00:05:10.000So what we're saying is, well, great, that's the way we are.
00:05:13.840I propose that that is actually the future
00:05:16.240because generally the free world is going into that direction
00:05:20.420where there's more and more participation.
00:05:22.460So why don't we actually put it into a document,
00:05:25.400memorialize it, tell the rest of the country,
00:05:27.040and that this is what we want, and particularly get on side our neighbors.
00:05:31.860Like British Columbia, we talk about, you know, as much as Alberta has a unique character,
00:05:36.900you know, BC is probably more individualistic than we are in Alberta.
00:05:41.140And so let's, and they have a huge land issue and a duty to consult issue.
00:05:46.240So let's address all those issues, put it into a document and propose it.
00:05:51.740And that's what we talk about, about reconfederating Canada.
00:05:55.000Okay, that's very interesting. You also talk about in the participatory democracy podcast about the differences between Canada and the US and how this relates to why Canada would do well to adopt this type of democracy. So why don't you talk about what are like the differences between the two countries?
00:06:18.440So what we boil it down to is that the United States is, you know, there's a whole bunch of similarities, particularly in Alberta, you know, to the western part of the United States.
00:06:30.000So there's, you know, regional characters and, you know, those things all need to be respected.
00:06:36.800And I think that it emerges from, you know, the United States has had 250 years of constitutional structure, which is basically like everything ends up in a court because the Supreme Court is, the court system is the highest order of democracy.
00:06:55.840We don't have that history, although the 1982 constitution has tried to change us.
00:07:00.860But our history was that we were just people and we had to work out our things together.
00:07:51.780And then part of that rules-based society is that there's first the rules, then there's adjudication of the rules, and then there's enforcement of the rules.
00:08:01.600On the Canadian side, because we're principle-based, even in front of Canadian judges, they still say, okay, what were the circumstances under which you made that decision, whatever the action is?
00:08:15.180And were you reasonably successful in thinking about the principles that we hold dear?
00:08:26.340And then, so the net result of that is, you know,
00:08:30.420those two societies go down very different paths.
00:08:33.320And the net result is that, number one,
00:08:36.180Americans have an incarceration rate in jails that's about five times Canada's rate.
00:08:42.200So for every 100 people in jail per capita, for every 100 people per capita in Canada that are in jail, there's 500 in the US.
00:08:53.820So that's that enforcement side of it.
00:08:57.340Number two is that they have actually used enforcement and this rules-based law to actually do things that are outside of their stated morals.0.72
00:09:10.680So, for example, their constitution says all men are created equal, but somehow they made rules that enslaved African-Americans for the first hundred years.
00:09:23.560And then after the Civil War, when they brought in the 13th and 14th Amendments that were supposed to specifically say, yes, all men are in fact equal.
00:09:37.440the South figured out a way of getting around
00:14:13.520Put the sovereignty at the people and then it can designate what the rights and responsibilities
00:14:20.320of the governments are, and the governments, the bureaucracy, and the judiciary.
00:14:25.600And so the first step of that is to define the rights of the individual, but also their
00:14:30.700responsibilities, responsibilities to each other. And so the sovereignty is that with the
00:14:35.580individual, we define as well as basis, as well as we can. And I propose that we define them as
00:14:42.660absolute rights, not conditional rights. Again, the constitution, it extends, the government
00:14:52.300extends to us rights, but they are conditional. And it doesn't say who determines what those
00:14:58.740conditions are. And so the thing with Jordan Peterson, the courts decided that his college
00:15:12.080of physicians had the right to determine what his rights were, which is incredible, but that's
00:15:18.400what the courts are deciding. So we're saying, go the other way, have all the rights that are
00:15:23.180absolute rights and responsibilities with the citizens. And then through these guilds,
00:15:29.660they measure, they protect it. And then the people actually, they empower directly
00:15:37.680the governments, the bureaucracy, and the judiciary. And so they can change it as they
00:15:44.920wish over the years as we go forward. Okay, that's cool. Okay, so last question.
00:15:51.420Why don't you talk a little bit about your upcoming episode, Episode 16, that's coming out on Tuesday.
00:15:57.100So in Episode 16, we are putting our third proposal on the table.
00:16:02.320And we're very concerned that we don't want the voice of change to be lost.
00:16:10.960If the referendum goes to stay in Canada, which the polls indicate that they would, that that's the direction we're going in, we don't want that to be the end of the story.
00:16:21.000We want, you know, 75% of Albertans want change, and so let's go there.
00:16:28.140And so what we're proposing is that our leaders take us to a discussion about the Constitution
00:16:36.220and start doing these citizen assemblies, what have you,
00:16:39.480and ultimately ending up where we actually have a choice and possibly a referendum.
00:16:45.340um you know there's benefits to uh to there's direct benefits and we've talked about this i
00:16:51.980think in episode five or six uh if we actually uh vote on the referendum which is a vote we should
00:16:58.880have had a long time ago uh we can actually recover unemployment insurance and that would
00:17:04.300actually bring back of the excessive transfers it would bring back five billion dollars per year