The Critical Compass Podcast - July 31, 2025


Alberta Government Engaging in Obstructionism Against Independence Vote？ w⧸ Jeff Rath

＂Diversity is Fundamentally a WEAKNESS＂ - Daniel Tyrie on How Remigration Can Fix Canada Jeff Rath： ＂Canada is a ROTTING CORPSE and Albertans are Tired of Being Chained to It＂

Episode Stats


Length

5 minutes

Words per minute

182.02

Word count

913

Sentence count

37

People

Also mentioned:
Gordon McClure Mitch Sylvester Mickey Amory Ava Chipiuk Jeff Ross Lukasik Smith

Harmful content

Misogyny

2

sentences flagged

Toxicity

4

sentences flagged


Summary

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

In this episode, we discuss the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on a citizen-led petition to have a constitutional question placed on a referendum ballot in Alberta, and the government's attempt to block it. We also hear from Ava Chipiak and Ava's husband, former Supreme Court Justice David Chipiak, who argue that the question should be allowed on the ballot.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
00:00:00.000 Gordon McClure, the Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta, referred Mitch Sylvester's question
00:00:09.220 specifically, do you agree that Alberta should become a sovereign country and cease to be a
00:00:15.120 province of Canada, to the court to determine whether that question is unconstitutional
00:00:21.760 and whether it offends various provisions of the Charter and Section 35.1 of the Constitution
00:00:28.380 Act, right? It's a pretty silly application. You know, we're talking about getting signatures on 0.85
00:00:33.960 a petition. How does that threaten anybody's rights? How does that offend the treaty right?
00:00:37.980 You know, getting signatures on a petition, because that's all we're talking about doing,
00:00:41.380 right? So the whole application is silly, but, you know, obviously they're trying to delay.
00:00:48.120 They put forward to the courts, oh my goodness, you know, well, the electoral officer takes no
00:00:53.320 position with regard to this application because he's objective and unbiased. We think there should
00:00:58.800 be two amicus curiae appointed. We've selected a lawyer from the Reynolds Murph firm and a university
00:01:04.220 professor from the University of Alberta, and we should have a two-week period of advertising
00:01:08.880 so that we can have interveners from all over the province join into this dogfight over nothing,
00:01:14.200 right? So that's what they're trying to do is they're just basically trying to tie us up in red
00:01:18.760 tape and, you know, and prevent us from moving forward. I was actually pleased to see that
00:01:24.160 Premier Smith and Mickey Amory came out today and announced that they think that the electoral
00:01:29.740 officer should withdraw his question to the court because it's anti-democratic and flies in the face
00:01:35.980 of the intention of the legislature to allow Albertans to have a say on issues like this.
00:01:41.520 But again, for us, I like that. You know, I mean, I'm a litigator, so it's like, oh, don't throw
00:01:45.860 me in that prior patch. Oh, I hate being in a courtroom. You know, like, oh, don't make me
00:01:50.300 argue constitutional law. I'm really no good at it after 35 years and winning cases all the way to
00:01:55.640 the Supreme Court and back. Don't send me to a courtroom, right? So, you know, so we, you know,
00:02:01.240 we find that aspect of it kind of amusing. But, you know, think about how dumb that is, right? Like, 0.99
00:02:06.280 oh, well, does asking a question or asking your fellow citizens to sign a petition to have a
00:02:12.000 question on a referendum ballot offend the constitutionally protected rights of another
00:02:17.580 citizen? How the hell could that offend anybody else's constitutionally protected rights? How
00:02:22.560 does that offend a treaty right? It sounds like something a leftist would say, like Lukasik.
00:02:27.060 Yeah, I mean, it has nothing to do with treaty rights. I mean, we don't even, treaty rights aren't
00:02:30.940 even engaged until, you know, we actually get all of the signatures that we need. We have a referendum
00:02:37.460 and the majority of citizens vote yes. And the government of Alberta decides to do something
00:02:43.540 about it. Because after the equalization referendum, we saw how good the government of Alberta is at
00:02:49.060 ignoring the clear wishes of the majority of its citizens in and around, you know, a matter like
00:02:54.720 equalization. They've done nothing about it. So, you know, it wouldn't be until the government of
00:02:59.320 Alberta decided to start negotiating with Canada over independence. And then in the context of that,
00:03:05.580 Alberta decided to ignore Aboriginal people and say, screw you. We don't need to consult with you. 0.99
00:03:10.980 We don't need to talk to you. We're going to treat you like, you know, we're going to treat you like
00:03:14.780 it's 1990 all over again and not talk to you anymore. Just like we did before Jeff Rass started
00:03:20.640 beating us up and winning all those cases against us in court. You know, we'll just roll the clock back
00:03:25.380 50 years and that's what we're going to do. I mean, at that point, people could say, yeah, that's
00:03:29.560 unconstitutional and there should be a remedy. But to tell people that simply, you know, wanting to get
00:03:35.140 signatures on a petition to ask a question offends the Constitution. I mean, the very fact that
00:03:40.240 they're doing this offends our constitutional rights to freedom of expression, democratic rights,
00:03:46.800 freedom of assembly, and so on. So our democratic right to have a citizen-led petition just happens
00:03:53.620 to be on a question that may interact with the Constitution once it's fully fleshed out.
00:03:59.560 But if you look at the act and if you look at the form, right, that you fill out, is this a
00:04:07.380 constitutional question or a non-constitutional question, right? Clearly, this is a constitutional
00:04:13.520 question, right? And we're moving forward accordingly. But how can asking a constitutional
00:04:19.520 question be unconstitutional? You know, I'm still trying to get my head around it. I mean,
00:04:25.180 Ava Chipiak and I have been working on it all afternoon. And we've actually, to be quite honest,
00:04:30.740 we've been having a lot of fun with it because we actually think that it's a pretty silly position 0.80
00:04:35.280 for them to put forward. And I really appreciate, actually, the opportunity that they've now given
00:04:41.500 us to be able to talk about this for the next month, you know, as to why it is that we need
00:04:45.940 to be independent so that we can have a constitution that will prevent left-wing bureaucrats like 0.98
00:04:51.740 Gordon McClure, you know, playing these silly games, you know, in a manner that
00:04:56.840 completely disrespects the democratic rights of citizens of Alberta.