody because the man knows what he's talking about he just reminded
00:16:31.700 them all especially people out east who think they know what's best for alberta that we're not
00:16:36.740 playing games here alberta patriots want a referendum in october and we're gonna work
00:16:40.180 overtime to get one if you support this channel remember to hit subscribe youtube doesn't like
00:16:45.700 conservative channels like this one but if you do again please remember to subscribe it's completely
00:16:50.820 free, and I will keep bringing you videos and reports like this one. See you in the next one.