Western Standard - December 20, 2025


Scott Moe Christmas Interview： Trade, Immigration, and the State of Public Safety

Topics
trade negotiations potash negotiations immigration challenges recovery treatment legislation bail reform trade challenges
Mentioned
Mark Carney Alan Blakeney Danielle Smith Tim McLeod Scott Moe Brad Wall Kearney Besant Lutnik Trojan Fraser Chris Lutna Biden Greer
Alberta RCMP arrest 14 priority offenders in recent province-wide blitz CORY MORGAN SHOW： Race based policies are sinking Canada

Episode Stats


Length

30 minutes

Words per minute

172.21

Word count

5,243

Sentence count

214

Harmful content

Misogyny

2

sentences flagged

Hate speech

1

sentences flagged


Summary

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

In this episode, Premier Scott Moe talks about his recent trip to Washington, D.C. to meet with three different trade negotiators. He also talks about the importance of trade with China and India, and why he believes Canada should continue to engage in trade negotiations with them.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
Topics generated with Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct.
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.000 Welcome to the Western Standard Christmas interview with Premier Scott Moe.
00:00:16.400 Welcome and thank you for your time.
00:00:18.400 Hey, thank you for your time, Chris.
00:00:20.300 So let's talk about trade.
00:00:21.980 Sure.
00:00:22.800 You were recently in Washington, D.C.
00:00:24.840 I was.
00:00:25.280 And you met with three different trade wrappers.
00:00:27.980 All right, that's...
00:00:30.000 some of which Dominic LeBlanc could not get meetings with.
00:00:34.340 How did you end up getting a meeting with those three individuals,
00:00:38.760 particularly Lutna, because he's kind of the top of the food chain there?
00:00:42.320 How did that come about?
00:00:45.680 Well, you know, it's about building relationships.
00:00:50.060 And whether that's with the previous Biden administration,
00:00:53.940 Trump administration, or even other countries,
00:00:56.140 and it's different in the U.S. and different under those two administrations,
00:01:00.000 as it is in a country like China or India.
00:01:03.280 And, uh, you know, we've been fortunate to be committed as a province to this for
00:01:07.200 longer than I've been in this position under former premier, uh, Brad Wall was very committed
00:01:11.840 to, you know, building those long-term trade relations with countries that, uh, um, you
00:01:17.280 know, are specifically impactful to Saskatchewan.
00:01:20.880 And so, you know, first and foremost, I would say what you do in years when it seems like
00:01:26.000 things are doing well in the way of engaging matter, uh, when things get bumpy.
00:01:30.000 and things are bumpy now, and I would say that Saskatchewan is one of the provinces,
00:01:34.880 maybe not the only, but maybe the brightest example of a province that has never lost
00:01:41.680 the commitment to engaging during the times of plenty, so that we have those relationships to
00:01:48.320 draw on in the leaner times. And I think that would be first and foremost why Saskatchewan is
00:01:55.320 able to really lead the path, hopefully back to the negotiating table with the Americans.
00:02:01.280 Been able to lead the path back to the negotiating table with China. And I think is very much at the
00:02:07.580 center of leading the path back to what would hopefully be a brighter trade future with a
00:02:15.240 country like India as well. And these three meetings that you had, how long were they? How
00:02:20.600 many people were in them? And what was the sort of the major things discussed? Because like just
00:02:26.680 this past week they started talking about bilateral agreements and not renewing the, you know, the
00:02:31.840 free trade agreement between the three countries and stuff like that. Yeah. Did they hint at that
00:02:35.680 at all? Did they talk about it? Or is this something that just. Yeah, no, not in those
00:02:40.540 particular meetings. However, as you remember, when we came to the close of the original USMCA
00:02:46.660 agreement. Others talk about bilateral agreements and such. And I know in fairness, in the lead up
00:02:54.020 in a few months ago, it was, you know, some Canadian leaders that were talking about bilateral
00:02:58.800 negotiated agreements as well, which, you know, didn't sit real well with Mexico at that point
00:03:04.240 in time. And so, you know, again, I'd say, you know, whether it's bilateral agreements,
00:03:08.580 what that might be, you just, you need to just take a breath. You know, when the president or
00:03:15.320 administration steps into a space and said, you know, we're going to do this, or we're going to
00:03:20.400 do that, is to just take a breath, you know, get a full understanding of what actually the initiative
00:03:27.780 is, how it impacts you. And, you know, the negotiations may or may not start from that
00:03:34.700 point. You know, we just recently, after those meetings, and we talked about whether it was
00:03:39.060 with Secretary Besant or Lutnik or Ambassador Greer, we talked about potash in each and every
00:03:43.900 one of those meetings and the importance of the North American potash supply to American families
00:03:47.980 and, you know, how a tariff ultimately would just simply ensure that American families would pay
00:03:53.620 more. And then we've seen more recent announcements coming out of the trade relationship on potash
00:03:59.720 with a country like Belarus. And so I, you know, Saskatchewan and Canada produce a lot more potash
00:04:05.280 than Belarus does. However, you know, we pay attention when those types of decisions are made
00:04:10.100 And it may or may not have an impact moving forward.
00:04:12.600 And we're, you know, working with the industry and, again, reaching out to our American counterparts to, you know, ensure that we're, you know, always working towards what that broader term, longer term goal is, which is, you know, a low or no tariff trade environment across the board.
00:04:29.000 And we are hopeful that we'll get there.
00:04:30.340 But, you know, those meetings, to answer your question, that comes through a commitment to fostering that relationship, even in the good times.
00:04:40.100 Are you concerned that the U.S. is turning to what we commonly refer to as adversaries for things like Belarus is clearly supportive of Russia?
00:04:51.620 Yeah. And the U.S. has a friendly neighbor that's literally right here who we've traded with free trade now for close to 40 years.
00:05:02.860 and we're now being sort of pushed to the back of the line
00:05:10.520 when we used to be at the front of the line.
00:05:12.180 Yeah.
00:05:12.920 How does that affect your ability to negotiate
00:05:17.260 when you see these things happening?
00:05:19.740 Yeah.
00:05:20.440 I find it to some degree short-sighted and frustrating
00:05:23.760 from our perspective.
00:05:27.100 You know, Europe in years gone by used to travel around the world,
00:05:31.920 the European Union and a number of its member nations, telling the world how to reduce their
00:05:36.540 carbon footprint and they shouldn't be doing this and they shouldn't be developing their oil
00:05:39.980 resources. All the while, many of the European countries were procuring or buying a third of
00:05:45.220 their natural gas or coal and oil from Russia. Russia then became no longer a partner, a trading
00:05:52.660 partner that they wanted. And some of those European nations scrambled so that they wouldn't 0.71
00:05:58.840 get cold that particular winter. They found that, you know, doing trade on particular products with
00:06:03.920 countries, it has consequences if those countries aren't true allies over the long term. And so I
00:06:09.940 worry, you know, for, you know, the United States making what I think are maybe, you know, short-term
00:06:15.320 transactional decisions, which would, you know, somewhat fit some of the decisions that one might
00:06:21.160 expect coming out of the White House and not prioritizing the importance of having a long-term
00:06:29.680 ally as a trading partner and procuring goods like, for example, in our case, potash, but others
00:06:35.260 from a long-term ally like Canada. That being said, Canada has a responsibility to remain
00:06:42.760 that ally into the future. And part of that is pulling our weight when it comes to
00:06:47.060 uh, investing in our, our defense systems and our military of which we've seen a, a, you know,
00:06:52.940 a significant change, uh, with the change, uh, in, in leadership, uh, in, in Ottawa with the change
00:06:58.920 of prime minister in Ottawa. And, you know, I commend that change, but we're going to have to
00:07:02.600 make sure we have a strong economy to pay for it. So, you know, all of these things are, are not
00:07:06.480 just simply, uh, uh, an either or answer they're, they're awaiting of, so we can get this product
00:07:12.160 from two different places.
00:07:13.640 One place is, you know, an ally,
00:07:16.120 likely going to be a long-term ally
00:07:18.460 and a sustainable partner
00:07:20.120 of where we want to purchase products from.
00:07:22.540 The other place is, you know,
00:07:24.100 maybe somewhere like Russia
00:07:25.140 that all of a sudden the European Union
00:07:27.560 found that that isn't a partner
00:07:29.060 that they wanted to do business with.
00:07:30.560 And so, you know, I think you'll see
00:07:33.820 those prioritizations change over time.
00:07:36.460 I don't care for where they're placing them now.
00:07:39.640 Okay.
00:07:39.920 Okay. Towards the end of the session, the NDP brought a lady to the legislature who has a rare disease, who's been seeking, trying to get treatment and hasn't been able to. She has even applied for MAID, medical assistance in dying.
00:07:55.760 uh u.s commentator glenn beck saw it they offered to pay for it if there was a surgeon in the u.s
00:08:02.120 that could help her what is what is the government doing now to help this lady particularly now that 1.00
00:08:08.360 she's in the public eye like like because she says the the specialist she needs to see there
00:08:14.040 isn't even one in the province um and what does that say also about the state of health care when
00:08:19.980 we when there are people with rare diseases that just simply can't get help yeah i'd say a few
00:08:25.540 things is uh you know one and without knowing too much about this particular individual situation
00:08:32.020 is that uh you know it's this this is top and it's it's not fun uh in any way and i i feel for
00:08:39.620 because uh you know the the the pain and challenges that she's been going through for a number of
00:08:43.900 years are are uh you know very real and i i really do uh feel for and i hope that we're able to to
00:08:50.440 work together as our health ministry in the Saskatchewan Health Authority or whoever to
00:08:55.780 to find her you know some peace and a better life in her in her health journey that being said
00:09:03.560 and I talked with the Minister of Health on this is it's my understanding that she has seen a
00:09:09.920 specialist within the province has seen a specialist an additional specialist outside
00:09:13.540 and is currently working with the ministry and at the, since this has become more public with the ministry and the minister's office to access at least one other individual specialist in Canada.
00:09:27.820 And I'd said, you know, with respect to, you know, people's choice on if they are able to acquire health services in the U.S. or somewhere else in the world, that is their prerogative.
00:09:39.740 It's our responsibility as a government and a publicly funded health system in Saskatchewan and across Canada to do everything we can to one, provide the specialists here in Saskatchewan and two, if those specialists aren't available in Saskatchewan to, you know, provide those avenues for that individual to access them in other parts of Canada.
00:10:03.040 And we continue to do that in support of, you know, this individual or any other individual in this particular case.
00:10:12.180 But I truly do hope, and I think everyone does, that she's able to find, you know, a solution to the health challenges that seem, I think I read a story recently, you know, complex and somewhat rare.
00:10:25.860 And just reading from the periphery on the American piece,
00:10:31.020 it doesn't sound like a very straightforward assessment
00:10:35.540 on who can and who can't help in this case either.
00:10:39.020 So I hope in some way, shape, or form is a specialist
00:10:42.080 either in Canada or in this case some of the U.S. options
00:10:47.480 that are being discussed that can bring her some better quality of life.
00:10:51.720 and we're trying to do a weekend as the Saskatchewan Ministry of Health
00:10:56.820 and the Minister's Office to support that, and have been all along.
00:11:00.460 Okay. Now your government's fairly pro-immigration,
00:11:04.820 you know, growing the province and so on.
00:11:07.400 That puts a lot of pressure on things like health care and education, housing.
00:11:13.100 What are you, like, you're asking immigrants to come, you want them to come. 1.00
00:11:16.700 What is your government doing to make sure when they get here,
00:11:20.020 they do have healthcare they do have a spot in education they do have a place to live
00:11:23.700 yeah i'll just give you an example i got a phone call from principal one of the two biggest cities
00:11:30.220 in town in this in the province uh and he had 15 kids from the same address in his school and in
00:11:37.180 kindergarten to grade eight um and he's like like i can't run a school when the numbers like people
00:11:44.480 are living so many in a home because there just isn't enough homes out there that it's putting
00:11:50.240 pressure on a situation like that. And even in Harbor Landing, where my daughter went to school,
00:11:54.440 um, they're building a second school, um, for the same amount of houses that are already there.
00:11:59.640 Um, what is your government doing to try and help in all of those different areas?
00:12:05.580 Well, then, you know, there, therein lies, uh, part of the reason I think, uh, that you're seeing
00:12:10.280 some of the investments in, in healthcare and education.
00:12:13.040 Um, you just opened with a, uh, a statement about this, this government
00:12:17.240 being pro-immigration as government has also, uh, always said, uh, that we need
00:12:22.200 to have a very, um, localized focus on economic immigration, uh, so that, uh,
00:12:28.900 we firmly believe that when economic immigration is at the heart of, uh,
00:12:33.820 whatever the assessments are, that is better for the person immigrating.
00:12:37.560 It's better for the community where they're immigrating to, and it certainly is better for any family members that might be with them as they will be very much part of the economy in that said community and going to be contributing to a stronger community and a stronger province.
00:12:55.500 I don't know, with all of the challenges that we've had with a federal government over the last number of years, and immigration largely is a federal policy, I don't know that we can say in every stream that we have, and the province has a small portion of the total numbers in the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program, that every stream has had that economic focus over the course of the last decade.
00:13:19.540 I think you're starting to see that focus tighten with some of the decisions that have been made by the federal government.
00:13:25.820 And I would encourage the federal government to continue to engage with the business communities across the nation, not just in Saskatchewan as well, but also engage with the provincial governments on what this does look like moving forward.
00:13:40.320 Because when you have a robust immigration system with an economic focus, robust in the way of the checkpoints and qualifications for individuals coming in, as well as the economic touch points that they're going to have if it's an economic focus, it is going to be a stronger immigration system than maybe what we've seen in the last few years.
00:14:06.800 It has to be the focus of it.
00:14:09.560 And I think at one point in time, years ago, it was.
00:14:13.180 It's moved away from that to some degree, and now it has to come back.
00:14:16.820 And with that comes some tough discussions, whether that be in the post-secondary world
00:14:22.260 in certain areas of Canada or what that might be.
00:14:24.820 So the economic focus on immigration is imperative to the success of the future of immigration,
00:14:32.700 quite honestly, in Saskatchewan and across Canada.
00:14:35.240 All righty. Let's talk to the notwithstanding clause. The NDP came out with Bill 611, which was, they presented it as being to prevent your government from using notwithstanding clause in collective bargaining, which Daniel Smith had just done in Alberta.
00:14:58.160 However, when I asked them about the bill, I said, is it only for collective bargaining?
00:15:02.200 And they're like, no, it would kind of, that's what our focus is, but it could be used for any of the, any reason the notwithstanding clause is being used.
00:15:11.180 So I said, so when the parents' rights bill comes back up, that means that this bill would put it to the court of appeals as opposed to the government able to use the notwithstanding clause and putting it in for another five years.
00:15:22.600 that bill basically would have removed the use of the notwithstanding clause in Saskatchewan.
00:15:30.120 Saskatchewan being one of the provinces that was a holdout until that was added in.
00:15:36.120 What do you think that says about both the opposition's view of the notwithstanding clause
00:15:41.520 and how they're almost trying to put like a Trojan horse in there so that when that parents rights bill comes back up,
00:15:48.700 you wouldn't actually be able to use the notwithstanding clause without having to go to the courts?
00:15:52.420 Yeah, those are all valid points.
00:15:54.180 And essentially, at the end of the day, what a bill like that is trying to do is change the Constitution without changing the Constitution.
00:16:00.920 The notwithstanding clause was part of the Constitution.
00:16:04.040 It wasn't an add-on or anything of that nature.
00:16:06.040 And so when people say the notwithstanding clause is there to, you know, in any way, you know, change or circumvent anything, no, it's part of very fabric of how this nation operates and functions.
00:16:20.320 It was very much the Constitution.
00:16:24.760 I won't speak for Alan Blakeney, but I doubt whether he would have signed on to the Constitution in Canada had the notwithstanding clause not been included.
00:16:33.080 And he very succinctly had indicated that it was there to preserve the rights of the democratically elected individuals to represent the people that of their jurisdiction, in this case being Saskatchewan.
00:16:46.220 What the NDP bill, and let's be clear, is essentially giving those rights back to the courts and giving those rights back to the judges.
00:16:54.620 And in essence, in many cases, giving those rights back by taking them away, providing in our central government in Ottawa even more rights than they have here today.
00:17:04.880 And so we're not in favor of giving rights to the courts and to unelected judges.
00:17:10.900 We agree, ironically, with Alan Blakeney that the notwithstanding clause very much was part of the Constitution and a necessary part of the Constitution to preserve the rights that democratically elected governments have, not just today, but for decades into the future to represent constituents in an environment where all too often we see the courts making decisions that are, to some degrees,
00:17:39.780 making, uh, you know, regular people in communities scratch their head a bit, uh, with respect to,
00:17:46.140 you know, uh, you know, letting repeat offenders out on bail, uh, back out to, to live in the
00:17:51.560 community and to ultimately all too often re-offend again, you know, people scratch their
00:17:56.280 head at, at those kinds of, of decisions. And so the notwithstanding clause is part of the
00:18:00.360 constitution, uh, for decades now, uh, and it's going to continue to be, uh, you know, part of
00:18:05.800 the constitution, uh, I think for years into the future, and it isn't going to be circumvented or,
00:18:10.020 or changed in a, uh, really an underhanded sort of way by a piece of legislation like this,
00:18:15.400 as long as we have a majority vote in the house on behalf of, of, of the people of, of Saskatchewan.
00:18:21.960 Um, that being said, I, you know, I don't think it's to be used lately and I don't think, uh,
00:18:26.720 this government or really any other government has, has, has ever used it with the exception,
00:18:32.540 maybe a Quebec, uh, has ever used it, uh, where
00:18:35.820 they had another option.
00:18:37.360 Uh, it's always seems to be the option of
00:18:39.240 last resort.
00:18:40.180 Um, I think there was a few years where Quebec
00:18:42.040 would not withstood every piece of legislation,
00:18:44.140 uh, which is again, ironic.
00:18:46.360 Um, Quebec has used this light piece of
00:18:49.140 legislation far more than everyone else in
00:18:51.000 Canada added up together.
00:18:52.980 Uh, and, and nobody seemed to, to mind, uh,
00:18:55.860 when that was occurring, but it gets used once
00:18:57.920 or twice outside of Quebec and, and there's,
00:18:59.980 you know, all of a sudden some concerns and I,
00:19:01.980 I just don't think that's the case.
00:19:04.920 The Compassionate Care Act, that is a piece of legislation that's just started, going to work its way through.
00:19:12.900 But that restricts people's rights by, you want to involuntarily put them into a treatment program.
00:19:21.320 Yeah.
00:19:22.000 Now, Tim McLeod was talking about it's similar to like when someone goes on suicide watch for 72 hours.
00:19:28.220 Except in this case, we're talking three months, six months, eight months of treatment. How does your government balance the rights of an individual and the rights to try to help them if they're not wanting to do so? And what happens to that individual that's in the system? Like who pays their bills for three months when they're in a treatment facility they can't leave, for example?
00:19:52.800 So I would say on, on the rights question, balancing of those rights, you know, carefully and, and with much consultation, um, now this is going to, uh, become relevant to a, a very small number, uh, total number of, of, of individuals.
00:20:10.320 and I'll come back to that at the end, that number.
00:20:14.920 But this was introduced in the last day of session for a reason
00:20:18.160 as we want to continue to have discussion on how to get this piece of legislation right.
00:20:22.940 There's three referring bodies, physician, family member, police officer,
00:20:27.240 the courts essentially, that can refer someone for treatment.
00:20:32.560 How the legislation began, one we saw some other provinces stepping into this space,
00:20:37.960 but it was really through talking to families.
00:20:40.320 And having family members say, if we just had a way to take our son or our brother and willing to go at one moment, but that addiction is so severe and has essentially taken over their decisions that we could help them.
00:21:02.680 We know we could.
00:21:03.340 And so it's another tool that will be in the toolbox for families and for, you know, for physicians and to streamline some of what already can happen from time to time with the courts in some ways.
00:21:16.900 And so it does streamline some of that process.
00:21:20.000 I want to come back to the small number of individuals that this would likely impact and kind of in the scope of the rights that we do and don't have.
00:21:33.340 Quite often, these will be individuals that have slipped into such a life of addictions that they're being faced with some other rights that might be removed by incarceration because of crimes they may have committed to support that lifestyle.
00:21:47.960 And so this is, I think, in many ways, a much better path than being sent to jail, where you actually have an opportunity to enter a recovery lifestyle.
00:21:58.040 And so this is about one step, one tool that is available for people to enter that recovery lifestyle.
00:22:04.860 And we've talked simply about really two focuses or three points.
00:22:09.480 You know, one is to have the capacity of those recovery beds and we have to have them and some will be public, some will be private.
00:22:16.440 And then the access points, whether that's the urgent care center, the Compassionate Care Act that'll be coming.
00:22:21.980 The complex needs facilities is another access point that we have.
00:22:25.680 And then third is enforcement, um, to keep our communities safe and to ensure that, uh, you know, at the very core of all of this investment and initiative that the government has, uh, if we can agree on the fact that the streets are not the safest place for anybody living on the streets, uh, in particular, living on the streets with an addiction, uh, is the most vulnerable place for you to be.
00:22:47.360 We don't want you there.
00:22:48.600 We want you in a recovery, in a recovery journey,
00:22:51.780 maybe in a provincial recovery center
00:22:53.320 or some of the supports that are provided.
00:22:55.920 And we're going to ensure that those streets
00:22:58.300 in our communities are safe for families as well.
00:23:01.160 They want to go to the park after supper
00:23:02.780 and aren't threatened by, unfortunately,
00:23:05.360 people that are supporting a life with addictions.
00:23:07.800 That's where the investments in police officers
00:23:09.620 has come in, whether it be the marshals,
00:23:11.220 the 100 municipal officers, or the additional RCMP.
00:23:14.340 Uh, and the next step now is to, uh, ensure we're enforcing the law, um, you know, dealers, uh, then people that are making, uh, these, uh, these poisonous drugs available in our communities, they need to be charged.
00:23:26.860 Uh, but with respect to those that, uh, unfortunately are living that lifestyle, uh, in, uh, in an addictive state, um, we need, we need to start removing the drugs.
00:23:36.580 They're going to kill them.
00:23:37.580 Um, and just having access to them.
00:23:39.860 We hear all too often of a particularly deadly strain of, uh, you know, whatever it is, crystal meth or fentanyl that's available in Saskatoon and killing.
00:23:47.920 Let's just take them away.
00:23:49.000 Uh, and so, you know, the next steps is to work with our enforcement, um, uh, officials, regardless whether they're municipal or marshals or RCMP, uh, and where the drugs are present, it's illegal to have them.
00:24:00.400 Let's take them away.
00:24:01.160 Where the paraphernalia now with the
00:24:03.340 Street Weapons Act is, you know, where
00:24:06.540 it's present, let's just start taking
00:24:08.480 those away.
00:24:09.520 Let's make the easiest choice for someone
00:24:11.540 to make, a choice to enter that recovery
00:24:13.900 journey, and let's make it available as
00:24:15.940 we can.
00:24:16.320 There's more work to do in order for this
00:24:18.020 to all come together, but the aspiration
00:24:20.360 of this government is to remove drugs from
00:24:22.920 our province and every community within.
00:24:25.460 As I say, that may be an aspirational goal,
00:24:27.440 but it doesn't mean that we all shouldn't
00:24:28.720 be heading in the same direction.
00:24:31.160 Speaking of that, how closely are you working with the federal government on things like bail reform, for example?
00:24:36.780 Because we see, for example, someone that gets out of jail over and over again or doesn't show up.
00:24:40.740 I mean, we had the mass stabbing attack, for example.
00:24:43.940 I think he had 150 times he hadn't shown up to court.
00:24:49.020 No one had gone and picked him up.
00:24:50.980 Frustrating, isn't it?
00:24:51.920 Yeah.
00:24:52.260 I won't say his name because I don't say it.
00:24:54.740 It's the people, it's those names after they've done their crimes.
00:24:58.140 But how closely does the federal government listen to the provinces? Because you're not the only premier screaming, we need tougher bail laws, we need tougher jail sentences, etc. How engaged is the government, and particularly Kearney, because we know the relationship with the Chudeau government was not good between almost any province and the Chudeau government.
00:25:22.420 But is, is there a, is there a difference with the Kearney government here, like engaging the provinces on issues like this?
00:25:28.700 Yeah, I would, I would say a significant difference just at, I'll get to issues like this in a moment, but on, on engagement and collaboration with the provinces, a significant difference between, uh, the former, uh, the former prime minister, let's say he, who should not be named, uh, and, uh, and, and current prime minister, prime minister Kearney.
00:25:46.420 The, you know, the collaboration is appreciated, regardless of the topic.
00:25:52.900 And it is true collaboration.
00:25:55.140 We're starting to see that, although not perfect, with the MOU signed with Alberta.
00:25:59.700 You know, there's some, in fairness, in Mark Carney's government and cabinet that, you know, might not be happy with that.
00:26:06.820 And there's some, I think, in fairness in Alberta that might not be happy with that.
00:26:10.640 which means that, uh, you know, as far as Canada goes, these are steps forward that
00:26:14.580 just weren't possible the last decade in any way, shape or form. Uh, so specific to, to bail reform,
00:26:20.820 uh, and, and such, I would say that, uh, the engagement with prime minister Carney is, uh,
00:26:25.760 you know, strong. Uh, however, he has a number of things that he needs to deal with and he needs
00:26:30.500 his justice minister actually deal with, you know, the details of what, um, uh, bail sentencing
00:26:36.040 might look like moving forward and how to increase the, uh, increase the, uh, the consequences for
00:26:42.080 those that are, you know, causing harm or creating havoc in, in our communities. Um, it's my hope
00:26:47.660 that, uh, Minister Fraser, uh, is willing to go as far as, uh, you know, Prime Minister Carney,
00:26:55.700 uh, and others, uh, across the nation would like to see him. That would be my hope. Uh, my concern
00:27:01.960 is that he may not. And I would encourage him to go further as opposed to not going far enough
00:27:10.080 when it comes to the laws that are available to keep our communities safe. Or as we've done in
00:27:18.900 the case of the Street Weapons Act and other community safety bills is make them optional
00:27:23.420 for provinces to opt in. And if some provinces would like to have more lenient
00:27:31.760 laws for repeat offenders that obviously are a problem in community safety, let them not enact
00:27:40.800 them. So that might be something they haven't considered before is to allow certain provinces
00:27:44.900 to move further in this space than others. That would be really providing some, you know, some
00:27:50.700 level of, you know, autonomy back to the provinces in a space where I think we always probably should
00:27:57.940 have had it. All right. And final question. Um, when you came out of the budget this year,
00:28:02.800 you were going to have a surplus of $12 million. We're halfway through the year. We had a deficit
00:28:06.620 of 427 million. Yeah. Um, what are you doing to control the deficit? Um, cause obviously there's
00:28:14.260 been a big swing, um, over the second half of our fiscal year. Yeah. So it's, it's, the goal
00:28:22.320 is always to balance the budget here in the province. Um, there's a few things, uh, I think
00:28:26.280 that are impacting our current situation here.
00:28:28.960 Not the least, which is some of the trade-related challenges
00:28:31.800 that are impacting Saskatchewan and other provinces.
00:28:34.580 And we're seeing that impact, I think, pretty significant
00:28:37.300 in some provinces across Canada.
00:28:40.620 We still have, and we can talk statistics all day long,
00:28:45.100 I think it's the lowest deficit per capita across the nation,
00:28:48.020 second lowest debt to GDP ratio of any province across the nation.
00:28:53.280 But what you are truly seeing in the economic sector is economic space is, you know, Saskatchewan and Alberta really taking a different course, I think, with results with respect to many other provinces across Canada.
00:29:06.460 That being said, we're feeling some of the impacts of not only the direct decisions of our largest trading partner in the USA on our revenue line, but some of the indirect consequences in countries like China and India and, you know, even interprovincially across the nation as well.
00:29:22.200 They're having an impact on our Saskatchewan economy and, and I think more broadly an impact on the Canadian economy.
00:29:27.900 And you're seeing that, uh, to some degree, not, it's not just investment, um, numbers that are driving the deficit nationally, but it, it, we have a Canadian economy that in the short term is, you know, it's, it's struggling.
00:29:40.140 Uh, it's struggling for, you know, all the reasons that we see on the news, uh, each and every, each and every night.
00:29:45.920 I would say just to look out a little farther than the choppy waters that are in front of us.
00:29:53.360 Saskatchewan is well positioned in the medium to long term to do very well in providing what the world needs and in the trade relations we have.
00:30:01.700 But the short term is not great.
00:30:07.720 Well, thank you very much for joining me today and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family.
00:30:11.600 Thank you. And I wish a very Merry Christmas to you, your family, to all your listeners. And, you know, I just hope everyone does have an opportunity to slow down, enjoy those that they love in their life and find a reason to be thankful.