Rebel News Podcast - EZRA LEVANT ｜ Pushing back against Ottawa overreach： A feature interview with Danielle Smith

00:00:00.000 Hello, my friends. Oh, my God, what a show today. I interview Danielle Smith and Sheila Gunn-Reed

00:00:06.100 interview Scott Moe, the first, the premier of Alberta, the second, the premier of Saskatchewan.

00:00:10.760 Holy smokes. Oh, boy, I'm thrilled about it. I really want you to see it, too, not just hear it.

00:00:15.960 So to see it, you need what we call Rebel News Plus. That's the video version of this podcast.

00:00:20.440 Just go to rebelnewsplus.com and click subscribe. It's eight bucks a month. But not only do you get

00:00:25.600 great video content, you keep us strong and independent. We don't take a dime from government.

00:00:30.000 And it shows. A one-on-one sit-down with the premier of Alberta. Oh, boy,

00:00:34.420 did she say some interesting things. It's December 18th, and this is the Ezra LeVant Show.

00:00:42.040 Shame on you, you censorious bug.

00:00:53.700 Oh, hi, everybody. I flew to Calgary last night to sit down for a one-on-one interview with

00:00:59.740 Danielle Smith, the premier of Alberta. I guess I could have done it over Zoom, but I just think

00:01:03.940 that when you're with a person in person, you have a better connection, and we chatted a bit before

00:01:09.060 and after, and I like it. I'm a fan of hers. I think you know that. I've known her since we were

00:01:13.760 actually in university together. Believe it or not, it was her and me and Nahid Nenshi, formerly the

00:01:19.760 mayor of Calgary, who's now the leader of the opposition out there. It's funny. We were all sort of

00:01:23.960 in the same year and knew each other at U of C. Anyways, we're all grown up a bit more now. I want

00:01:30.000 to play for you the interview in full, and I think it's, we start off talking about Skate Canada.

00:01:36.560 That's an amateur skating association that gets money from the federal government, and they've

00:01:42.160 decided to boycott Alberta because Alberta only lets girls into girls' sports. By the way, there are no

00:01:49.000 transgender athletes, male to female, in figure skating that we know of. This is just an attempt 1.00

00:01:56.520 by the federally funded skating organization to embarrass and attack Danielle Smith. It's a

00:02:03.360 partisan thing. It's super gross in sport. That was my first question. Then I think the most

00:02:08.920 interesting part of the interview was about immigration. I'll let you see what she says for

00:02:12.980 herself. Then we ended by talking about the Memorandum of Understanding for Oil and Gas. Anyways, I really

00:02:17.840 enjoyed my quick visit to Alberta. I came back on the first flight this morning. Huge blizzard out

00:02:23.980 there, and whenever there's a big, beautiful blizzard in Alberta, I mean, I grew up there. I

00:02:28.720 love the blizzards, and I also love the Chinooks. That's the warm wind that comes in and warms

00:02:32.260 everything up. I keep thinking about, hey, I was told that global, I was promised global warming.

00:02:37.440 What's with all this global colding? Anyhow, without further ado, here's my interview with Alberta

00:02:41.940 Premier, Danielle Smith. Premier, great to see you. Merry Christmas. Thanks for meeting with us.

00:02:48.740 Yeah, Merry Christmas. Nice to see you. Before I talk about some heavier things, what is going on

00:02:53.480 with Skate Canada? Frankly, they've got a lot of gall saying they're going to boycott Alberta. Tell

00:03:00.180 me about it. Well, I'll just say that Boxing Canada has not taken the same view, and Curling Canada has

00:03:04.880 not taken the same view. I think that they've taken the view that they want to make sure that girls and

00:03:09.040 women have the opportunity to participate in sport without having to face athletes that were born 0.99

00:03:14.680 male. I think that Skate Canada is going to find that they're on the wrong side of this issue. Even

00:03:20.320 the IOC is talking about creating new rules. I guess we'll see them in the new year. And I think they

00:03:24.860 should rescind their policy, because what it really should be about is creating an environment for

00:03:30.080 girls and women to participate in sports safely and fairly. Do you know if there's been any other

00:03:36.120 reaction from other players? I mean, for example, has there been a move to have Skate Canada

00:03:41.260 reconsider or to set up an alternative competitor to Skate Canada? Because they have a monopoly right

00:03:48.060 now on who gets to go to the nationals and Olympics. But there could be a sex-segregated 0.99

00:03:55.820 version of Skate Canada. I bet you it would get popularity in Alberta, Saskatchewan. They should watch

00:04:01.720 out what they're doing. They're getting involved in politics. It's true. You know, I mean, we wanted

00:04:04.820 to create options for everybody to participate. But the reason we have girls and women's divisions

00:04:10.280 is because we recognize that girls and women have different levels of skill, agility, strength, 1.00

00:04:17.660 endurance. And that's part of the reason why we have those categories. If there were no biological

00:04:22.360 difference between men and women, we wouldn't have created girls and women categories in the first 0.51

00:04:25.940 place. So I think that they are putting themselves at risk of having a competing organization.

00:04:30.440 What I would like to see is what are the girls and women who are represented by that organization,

00:04:36.340 what do they feel about it? I'm going to guess that this was, they're funded by the feds. I'm

00:04:41.040 guessing this was an instruction by the feds to take a shot at you. I bet they didn't actually

00:04:46.260 consult their own members or even their own board. And it shouldn't be that way. The people who most

00:04:51.080 matter in these circumstances are how are the girls who are competing feeling? How are the women who are 1.00

00:04:55.680 competing feeling? How do they feel if they're standing on a podium and somebody has won or just

00:05:01.420 edged them out because they were a born male athlete? That's what we're concerned about. And so we'll

00:05:06.380 watch to see how it goes. I've just been pleased to see that curling and boxing has not taken the same

00:05:10.880 view. And we'll watch and see what the IOC thinks about all of this in the spring.

00:05:15.280 Hey, I want to ask you about some comments you gave earlier this week about immigration.

00:05:18.880 And I remember your speech at the UCP convention a few weeks ago. When you talked about immigration,

00:05:24.600 that was one of the largest responses from the crowd in applause. Tell me some of your latest

00:05:29.880 ideas. You were thinking that newcomers maybe have a waiting period before they can get into social

00:05:36.200 services. What are your ideas? Well, I guess a couple of things I'd say is that I think that the

00:05:40.020 federal government destroyed the historic consensus we've always had in Canada. We used to have

00:05:44.480 an enviable immigration system based on points, bringing in professionals, giving extra points

00:05:49.740 for people who had degrees and could speak one of the official languages. And they blew that up.

00:05:55.040 We received a very large number of temporary workers, refugees, family reunification,

00:06:01.540 international students, pretty much everyone but the economic migrants that had always been the 1.00

00:06:06.680 source of its success. And we're seeing it. It has brought our public services almost to the brink of

00:06:11.460 collapse. That's one of the challenges that we face in our education system is we went from having

00:06:17.120 a stagnant enrollment in our system to having a net new 85,000 kids added, 96,000 of which speak

00:06:25.740 English as a second language or English language learners, which is double what we saw three years

00:06:30.740 ago. It's put enormous pressure. People are seeing the pressure in being able to get a doctor or nurse

00:06:35.320 practitioner. They're seeing a pressure on buying a house, getting rent. The price of everything is going up

00:06:40.520 and they're frustrated. When I was going around with the Alberta Next panel, we heard of parents and

00:06:46.180 grandparents saying, my kid or my grandkid has applied for dozens of jobs, even at McDonald's

00:06:51.640 and Tim Hortons and can't get one. So what we have asked the federal government to do, and it looks

00:06:56.140 like they're curtailing many of those programs. We've been supportive of the changes that they've

00:07:01.000 made, particularly on the temporary foreign worker program. But the federal government's

00:07:04.920 responsibility has put huge costs onto our taxpayers. And so what I've looked at in the UK,

00:07:11.380 Keir Starmer, he's having this conversation about whether you have to work for five years

00:07:15.400 before you are able to receive social services. I believe that's their current policy. They're

00:07:21.520 talking about making a person wait 10 years. And so you should come to Alberta because you have a job.

00:07:27.840 You should be a taxpayer first. And then if you want to stay and become a permanent resident,

00:07:32.000 that's when you can bring in your wife and your kids, and you can start on the pathway to permanent

00:07:36.460 citizenship. We believe that those who are not here in a permanent status should be treated like

00:07:41.540 tourists. And as a tourist, you don't go to somebody else's country and say, pay for my child

00:07:45.420 care, pay for my education, pay for my health care, pay for my long-term care, give me a pension.

00:07:48.920 We have to get back to something approaching a consensus around immigration again. And so that's

00:07:53.440 what we're going to be looking to Elburns to see if they want to give us a mandate to do that.

00:07:56.740 I think part of it is that people see obviously bogus refugees and bogus temporary foreign workers

00:08:04.640 who are not specialists that we can't get, not seasonal crop pickers. Like people see that all

00:08:10.400 these different categories, the diploma mill, fake school students, I think part of it is people feel

00:08:16.360 taken advantage of. Completely. I was talking to Michelle Garner-Remple of the Federal Conservatives,

00:08:22.080 who's their immigration critic. And I said to her, there's all these people who their visas have

00:08:27.240 expired and they have not been asked to leave. I said, would you support mass deportations or

00:08:33.740 remigration? And to my surprise, she said, yes. Even if the number is hundreds of thousands or

00:08:39.960 perhaps millions, that word remigration, I've seen it used in the States. They're talking about it in

00:08:45.600 the UK. Do you think that perhaps it's time that Canada say to those who've overstayed time to go

00:08:53.080 home? Well, the first step is making sure that you're not bringing people here who don't have a 1.00

00:08:57.980 job to come to. So I think that's one part of it. The second part is for those who are here and have

00:09:03.140 a job and have a pathway to permanent migration, let's just be compassionate and find those permanent

00:09:08.240 residents, give them permanent residency status so they can start on that journey. But anyone who 0.95

00:09:12.400 doesn't have a job, doesn't have prospects, absolutely. Why would they stay? It's not good

00:09:17.980 for them. It's not good for the taxpayer. It doesn't allow for them to be able to pay for the

00:09:25.300 things that they're going to need to support themselves and their families. It seems to me

00:09:29.540 that we've got to get back to the kind of system that works not only for us as the host country,

00:09:34.200 but also for the person who's coming here. And I can tell you that I think that there's a lot of those

00:09:38.900 newcomers, the immigrant citizens who came the right way and did things properly and followed 1.00

00:09:46.520 the rules. And I think they're just as frustrated to see that there have been a lot of rule breakers

00:09:51.300 and they want us to do something about it. So we'll find out. We're going to very likely put

00:09:56.600 this to a vote in the new year and we'll see what Albertans have to say about it.

00:09:59.740 And how would it go to a vote? Would there be a bill, for example, to restrict benefits? Is that

00:10:05.260 what you mean? I'm thinking of a referendum. I think that if we're going to do something as

00:10:08.420 dramatic as assert our rights under Section 95 of the Constitution, that we need to get a mandate

00:10:14.080 from the people. That's incredible. Are there any other issues that you propose to put to a

00:10:18.780 referendum? We'll be making a decision as a cabinet and caucus next year about which ones they'll put

00:10:22.400 forward. But I would say that immigration emerged as probably the number one issue that I heard

00:10:27.020 about. I'm going to make a prediction right now that that gets at least 80 percent support.

00:10:30.680 Right. Yeah. And some of our town halls, people started off feeling really concerned about what we were

00:10:35.100 talking about initially. But as they heard the arguments, when we did a straw poll about whether

00:10:38.860 people thought we should take more control over immigration, some of the rooms were unanimous.

00:10:42.880 Wow. Yeah. I want to be respectful of your time, but I think the big issue, and I know we talked about

00:10:47.800 this a few weeks ago, was the memorandum of understanding, which is a funny word because

00:10:51.860 it's not a contract. It's not an agreement. It's a plan to talk further. I'm talking about the

00:10:57.580 proposed oil pipeline. Has there been any interest by potential investors, by oil companies who say,

00:11:07.500 yeah, we'll take a slice of that? Because when I first looked at it, I thought, boy, I see the costs

00:11:12.960 and they're all front end loaded. And boy, between the carbon capture and the industrial carbon tax,

00:11:20.820 they're not making it easy. Has there been any nibbles? Has anyone taken it up?

00:11:25.540 Well, I can tell you that when we started off, we wanted to get rid of the emissions gap

00:11:30.340 because we knew that there was nobody who was going to invest in expanding production as long

00:11:35.600 as that was hanging over their heads. In fact, businesses were talking about, will we have to

00:11:39.160 shut in production by 2035? And the clean electricity regs, we had no one wanting to build natural gas

00:11:46.120 power plants in Alberta, which is the bread and butter of our power grid. And so that was very alarming to us.

00:11:51.120 So getting concessions on those two things have already had an immediate impact. We've already

00:11:55.860 heard that Enbridge is talking about expanding their line. We've got Trans Mountain talking about

00:12:01.280 expanding their line. We've got South Bow talking about how to use the Keystone assets to build a

00:12:05.180 new pipeline to the US.

00:12:06.280 Do they think, does that look like it's going to move?

00:12:09.000 I think that the Americans really want it. All the conversations I've had with the US

00:12:13.880 is that they want to see more Canadian oil going down to the US Gulf Coast.

00:12:17.460 I saw Donald Trump tweeting, saying he wants to retake the oil companies that were nationalized

00:12:23.520 by Hugo Chavez. So I think he's going to topple Venezuela. They're a competitor to Alberta.

00:12:30.100 They are. But you know, I guess the way I look at it is we're a far more stable partner. We do

00:12:35.080 already have the existing lines. We're responsible for 4.5 million barrels a day. Most of that going to

00:12:41.140 the United States. A lot of it is the type of heavy oil that their refineries are tooled for.

00:12:47.180 And so it seems to me like, why not work with the friend that you have that wants to work with

00:12:53.680 you? And that's the argument that we're making. We've got a lot of friends in the US that are

00:12:58.740 making that argument on our behalf. But it is also a demonstration of why we can't be reliant on a

00:13:04.020 single trading partner. And it is why we've been talking about how we might get this bitumen pipeline

00:13:09.060 to the Northwest BC coast. Every person I've spoke with over the last number of years, they said,

00:13:13.760 that's the one that got away. If of all of the projects that were being proposed at the time,

00:13:18.020 the one that really made the most sense to do would have been Northern Gateway, maybe a different port.

00:13:23.480 Maybe it makes more sense to have it at Port-au-Prince-Rupert because it's more of a direct

00:13:26.580 straight line to get to those Asian markets. But we feel that with the consortium we've got at the table,

00:13:32.260 we've got every major pipeline company represented there, giving us the very best technical analysis.

00:13:37.900 When we put forward our proposal, we'll have a better idea of the costs, we'll have a better

00:13:42.280 idea of the indigenous partnerships, and we'll have a better idea of what the pathway will be to get to

00:13:47.840 a yes. And if it looks like it's on the major project list on that two-year runway, I suspect we

00:13:53.980 will have a proponent step forward at that time. You know, it's interesting to me to see the Premier of

00:13:58.800 British Columbia almost pout when Nutrien, a company in Saskatchewan, decided to export its minerals

00:14:06.240 through the United States rather than B.C. He was sort of disappointed. And part of me thought,

00:14:11.040 well, you were just going to probably oppose it anyways. And it reminded me that, you know,

00:14:16.180 there are other ways to get out. And the Keystone Excel is another way to get out. And you don't have to

00:14:22.420 deal with the B.C. premium. You don't have to deal with really out-of-control land claim issues like

00:14:27.420 there's some indigenous title. I think, I mean, let me ask you this. Has there been anything from the

00:14:35.420 Trump administration or the company that suggests they're willing to flip on Keystone Excel? Because

00:14:41.780 that was partly built, 800,000 barrels a day, and you don't have to deal with all those troublemakers

00:14:46.840 on the West Coast? Well, I can tell you that there are active conversations between Southpaw

00:14:50.980 and a partner in the U.S. And I think that that's the best way to do it, is that they can find a

00:14:54.640 pipeline partner in the U.S. And I think that there's a lot of enthusiasm for that idea. And we

00:14:59.660 should look at that as a win, too. Because remember, we have something called the Alberta

00:15:03.220 Petroleum Marketing Agency. We can actually do deals internationally ourselves by holding on to

00:15:10.240 those barrels all the way down to the Gulf Coast and then selling them, whether it's gas to Poland

00:15:14.900 or whether it's going through the Panama Canal and selling our bitumen to Asia. It's a longer route,

00:15:21.760 but that's how the Americans sell theirs. And so I think we'd get an advantage, and it'd be better if

00:15:26.980 we had a different route going through the Northwest B.C. coast. But I would also look at it as an

00:15:33.960 interim measure if we were to get some of those other pipeline expansions built. And I think that

00:15:39.880 that would be a win for not just us, but for the entire country. I know you've got to run, but I got

00:15:44.000 one last question for you. I was surprised last week to see an announcement of a project that I

00:15:50.200 hadn't seen proposed, that hasn't gone through environmental regulations, that doesn't have a private

00:15:55.220 sector. Like it's got public money. I'm talking about a train from liberal Montreal to liberal

00:16:02.800 Ottawa. It's going to be this crazy white elephant, probably close to $100 billion. Yeah, I think so.

00:16:08.300 And it was just, ta-da, we're going to do it, and no negotiation, and there's going to be government

00:16:13.580 money. And I thought, Alberta gets MOUs and maybes and taxes and a lot of disparaging comments, 1.00

00:16:21.240 even by, there's a lot of liberal MPs who are trash-talking the MOU, by the way. And then just,

00:16:27.040 you know, if you're a liberal from Montreal and Ottawa, you get yourself this white elephant free

00:16:30.820 gift. I just, what do you make of that? What do you think of that?

00:16:33.980 Well, I think they're two different things. I think that major projects should be revenue-generating

00:16:39.140 projects. I don't think that that one's going to be a revenue-generating project.

00:16:42.040 Alberta taxpayers are going to be paying for this train. 0.95

00:16:43.200 Oh, now you've hit a sore spot. I mean, you have to look at it from Albertan's perspective,

00:16:47.340 why the MOU is a good step, but not sufficient. We still send $26 billion more in tax revenue to

00:16:54.800 Ottawa through various taxes.

00:16:55.860 Build trains, I guess.

00:16:56.880 Then they send back here. And we're still having deficits, which are really problematic for us.

00:17:05.960 And meanwhile, you see not only equalization transfers to Quebec go up, but also these kinds

00:17:10.560 of major projects. It's very frustrating for Western Canada, and it's very frustrating for

00:17:14.820 Alberta in particular, which pays a lot of that bill. But it's also another reason why we've got

00:17:19.060 to try to find a way to have Ottawa take less. What we really need in the country is for each

00:17:23.760 level of government to have the tax revenue that they need to fund their social services,

00:17:27.420 rather than this tax and transfer game, which we always know is going to be used for politics.

00:17:31.900 So a little bit frustrating, but we've got our own passenger rail plan that's going to be coming

00:17:36.840 out in the new year. And we hope to find some private sector proponents who are willing to build

00:17:40.140 big pieces of it. And maybe we'll show the East how it's done.

00:17:43.400 Right on. Great to see you. Thanks for meeting with Rebel News. We always love to connect with you.

00:17:47.120 Yeah, my pleasure. Good to see you.

00:17:50.180 Well, what do you think? I don't know if I've heard that news before,

00:17:54.480 that she is going to have a referendum next year on a massive change to immigration. Now,

00:18:00.860 immigration is a federal jurisdiction, as you may know. It's the federal government that sets the

00:18:06.240 numbers and it has the standards. But Alberta could say, well, we run the hospitals, we run the

00:18:12.460 schools, we run the welfare. And you can't get any of that unless you've been in this country for five

00:18:17.400 years or 10 years. I think she said 10 years, if I don't, if I'm remembering correctly. That's

00:18:22.500 incredible. And that would basically cause the nonproductive migrants to move to, you know, 0.99

00:18:28.880 places like David Eby's BC or Doug Ports, Ontario. Very interesting. I think it would actually

00:18:33.400 cause some copycat changes in other provinces. And we would get immigration reform from provinces

00:18:39.520 as opposed to from the feds. Anyway, very interesting. I was very glad to have that sit

00:18:43.840 down with her. And that was me in Alberta with Premier Danielle Smith. But let me leave you with

00:18:50.840 this. The day before, our chief reporter, Sheila Gunn-Reed, had the same sort of sit down with the

00:18:58.840 Premier of Saskatchewan, Scott Moe, who was so friendly to Rebel. And I guess one of my points

00:19:03.940 is, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, it's perfectly normal for the premiers of those two great provinces

00:19:09.420 to have one-on-one, heart-to-heart conversations with Rebel News. It's only the weird, censorious,

00:19:15.120 you know, mean girls in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal that turn up their noses at Rebel News. It's really

00:19:20.960 weird. There really are two Canadas, aren't there? Anyhow, let me close with Sheila Gunn-Reed's

00:19:26.380 very interesting chat with Scott Moe. I'll come back on the other side, though, and say goodbye.

00:19:34.960 Sheila Gunn-Reed for Rebel News. I'm here in Regina, Saskatchewan, and I am standing in one of the most

00:19:39.580 beautiful legislature buildings that I've ever seen in my entire life. I'm about to sit down with

00:19:44.880 Saskatchewan's Premier, Scott Moe, to discuss firearms, carbon taxes, pipelines, immigration,

00:19:53.140 sex-safe spaces, and more in an end-of-the-year interview, wherein we will discuss his number

00:20:01.280 one issue facing Saskatchewan in 2026. Take a listen. Premier, you were all but wiped out in the

00:20:09.360 cities in the last election. I know one of the key focuses of your party convention was to rebuild

00:20:17.360 the trust of those conservative voters that I think you lost because those people still vote

00:20:24.180 conservative federally. So I guess it's a two-part question. What happened there, and how do you get

00:20:32.580 the trust of those people again? So yeah, you're right. We lost some seats this last election,

00:20:38.580 and when you look across the province of Saskatchewan, we have a number of communities

00:20:42.660 that are going, but we do have our two largest centres, Saskatoon and Regina, and we have some

00:20:46.600 work to do in those two centres. We do have, I think, there's 17 cities now in the province,

00:20:50.440 which is a lot more than we had just a few years ago. We have representation in 16 of those 17 cities,

00:20:56.560 but admittedly, more work to do in light of this last election in our two largest centres,

00:21:01.560 in particular in the suburban areas of those two centres. And we, you know, some of that work

00:21:08.120 is policy work that the government needs to do. Some of that work is party work that we need to do

00:21:14.000 in engaging on the party side as well. And you saw, as we talked the last time, we hosted the

00:21:19.460 largest convention that the Saskatchewan party has ever hosted this particular year. And then I would

00:21:24.300 say some of that work as well is on myself as leader and on our ministers and on those that are

00:21:28.960 speaking on behalf of our party and the government in the, you know, the tone and the engagement that we

00:21:33.580 bring in that policy development and working more closely with people across the province so that

00:21:38.320 the policy that we're bringing forward is not top-down policy, but they have a voice in that

00:21:42.340 policy along the way. And I'll give an example of just that. We'd introduced on the last day of the

00:21:47.920 Legislative Assembly Compassionate Care Intervention Act. That is introduced on that last day for a

00:21:53.540 reason. There's been much consultation that the Minister of Justice and others have led in getting

00:21:57.920 that bill to where it is today. Legal consultation, consultation with the enforcement agencies,

00:22:03.040 with families, which are really driving that particular bill. And all the text of that bill

00:22:07.340 is available for a number of months before we go into spring sitting. People can see it. They can read

00:22:12.300 it and they can phone up their MLA or they can talk to someone in government and have their input on

00:22:17.460 that bill as we head into the spring session. We need to get that bill right so that it is supporting

00:22:22.120 those individuals that unfortunately have fell to a life of addictions and their family

00:22:26.260 wants to reach out and provide them an opportunity for a recovery lifestyle. And so that's one example

00:22:31.660 of changing the tone and how we're introducing a pretty significant piece of legislation. And I

00:22:36.760 would say a necessary piece of legislation as per the family's voices in Saskatchewan that, you know,

00:22:43.760 maybe we would have taken a different approach a couple of years ago. And that's maybe an example

00:22:47.660 of how we've changed that approach this, you know, post that last election and the results that we saw.

00:22:53.020 Just staying on the campaign, and it's something that I wish I had the opportunity to ask you about

00:23:00.500 previously, but in the middle of the campaign, there was some controversy. And I'm not even sure

00:23:09.380 if controversy is the right word, because it felt like it was coming from a certain activist group

00:23:14.100 and then the media, but the people that the policy was intended to help were pretty in favor of it. And that

00:23:20.460 was protecting girls and women's spaces, particularly in schools from boys who may look to use their private

00:23:31.620 spaces. You backtracked on that. And I'm wondering if there's, there has been consultation or space to

00:23:42.740 reconsider that policy. I mean, Alberta is doing this, and they haven't taken their foot off the gas

00:23:47.520 pedal. And it's one of those 80-20 dinner table issues, where it cuts across most political

00:23:53.500 backgrounds. Would you be willing to reintroduce policies that would protect women's spaces,

00:24:00.320 even if it meant putting you on a, you know, a collision course with federally funded activists?

00:24:06.960 So are you referring to the bill on parental rights?

00:24:10.240 Well, in the, in the middle of the election campaign, there was controversy that came out

00:24:16.420 around boys using women's and ladies, girls' bathrooms in schools. And, you know, there was

00:24:23.640 some talk about introducing legislation to protect those spaces for girls, and then you backed right 0.99

00:24:27.840 off.

00:24:28.300 Right, right. The, uh, yeah, so I'll go back to the bill on parental rights and the introduction of that,

00:24:33.580 of which, uh, and then this again gets to, you know, some of the, the discussion around, uh, tone of how

00:24:38.620 the government is moving forward with whether it be policy or legislation or, uh, whatever that might

00:24:43.840 be. And, you know, we had talked about that bill, about, uh, the use of washrooms, whether it be in

00:24:49.040 schools or in public spaces. Uh, the majority of people are pretty clear on what they want to see in

00:24:54.640 that, in that space, uh, moving forward as far as a government policy, whether it's provincial,

00:24:58.940 municipal, or even, you know, recreational facilities in, uh, you know, in, in rural

00:25:03.900 communities, for example, where I live, uh, the, the, you know, the majority of people are pretty

00:25:08.120 clear on that space. The, um, where the tone changed, and I'll come back to the bill on parental

00:25:13.220 rights, is, um, that bill had a high degree of support across, across families in, in the

00:25:18.440 province. Um, that being said, that support, I think, lessened when you have to use tools like

00:25:24.380 the notwithstanding clause in order to ensure, uh, that the courts aren't able to overturn a piece

00:25:30.140 of legislation or policy that's being introduced by a duly elected government. In this case, it's

00:25:35.360 the Saskatchewan party in Alberta, it's the UCP, but we've seen the notwithstanding clause used,

00:25:39.940 uh, the most and literally dozens of times, uh, in Quebec. Right. Uh, is, is where it largely has

00:25:45.620 been used, um, in, in, in the entirety of, of Canadian history. Um, you know, and I'll just go back

00:25:51.120 to that notwithstanding clause. It's a necessary tool. Um, it's part of the constitution to ensure

00:25:56.080 that when there is a collision of, of rights or a collision of discussion, that the notwithstanding

00:26:00.260 clause is there so that, uh, so that duly elected governments today, and I would say into the future,

00:26:05.100 have the ability to, to represent their citizens. And so, you know, as, uh, as we go back, whether

00:26:11.280 it's, uh, conversations around the uses of washrooms in public spaces, whether it's, uh, the bill

00:26:16.000 on parental rights, of which we had a special session and introduced, and ultimately, uh, the,

00:26:20.540 the tool we had left, um, after there was a, a decision by, uh, a justice, uh, a court here

00:26:27.600 in, uh, in, in Saskatchewan was to use that tool to enact that policy on behalf of Saskatchewan

00:26:33.680 people. Uh, you know, getting back to, you know, the performance of this government in

00:26:38.660 the last election, uh, there's a conversation and a consultation and a tone that this government,

00:26:43.460 I think, and what we're attempting to do is to, you know, strike that tone differently

00:26:48.740 on the policy development that we have moving forward. And so, you know, those conversations

00:26:52.660 are ongoing, uh, with respect to, you know, where this government goes in these various

00:26:56.940 spaces. And they're sensitive conversations. They're, they're very sensitive conversations,

00:27:00.640 but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

00:27:04.420 I guess that takes me to my next question, which again, seems to be a sensitive topic for

00:27:09.580 a certain part of this country that, um, immigration and the unconstrained immigration out of Ottawa

00:27:18.340 has really been downloaded onto the provinces. Uh, when you look at it, it's a cost of living

00:27:25.220 crisis. It's a housing crisis. It's a healthcare crisis. It's an education crisis. Is Saskatchewan

00:27:31.660 looking at any means by which to take control of the amount of immigration, be it, or temporary

00:27:40.580 foreign students, temporary foreign workers coming into the province?

00:27:43.980 Yeah. So there's, there's a number of pockets of immigration. The, the, the provinces have,

00:27:48.140 uh, some degree of control over a portion of it and then largely it's, it's federal, but even in

00:27:52.820 that, in that provincial portion, uh, it is federally, uh, governed as it is largely, uh, seems to be in the

00:27:58.400 federal jurisdiction. Um, I would say this about immigration more generally, and it has changed

00:28:02.780 in the last decade, and it is time for us to have a look at our immigration policies across the nation.

00:28:07.340 Uh, and I think some of that work is starting to happen. Uh, there's more that needs to happen.

00:28:11.380 To answer your question, yes, Saskatchewan has repeatedly asked to have, uh, more, uh, decision

00:28:16.440 making power, more jurisdiction in this space. Uh, you know, first to at least have as much as the

00:28:20.860 province of Quebec has, and then to go actually, uh, further and have as much as the province of Quebec

00:28:25.200 is asking for, uh, moving forward. I, I don't know whether the federal government will do that,

00:28:29.520 but we certainly, as a nation, and I think as Canadians, need to look at our immigration policy,

00:28:33.620 uh, nationally if it's not going to be the provinces making, uh, you know, an increased number of those

00:28:38.440 decisions. And here's what I, I would suggest that it needs to be based on. Um, any immigration policy

00:28:43.620 needs to be based on economic immigration almost exclusively. There's, there's going to be some,

00:28:48.520 some refugee status. Um, there's concerns, I think, around, uh, uh, some of the asylum seekers,

00:28:54.680 uh, that are coming into, and Quebec has a great concern in this space, but I think we as Canadians

00:28:58.960 need to as well. And there's your student visas, your federal work permits, and your provincial

00:29:02.940 work permits. Um, it needs to have an economic focus to it. And here's why. It's good for the

00:29:08.500 immigrant, uh, to know that they are coming to a, to a job, um, hopefully to a job that is going to,

00:29:13.880 you know, allow them to aspire to maybe even more than they, uh, were able to aspire to wherever,

00:29:19.260 uh, in whichever country they're coming from. Second, uh, if that immigrant has a family, 0.99

00:29:23.320 uh, and they have a job, uh, they're going to be able to provide for that family in whichever

00:29:27.100 Saskatchewan or Canadian community, uh, where they reside. Third is, uh, it's going to be good

00:29:32.400 for the community. Uh, if someone comes, uh, with their family, uh, they have a job,

00:29:36.240 they're a contributing member to the community, uh, contributing member to the industry of which

00:29:40.020 they're working in. Uh, that's a positive for, for everyone, uh, around involved, but most importantly

00:29:45.520 for that immigrant and his family, for the community where they reside in Saskatchewan

00:29:49.600 or Canada. And ultimately I would say that's going to be a strength for Saskatchewan and our

00:29:54.740 province or any province and, and the nation of Canada. Uh, all of that being said, when you get

00:30:00.060 outside of the parameters of that very focused economic migration or economic immigration, uh,

00:30:05.280 that's where you start to get, uh, large numbers that, uh, may not be contributing economically in

00:30:10.800 that way to their community, uh, and ultimately to the province and not to the, then the services

00:30:16.020 that, you know, we'd talked about before the healthcare, the housing, uh, all of these

00:30:19.920 challenges that we see happening in community after community across Canada, um, not exclusively

00:30:25.000 due to, you know, a larger proportion of non-economic migration into our nation. Um, but I think in

00:30:31.960 fairness, a part of that is, is what has contributed to some of these concerns.

00:30:36.120 Next question on firearms. Now, Saskatchewan has been really leading the way and I say this as

00:30:42.580 an Albertan, you really have been, uh, and doing innovative things like creating an agency and

00:30:48.480 then not funding that agency to assist in the, or to license, uh, organizations that want to be

00:30:54.560 involved in Mark Carney's gun grab. Now, your latest policy proposal to help insulate firearms owners

00:31:01.960 from potential criminality, um, by storing and securing those firearms. I've seen some criticisms of this

00:31:11.080 insofar as, well, you're the government, I'm going to give the government my guns. That seems like a

00:31:17.920 problem. And now the federal government has them all in one spot. So are there any fail-safes or have

00:31:24.140 you considered fail-safes in that legislation to prevent the feds from just going, okay, thank you.

00:31:29.660 You have them. Now we do.

00:31:32.500 This is, this is going to become challenging. And I see just this morning, uh, this, uh, implementation

00:31:37.220 is delayed until next year. I suspect, uh, that's because the minister is finding some challenges in

00:31:43.240 the operations of, you know, what I think is a severely flawed plan and not a plan that is in

00:31:48.480 any way indicative of the wishes of at least Western Canadians. And I would say, uh, you know,

00:31:52.380 more largely, I think you'd find Canadians that aren't supportive of this policy. The first time

00:31:56.800 it was trying to be introduced a number of years ago and, uh, and even now. Um, so a lot of our policy

00:32:02.220 in Saskatchewan is reactive to protect, uh, you know, hunters and firearm owners rights in this

00:32:07.700 province. And so we are only able to go so far in this, in this space as it is federal jurisdiction,

00:32:13.800 but there are a number of things that we are doing to, um, to, to, to protect as best we can,

00:32:19.460 uh, firearm owners in this province. And so I, I would first say, yes, we have a, uh, you, you,

00:32:24.300 you can't, no one is going to come get the firearms in Saskatchewan. Uh, if you have a firearm

00:32:28.640 that's deemed illegal, that's the first piece is you need a provincial permit in order to go

00:32:33.260 collect those firearms. And that, uh, permit allocation department in the government of

00:32:38.020 Saskatchewan is unfunded and will not be funded in the foreseeable future. Second to that, um,

00:32:42.960 the legislation or the, uh, the, uh, the, the discussion we had around assessing the value

00:32:47.840 of those firearms, uh, first, when they're deemed illegal, the value of those firearms is going to

00:32:52.740 decline. And, uh, we don't want individuals if, if they're going to turn those guns in

00:32:58.280 voluntarily, uh, to experience that decline because of federal policy, they should actually

00:33:03.340 be paid for what the original value of that firearm is. And so that is, uh, protecting firearms owners

00:33:08.760 that may want to turn their gun in. I don't suspect that'll be very many in Saskatchewan,

00:33:12.640 but here, herein lies the trouble and herein lies, uh, the, the, the challenge that we don't

00:33:16.620 have a solution for as of yet. Uh, when the letters go out, if they do in the new year,

00:33:21.540 if the government, federal government actually moves on this policy, um, you don't have to turn

00:33:26.360 your firearm in in Saskatchewan because no one's going to come get it. However, the letters will

00:33:30.860 very clearly state that with the implementation of this, this legislation federally, uh, that you're,

00:33:37.640 you're now participating in a criminal act as per the federal government. Now I suspect at some point

00:33:42.860 there'll be a government that changes this policy. And so it won't be a criminal act forever. It would

00:33:46.660 be my suspicions. Uh, however, uh, for the time being, that may be a problem for some individuals that

00:33:53.400 are in professional careers. And we wanted to protect the value of their firearms, uh, should

00:33:57.840 they choose to do something different? And then actually, uh, if we can store them provincially,

00:34:02.580 uh, until such time that they, the policy might be changed by a future government, and then they

00:34:07.620 could be returned to those individuals as well. This is, I think most important, uh, actually for,

00:34:12.340 you know, there are some firearms that are family heirlooms. Uh, they're not just a, a tangible value.

00:34:18.320 They actually have a much greater value to, um, you know, the individuals, uh, and, and in that

00:34:23.340 family. And we want to protect those guns from being taken away as well. And so if we can store

00:34:27.960 them for a period of time of when they can rightfully, maybe this policy change and they

00:34:31.540 can be returned to that family, uh, we're going to do what we can to do that.

00:34:35.720 Now I want to talk to you about the canola tariffs, which are treated far different than the

00:34:43.260 steel tariffs, uh, despite the value of the canola industry. I suspect that's because the

00:34:50.400 Carney government knows there are no votes to gain or lose out here if they treated the canola

00:34:55.320 industry fairly. But given that we are seeing the complete and total collapse of the electric

00:35:02.400 vehicle industry, what Ford is, you know, committing to end the EV F-150. Um, do you see

00:35:12.740 an end to the liberal tariffs on Chinese EVs that Western Canadian farmers are paying the price for?

00:35:22.720 Yes. Um, and I, I, I just don't know when, and the sooner the better. And the, uh, the challenge

00:35:28.540 with the EV tariff with China, and we would promote removing it all. However, I would like to know what

00:35:33.520 the president of the United States is going to say about that if we should do it. As you know, that is

00:35:37.120 a, uh, a, uh, an indirect consequence of the former, uh, prime minister, as I say, he should not be

00:35:42.920 named, uh, is, uh, in his policy of putting a hundred percent tariff on EV cars coming from China

00:35:48.380 with the Biden administration. Um, we have three trading partners right now that are relevant to

00:35:54.500 Saskatchewan and Canada, our largest trading partners, United States, China, and India. Uh, we have tariffs or

00:36:00.700 market access issues with all three of those most significant economies in the world, uh, and export

00:36:06.580 based destinations for, for our province. In fact, you know, about 40 billion of our 45 or $50 billion

00:36:12.880 of exports in this province are going largely to those three markets. And then the rest will go to

00:36:17.220 markets, uh, around other, other places around the world. So this is a problem. Uh, and there are

00:36:22.320 direct consequences to the decisions that we make and indirect consequences to those decisions that

00:36:26.520 we're making. Uh, and I would say actually, and this might surprise you a bit is, is our Canadian

00:36:31.260 government has to do better with respect to not pitting industries against industries and do better

00:36:38.740 in representing, uh, essentially where the value is and where the jobs are in these industries across

00:36:44.840 Canada. And also understanding, uh, which industries are operating under, you know, some degree of market

00:36:51.100 protection or a subsidy, because I would say those are not sustainable moving forward. Um, and which ones are

00:36:56.120 not. And when you look at Saskatchewan agriculture or Western Canadian agriculture, uh, we are not

00:37:02.000 operating under any, uh, protection subsidies or anything of that nature outside of some of the

00:37:06.300 supply managed industries and their conversation coming, I'm sure there with the United States.

00:37:11.140 However, uh, the, the grain and the beef industries in, in our province and in our nation are among the

00:37:16.420 most efficient in the world operating without subsidies. And we can compete in any country around the

00:37:20.900 world, given a fair, a fair, uh, a fair environment, a fair trading environment.

00:37:25.440 Um, when you look at some of the manufacturing industries and what's happening in other

00:37:29.700 countries around the world, I think it's fair to say that we're struggling to be competitive in

00:37:33.260 that space. And so we need to shift, uh, we need to shift, uh, with respect to, you know, how we are

00:37:39.920 supporting the industries and which industries are actually going to be, uh, you know, employing

00:37:44.800 Canadians. Uh, and in our case, we're concerned about Saskatchewan and Western Canadians, uh, are going to be 0.81

00:37:49.800 employing the people that we represent, uh, three, five, 10, 20 years out. And I think that's going to look

00:37:54.660 different in Canada than what it would rise today. And that's maybe a statement that no one has said

00:37:58.420 publicly yet, but it's one that I think we, maybe we've all been thinking about.

00:38:02.380 Yeah. I mean, wouldn't it be great if we just let Algoma build Canadian pipelines?

00:38:08.520 Yeah.

00:38:09.040 Wouldn't that be something?

00:38:09.820 Yeah, that would work. That would work.

00:38:11.100 Now, I want to talk to you about, uh, what we call in Alberta, the sort of elephant in the room.

00:38:19.020 And that is the separatism issue. Now, I don't think that the separatist sentiment is quite as

00:38:25.920 high in Saskatchewan as it is in Alberta, but I think it is a thing here. And, you know,

00:38:32.700 I think it was probably a conscious choice to not discuss it at the Sask party convention,

00:38:39.920 but I've seen, uh, polling that shows that it's anywhere from 25 to 33% of people in Saskatchewan

00:38:50.480 have some, some form, whatever that means of separatist sentiment. And I would suspect that

00:38:55.560 every single one of those people is within the Saskatchewan party. So what, how do you deal with that?

00:39:02.340 Do you, do you take the Daniel Smith approach and say, you know, it's not for me to decide,

00:39:07.020 it's for the people of Saskatchewan to decide, or do you try to contain it?

00:39:12.240 Um, all of those things. Uh, and I, I, I would say just first of all, uh, the, one of the very

00:39:17.440 founding principles of this party is to build a, you know, a strong Saskatchewan, a strong province

00:39:21.460 within a united Canada. Um, given the last 10 years, uh, of where we have seen these policies being

00:39:27.120 imposed on, uh, us as a province by the former prime minister and his government,

00:39:32.100 that has been very, very challenging. Um, and you know, my self, I have felt, you know,

00:39:36.760 these feelings of frustration, if you will, as we see policies that are impacting industries that

00:39:41.640 are employing people and have built our, our communities in Saskatchewan and Alberta and

00:39:46.300 Manitoba and British Columbia for, you know, not decades, but over a century, the oil industry,

00:39:51.120 the mining industry, uh, we see now, uh, using that technology in Saskatchewan and the lithium,

00:39:55.440 helium industry, uh, and others, we have, uh, you know, uranium, we have potash,

00:39:59.340 we have a copper now, um, and expansion of, of all of those industries with new mines that are

00:40:04.320 in the hopper, uh, and are attracting investment today. And so to have those industries that are

00:40:09.480 employing Saskatchewan people hindered, there's a lot of frustration that pours out. Um, and from

00:40:14.060 myself as well, you've seen over the course of the last decade. Um, that being said, uh, you know,

00:40:19.920 and I talk about, you should, you should, you, I hear people talk about Saskatchewan, you know,

00:40:23.780 separating and these sorts of things. And I'm not sure exactly what we gain in that with respect

00:40:27.740 to market access. I'm not sure what we exactly gain, uh, in that, in, uh, us being able to access

00:40:33.300 in a more free way, uh, you know, a Northwest port, whether it be for Saskatchewan and Alberta oil,

00:40:37.920 or whether it be, uh, um, the more port capacity for, you know, the grain products and the potash

00:40:43.600 products that are going through the port of Vancouver. Um, we're seeing now that Saskatchewan

00:40:48.340 companies and industries are actually making that investment outside of Canada, uh, to access the

00:40:52.920 world, most notably in Washington and the port of Oregon and in that space. And, you know, that,

00:40:57.940 that's one of our largest concerns actually from this province is how do we actually, uh, sell our

00:41:02.540 food, fuel, and fertilizer to those hundred, hundred and sixty countries, uh, around the world. And so

00:41:06.660 I take actually a little bit of a different view, uh, in that sphere, uh, with the current prime

00:41:12.780 minister. And I won't agree. And I don't agree with the current prime minister on, on a number of

00:41:16.840 things. Um, and I think that will become evident in the weeks and months ahead. However, where we can agree,

00:41:21.660 uh, what we're trying to do is to, to bring things forward to a point of resolution. Um, and you,

00:41:27.460 I'll back up to, uh, we had a Western Canadian, a Western premier's meeting and a first minister's

00:41:31.720 meeting in Saskatoon. And the language coming out of that meeting was about a port to port corridor

00:41:35.780 opening up European and, uh, and Asian markets. That's a good thing for Western Canada. Manitoba is

00:41:41.540 all over the potential LNG, uh, going to the, you know, the Churchill port, if you will, accessing those

00:41:46.920 European markets. I think the prime minister is supportive of that. That's Alberta, uh, British

00:41:51.420 Columbia and LNG that would be finding its way, uh, that way. But if you're supportive

00:41:55.120 of that concept, and I would say the premier of British Columbia signed on to that concept

00:42:00.160 at that meeting. Um, if you're supportive of that concept, it also means getting the value

00:42:05.240 of, of Alberta oil, largely a little bit of Saskatchewan oil getting out to that Northwest

00:42:10.020 port. And if we're not able to do that, um, we have larger troubles than, than any talk

00:42:15.260 of separation is going to, is, is going to rectify. Um, we have to have a larger talk about

00:42:22.280 how us as Saskatchewan and, and, and Alberta to some, both of us on different products at

00:42:26.960 times actually ensure our economic independence moving forward. If we are going to be stymied

00:42:32.380 and not have access to Canadian ports, we have a much larger challenge, uh, to talk about

00:42:36.780 than, than us just, you know, separating. We have to talk about how are we going to be,

00:42:41.040 um, economically independent, uh, years into the future, which is, I think a bit of a different

00:42:46.760 discussion. Uh, and as Canadians, I hope, and as a Canadian, I, I don't think we want to go

00:42:52.120 into that discussion on where Saskatchewan and Alberta are, you know, actively looking at

00:42:57.060 partnerships that are going to allow us to get our products to market because we're not able to

00:43:00.560 get them to a Canadian port. That would be a sad day for us as Canadians. I think the prime

00:43:04.640 minister in fairness has identified, uh, that this is an area where the federal government needs to do

00:43:09.900 better. And I would point to, although not perfect, I think from both sides, uh, the,

00:43:14.340 the recent MOU that was signed with, with the province of Alberta. And I, I know there's,

00:43:19.000 you know, folks that can poke holes in that or quit cabinet on, on both sides of that discussion.

00:43:24.060 Um, but I think it is an example of coming together, a province and the national government.

00:43:28.080 We haven't seen this in over a decade where we were focusing on agreeing where we can agree

00:43:32.900 and moving forward in those spaces. That's different than anything we've seen in a decade. And I would say

00:43:38.820 that's a positive for this discussion at the very least. I hope we're able to build on that. Um, but

00:43:44.980 at the end of the day, we have, you know, we have an oil industry that's creating value for,

00:43:49.220 for Albertans. And I would say for Canada, Canadians through, uh, through the equalization payments,

00:43:53.700 uh, that flow across this nation, which is another flawed discussion. Um, uh, and we have industries in

00:43:59.580 this province that are, you know, expanding and expanding greatly, and we're going to need additional

00:44:03.960 port access and we can't have, uh, you know, a British Columbia government, uh, standing in the

00:44:09.740 way of us, you know, creating Canadian value in other provinces. I just want to push back on that

00:44:14.640 for a second, premier. And I know, I realize we're running out of time, but is that you, you point to

00:44:20.980 the MOU, but is that MOU worth anything when the liberals voted against the wording of it, when, uh,

00:44:31.240 a motion was introduced by conservatives drawing from the language of the MOU. So,

00:44:36.400 I mean, we can point to the MOU all we want, but it appears to be just theater. So I guess my

00:44:42.260 question to you is then what's the or else, what's the or else if the federal government doesn't meet

00:44:47.860 its obligations within the confines of Confederation? Yeah. I noticed that vote in the

00:44:52.580 House as well. I, I, you know, it struck me as odd and maybe some, uh, political cover internally on,

00:44:57.600 on the, on the various parties, uh, that were involved in it. Uh, you know, here's what I think

00:45:03.200 the MOU, uh, provides us in the short term, uh, the ability to open up the discussion on expanding

00:45:09.420 the TMX pipeline that is there, opening up the discussion around expanding the, the, the,

00:45:13.460 the capacity immediately. Uh, and I think we can get to that discussion a lot quicker than we can

00:45:17.500 even get and find a route and do all of the consultation that are necessary on a new,

00:45:21.760 on a new line. However, that work needs to be happening simultaneously. The other, uh,

00:45:26.560 opportunity I think that the MOU provides is to open up. And I think the United States of America,

00:45:31.680 from the conversations I've had with, uh, various secretaries down there is open up and really

00:45:36.100 advance the discussion around the KXL pipeline as well, uh, which is going to provide all of us

00:45:41.380 in Western Canada, whether it be the oil sands, whether it be British Columbia oil or Saskatchewan

00:45:45.680 oil, uh, a higher degree of egress capacity, both to the coast and to the world and to those Asian 1.00

00:45:50.700 markets, but also to, uh, to the United States as well. So I, I think that's the short-term gains

00:45:55.980 that the MOU actually opens up. And those discussions have been somewhat stagnant, uh,

00:46:00.300 recently. And now they're very much in the, in the short-term, I think, uh, realm of possibility.

00:46:06.100 Um, but while those two discussions are happening and action is happening in those space to create

00:46:10.460 some additional egress capacity, uh, we also need to be doing the work and it's years of work,

00:46:15.120 as we know, uh, to, uh, to advance that Northwest pipeline. Again, if we truly want to, as the

00:46:21.620 Prime Minister says, advance beyond, uh, the Americans, uh, for our export markets. If we

00:46:27.260 truly want to, uh, become one of, you know, an energy superpower, or we want to become, uh, one

00:46:33.640 of the strongest economies in the G7, which are all Prime Minister Carney's words, there is no path

00:46:39.300 forward without advancing the egress capacity for that we have for the energy industry. Uh, there's no

00:46:47.060 possibility of us achieving any of those goals, those aspirational goals that Prime Minister Carney

00:46:51.620 has set without in a large way, um, increasing that egress capacity, increasing the mining capacity

00:47:00.280 that we have, all of the things that are creating wealth, uh, and consequently are, are funding the,

00:47:05.080 the entire equalization system that we have in this nation. Last question, Premier, number one issue

00:47:11.060 facing Saskatchewan in 2026? What is it? I would say, uh, for us locally in Saskatchewan is,

00:47:18.420 uh, and we're very focused on this, is improving, uh, healthcare, specifically improving people's

00:47:23.000 access to a primary care provider, uh, and, uh, the time that we have to a surgery. Now we're doing

00:47:28.440 all right relative to other provinces in that space. However, that isn't the goal. The goal is to,

00:47:35.160 to actually deliver a healthcare system in this province that, uh, the people of this province come to

00:47:40.360 expect. So there's other issues, affordability, cost of living, uh, what's happening in our

00:47:44.940 education sector, uh, with respect to our K to three outcomes, community safety, a significant

00:47:49.540 issue. And we're very much working alongside with Alberta on the recovery oriented system of care,

00:47:54.760 increasing enforcement, taking the drugs away from, uh, you know, those individuals that have this

00:47:59.140 poisonous substance in our communities. And it's, it's literally killing our friends and family

00:48:03.620 members and it's awful and it's changed and we need to change how we approach it. But I would say

00:48:07.560 the number one issue for us in this province and, you know, back to not just our urban centers,

00:48:12.520 but every family across Saskatchewan is, do I have access to a, to a primary healthcare provider?

00:48:17.840 And, um, and do I have access to a surgery if I need it in a timely manner? And we're going to have

00:48:22.360 the answers to those questions over the course of this next year. Um, we have a base of hiring that

00:48:27.880 is happening in the healthcare system. Uh, now, uh, you're going to see in the next number of months

00:48:32.600 going into the next year, a very open discussion. Uh, you're seeing some of it in Alberta recently,

00:48:37.320 too, but a very open discussion about, uh, delivering healthcare in a very innovative way,

00:48:42.000 a different way, uh, and always putting the patient, uh, at the very center of that discussion

00:48:47.460 and the service that that patient expects and is able to be provided. So that's maybe not the answer

00:48:51.900 you expected with the, you know, the broader, you know, economic, uh, headwinds that we maybe have

00:48:57.140 and how Saskatchewan is, uh, you know, managing our way through all of those, uh, uh, you know,

00:49:02.360 advancing our economy. So we're able to make these investments, but it is actually, uh, a space where,

00:49:08.220 uh, you know, this government and the cabinet that meets in the room next to us here are very,

00:49:12.460 very focused on. And that's, like I say, that isn't probably what you expected, but it's a focus

00:49:16.800 that this government has. Premier, thank you for taking the time to speak with me today and Merry

00:49:21.580 Christmas. Hey, Sheila, I just say, uh, thank you as well. You attended our convention.

00:49:25.120 Thank you, uh, for, uh, for that. Uh, thank you for what you do as well, uh, with Rebel News and just

00:49:30.980 being a voice. Um, uh, there's many of us as Canadians don't agree on everything, but there's

00:49:36.480 a large number of things that we do agree on. And it's good, I think in, even in the realms of

00:49:41.380 the media that's being reported, that we have different voices in that media reporting from

00:49:46.200 different perspectives. And I think that's a very, very important. And I think Rebel News, uh, you know,

00:49:50.780 brings, uh, one of those perspectives to the, uh, to, to the people, um, in, in, whether it be

00:49:56.660 Saskatchewan, Alberta, or across Canada. Um, but with that as well, I wish you and your family a

00:50:00.620 Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and all of your viewers, uh, very Merry Christmas. And I hope that,

00:50:06.000 uh, each of them have some time to reflect and, and just, you know, reflect on why they can be

00:50:10.220 thankful this season. I know that's how I'm going to spend my Christmas. Thank you. Thank you.

00:50:15.360 Many of the bold conservative ideas that are being adopted in other places across

00:50:22.020 the country are born here in Saskatchewan. That's why it's so important for us to keep a careful eye

00:50:29.120 on what happens here to help offset the cost of our journey here. Please go to rebelfieldreports.com.

00:50:37.240 What do you think? I was really happy to see Sheila there. She's an Albertan at heart, of course,

00:50:41.260 but I think Alberta and Saskatchewan, well, they're twins, right? They were born on the same day,

00:50:46.560 September 1st, 1905. There's so many similar things about them. I think Sheila is sort of an

00:50:50.980 honorary Saskatchewan, uh, yeah, at heart, I'll say. Anyways, uh, big week for Rebel News,

00:50:58.200 interviewing big shots. That's our show for today. Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at

00:51:03.380 Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night, and keep fighting for freedom. 0.93

00:51:07.060 Shame on you, you censorious bug. 0.84

Rebel News Podcast - December 18, 2025

EZRA LEVANT ｜ Pushing back against Ottawa overreach： A feature interview with Danielle Smith

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript