Western Standard - September 16, 2022


SNP EP2： The Great Sovereignty Act Debate


Episode Stats

Length

1 hour and 11 minutes

Words per Minute

189.5143

Word Count

13,460

Sentence Count

204

Misogynist Sentences

9

Hate Speech Sentences

5


Summary

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

In this episode of The Western Standard, host Sean Newman sits down with Derek and Michael Binion to discuss the Alberta sovereignty act. Derek is a Calgary lawyer specializing in Charter and Constitutional issues, co-author of the Free Alberta Strategy, and founder of Questair Energy, a public oil and gas production company operating in Quebec. Michael is the CEO of Modern Miracle Network, which advocates for a reasoned conversation around energy policy in Canada.

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 .
00:00:00.000 well good evening and welcome to the sean newman show on the western standard we are talking the
00:00:15.520 alberta sovereignty act tonight i'm joined by two guests we'll bring them in the studio here in a
00:00:20.620 quick minute first derek from he's an alberta lawyer specializing in charter and constitutional
00:00:25.740 issues. He is one of the authors alongside Rob Anderson and Barry Cooper of the Free Alberta
00:00:30.560 Strategy, a strategy penned back in September 2021, which a cornerstone of it was the Alberta
00:00:36.420 Sovereignty Act. And alongside him today is Michael Binion, a charter accountant, president
00:00:41.340 and founder of Questair Energy, a public oil and gas production company operating in Quebec. He is
00:00:46.560 also the CEO of Modern Miracle Network, where they advocate for a reasoned conversation around
00:00:52.120 energy policy in canada welcome aboard gentlemen i hope i got all that right for you thank you sean
00:00:58.200 good to be here now i want to remind you two fine folks just as i did uh the previous weeks uh when
00:01:06.160 i had the three other gentlemen in this is this is a conversation uh so obviously be respectful and
00:01:11.980 and try not to talk over one another and all that good stuff but i really want to point out i don't
00:01:16.940 want it to be like ping pong i don't want it to come back to me every time if you guys get into
00:01:21.140 conversation that's what i'm here to facilitate i'm here to learn just as much as the listener
00:01:25.300 and i i got your two minds for the next however many minutes we can we can squeeze out of you
00:01:30.500 and i certainly want that to be where the topic uh or the conversation remains with all that being
00:01:36.260 said uh since june 15th the alberta sovereignty act has dominated headlines and in recent weeks
00:01:42.180 you've had everyone weigh in i mean from the living last living signatory of the canadian
00:01:47.140 and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Brian Peckford, Premier Jason Kenney,
00:01:50.640 Lieutenant Governor of Alberta, Selma Lakhani.
00:01:53.680 Recently, a press conference that had four of the leadership candidates all come out,
00:01:57.380 Taves, Gene, Sani, and Ahir.
00:01:59.620 And here are some of the things they've been saying.
00:02:02.080 It will create anger and disillusionment amongst Albertans.
00:02:05.080 It will only set us back, risky and hot-headed, selling a fantasy.
00:02:08.080 I don't know if I need to keep going. You kind of get the point.
00:02:10.760 Derek, I see you laughing. You're one of the guys who helped pen this thing.
00:02:14.520 What are your thoughts? And we'll start there.
00:02:16.520 And Michael, feel free to jump in as we move along.
00:02:20.380 Well, I think my initial thought is none of them have actually read it.
00:02:24.680 And I mean, two things by that.
00:02:26.720 First off, the Alberta Sovereignty Act is just an idea at this point.
00:02:32.660 There is no Alberta Sovereignty Act, no pen to paper.
00:02:37.480 And so they're critiquing something that's hypothetical.
00:02:41.260 And so these bold claims that it's unconstitutional, it will lead to separation and angst, sure, there's no Alberta Sovereignty Act yet.
00:02:53.600 Now, I think the other important thing, indicating that none of these candidates that talk this way have actually read the strategy, is that the Alberta Sovereignty Act is one part of a larger strategy, and that is the Free Alberta Strategy.
00:03:10.660 And I just need to maybe give you an idea of the impetus behind that.
00:03:17.260 And the Free Alberta Strategy was born of the frustration of Albertans.
00:03:24.020 I can remember after the first time that the current prime minister won the election,
00:03:32.540 there was a lot of angst in this province.
00:03:35.020 And the most recent win that he had, again.
00:03:38.660 And it seems like Albertans have felt, and this is broadly felt by many Albertans, that the federal government is deliberately trying to shut down our oil and gas sector.
00:03:54.620 I mean, this is our primary industry.
00:03:57.240 This is how families are fed in this province.
00:04:00.600 And there is a deliberate strategy to end that, end within a certain period of time.
00:04:07.200 And so there's that problem. And so we're hearing from Albertans that what can we do to solve this?
00:04:17.020 And we looked at the current premier strategy and strategies from previous premiers was basically just to express discontent in some fashion.
00:04:28.500 There might be a meeting between bureaucrats or high ranking officials and ministers or maybe even the premiers.
00:04:37.200 but in the end this this is a ratchet it moves one way at least that's the feeling the perception
00:04:43.280 amongst albertan voters and so the free alberta strategy was a practical implementable plan
00:04:51.600 a strategy that is not fully fleshed out but it was a strategy to to unify a number of groups of
00:04:59.920 people now the first group of people are those that were just they want to separate at any cost
00:05:06.800 What, what can we do?
00:05:07.760 How do we solve this problem while we leave Canada?
00:05:09.680 We take our toys and go home.
00:05:11.600 Well, those, those sorts of folks, um, they've made up their mind, uh, and, uh, they, they
00:05:18.640 want to do so, but there's a whole other group of Albertans who are equally
00:05:22.000 frustrated with the federal government who will never separate under any circumstances.
00:05:27.220 And, uh, I think many of us fall into that category where I would find it very
00:05:31.560 difficult, not cheering for team Canada at the Olympics.
00:05:34.780 for instance, like I would find that very difficult.
00:05:38.480 I have clothing that has the maple leaf on it.
00:05:42.520 I would find it difficult to turn my back on that.
00:05:45.500 So I think that's one group of people
00:05:50.300 that maybe many of us fit into
00:05:53.040 is that we're not gonna separate under any reason.
00:05:55.240 But now there's a third group of people
00:05:57.060 and I think this is where most moderate Albertans
00:06:00.240 have been pushed of recognizing
00:06:03.340 we have a real problem here we need to do something about it what can we do and so the free alberta
00:06:10.620 strategy is an entire strategy document that will allow a provincial government in this province to
00:06:17.740 develop ways to increase its independence by pushing the federal government back into its
00:06:25.180 areas of jurisdiction. So this is the idea. Currently, our view was that the federal
00:06:33.320 government is acting lawlessly. This lawless action has resulted in the erosion of provincial
00:06:40.940 rights. It's a ratchet. It goes one way. And this erosion of provincial rights has no sign of ever
00:06:48.700 stopping it's been a honestly it's been a 100 year process and albertans have complained about this
00:06:56.060 for a hundred years and of late it's really picked up steam and and moved quickly and so the the whole
00:07:05.260 free alberta strategy is intended to keep the federal government in its lane and its constitutional
00:07:11.020 lane as defined by section 91 through 95 of the constitution act 1867 and so that that's
00:07:19.180 the impetus behind the the project it is not an attack on the rule of law quite frankly it is
00:07:25.660 exactly the opposite of that it is a maintenance of the rule of law it is not unconstitutional
00:07:33.740 for two reasons one a declaration of unconstitutionality is something that a court
00:07:39.740 decides there's no act yet nothing can be declared unconstitutional secondly all pains will be taken
00:07:47.100 to make sure that it's drafted in a way that will comply with the constitution and give the power
00:07:52.380 back to Albertans to decide whether or not they think the federal government is acting within its
00:07:58.540 own jurisdiction and so it's not unconstitutional it's not an attack on the rule of law and quite
00:08:04.620 frankly, I'm not certain the way that we've laid it out that it's not going to cause economic
00:08:11.760 chaos. It'll increase the certainty in the market because it'll force the federal government
00:08:17.120 to actually deal with Alberta's very legitimate concerns with how the federal government is
00:08:23.780 impacting upon provincial rights. Well, what do you think, Michael? You're sitting there
00:08:28.560 listening to Derek. What are your thoughts here in some of the things he's tabled here early on?
00:08:34.620 well there's there's a there's a whole bunch of points there right and um and you know i would
00:08:41.960 say my first of all i talked to all the campaigns and i would say all the campaigns have read the
00:08:46.800 free alberta strategy and i have more than i read i read it uh some months ago and i reread it again
00:08:52.740 for this show um so i'm so i'm you know one of my big questions for derek was you know is the
00:08:59.360 because when i read the alberta sovereignty act explanation that just came out recently and
00:09:04.340 compared it to the description in the free alberta strategy it seemed very much the same thing
00:09:09.060 and so i i hear derek confirming that yes it is the same thing and it is part of the bigger strategy
00:09:13.860 so that that's one big question i had is this is it just a coincidence it's called the alberta
00:09:19.060 sovereignty act or is it actually the same alberta sovereignty act as we read about in the free
00:09:23.460 alberta strategy and and i would say derek i mean and i don't i'll come back i want to come back to
00:09:27.940 this a minute because i want to talk to you about like me my biggest concern is very much the rule
00:09:33.460 of law issue um but but i'll just i'll just come back and say you know why do i care about this
00:09:39.620 i mean our uh you know first of all i was chair of the king of taxpayers federation i'm chair of
00:09:44.820 manning center which is now called canada strong and free i i'm as you said executive director of
00:09:50.020 modern miracle advocating for oil and gas and you know i certainly agree with everything derek said
00:09:55.140 about uh you know our oil and gas industry that's why we started modern miracle to advocate for it
00:09:59.780 but let me add on to this we found a giant gas field in quebec it is enough to replace 50
00:10:07.460 of russian imports to germany it's enough to probably take quebec 50 off of equalization
00:10:14.260 it's a giant giant field and we're not just being blocked from developing it for the last
00:10:21.380 uh you know last 10 years you know much like alberta pipeline you know pipelines lng plants
00:10:26.980 i mean our projects block there too it's worth billions of dollars to us it's worth probably
00:10:32.500 even more to the province of quebec and they're expropriating it for for for a peppercorn of
00:10:37.780 compensation so you know i i would say that for me this issue of that you know the the categories
00:10:44.180 of people that derek talked about you know i i doubt there's another albertan that has a more
00:10:48.980 vested interest in doing something and i also because of my 20 odd years dealing in quebec i
00:10:54.580 I mean, I've worked very closely with Lucien Bouchard.
00:10:57.960 My wife and I have had dinner with them.
00:10:59.960 Danielle Terp has been to my house for dinner.
00:11:02.060 I mean, Perry's always a shareholder.
00:11:04.920 I really know personally well the people that were the architects of the 1995 strategy to separate,
00:11:15.040 which, of course, culminated in the 1995 referendum, which was unsuccessful.
00:11:19.260 So I'm not sure there's another Alberta that also understands better the Quebec strategy and what they do day to day and what they were doing in 95 to gain more political power in the country.
00:11:34.540 I strongly advocate that, A, we have to do something.
00:11:38.240 I'm probably with Derek, I'd hate to not to cheer for the Canadians in the Olympics, but it's got to a point where we have no choice but to do something.
00:11:47.680 As I said, there's probably nobody in Alberta with a bigger reason to care than I do.
00:11:52.560 But what we have to do, it has to be effective, it has to work.
00:11:56.720 And I have to tell you, I think the Quebec strategy has been the most effective one that we've seen.
00:12:02.700 And my view is the free Alberta strategy goes the opposite direction.
00:12:05.920 My big honest concern about it is it'll take us backwards and it will take us further away from more political power in the country, not closer.
00:12:16.140 and I'm I'm strongly advocating that we you know learn from what Quebec did and work more to gain
00:12:23.380 and it's not just about holding the referendum that's the tip of the iceberg it's the 90% of
00:12:27.620 what they do under the surface so that so that's I guess where I'm coming from and my my worry there
00:12:32.840 I guess Derek I'd say first of all I do think people have read the Free Alberta Strategy I
00:12:37.200 don't think it's a problem that they haven't read it um I mean not everybody obviously but I
00:12:41.960 certainly certainly you know the campaigns have and a lot of you know there was a great article
00:12:46.820 um by Howard Englund recently he clearly read it um and and I hear what you're saying it's not
00:12:52.220 technically an act but I okay so my first thing is like would we not agree though that it's an
00:12:56.660 outlying policy and that we can you know we don't have to necessarily read the act to say that this
00:13:03.860 is an intention to make an act based on a published policy and so the two things I'd say to you is
00:13:09.360 of it's a published policy.
00:13:11.180 If the policy would be unconstitutional,
00:13:13.560 we could presume the act that follows would be two.
00:13:16.240 And then the other thing, just to reconfirm with you,
00:13:20.120 which is what I thought when I read it,
00:13:21.820 that it was very much in line with the free Alberta strategy,
00:13:26.000 that it is just the first step in an overall strategy.
00:13:28.260 Those two things that we could say are fair.
00:13:31.980 Yeah, I believe so.
00:13:33.560 I believe it's fair.
00:13:34.520 Now, of course, I don't speak for Danielle Smith,
00:13:39.140 candidate who who has uh been talking about the sovereignty act it's that's not my place
00:13:44.980 to speak for her obviously i don't have that authority but just your view is you would you
00:13:49.300 agree that when when you read that read it it's very much like i would say i didn't find any
00:13:54.180 inconsistency yeah i've heard a sovereignty act section of your report and what was published
00:13:59.700 i didn't see any inconsistency yeah i i don't i don't think there is an inconsistency but of
00:14:04.100 course you know political candidates once they gain office uh they often you know get advice uh
00:14:11.540 on uh how it will be draft or you know legislation that they propose policies they propose uh from
00:14:17.460 alberta justice for instance in this case and alberta justice will have very strong opinions and
00:14:22.180 obviously they're the ones that are going to be doing the work at that stage and uh you know this
00:14:26.660 is and it's again it's a strategy document it's i wouldn't even say it's to the level of policy
00:14:34.100 that the the policy the policy if there is one and again i don't speak for the danielle smith
00:14:39.140 campaign would be that we're in a tough position what can we do about it um and we need to do
00:14:44.820 something and we need to do something that preserves the rule of law so the most clear
00:14:48.900 way to do that is to enact legislation that purports and in practice does preserve the rule
00:14:56.540 of law so that we don't end up with a lawless alberta and with all respect to howard um howard
00:15:01.920 if he read the strategy completely misconstrued it in his most recent article where he said it
00:15:07.460 would require Albertans to be civilly disobedient and that was precisely the opposite thrust of the
00:15:14.500 entire report because if we want to push back against Alberta the only the only plans that
00:15:22.520 have been offered so far other than potentially at the end of the in in the 1980s and through
00:15:28.300 the 90s when Preston Manning was running the Reform Party. The only solution has been that
00:15:34.460 Albertans individually need to be civilly disobedient and take great personal risk.
00:15:40.000 And Howard Anglin fell into that trap and was complete misconstrual because what it does is
00:15:46.060 when we have the Alberta Sovereignty Act as part of the Free Alberta Strategy, if there is civil
00:15:52.140 disobedience which i would contest there is not uh if it's drafted in consultation with alberta
00:15:59.580 justice um what it would require is it's the provincial government that takes the risk
00:16:05.740 right but but there i mean all we can all we can really go by is what's written down right and
00:16:10.140 that's correct and so you're now saying well yeah but there's you know okay but maybe what
00:16:13.660 was written down we don't need oh no no that's not what i said maybe albert or maybe alberta
00:16:18.620 justice will change it or maybe those are all hypotheticals and I don't think fair for this
00:16:24.220 discussion like what I think we have to deal with is the free Alberta strategy it's written down
00:16:29.500 and the policy is written down and let's just deal with that and then we can and by the way I
00:16:35.860 I would hope that let's let's agree on this point I would very much hope given my concerns that
00:16:43.000 through the process of working through the the justice department and the process of working
00:16:48.440 through caucus and the process of working towards a vote in a democratic process i very much hope
00:16:53.560 there'll be some significant changes so let's agree that let's agree i'm with you on that point
00:16:57.560 yeah but at least for right now all we can deal with is what people are stating they want to do
00:17:01.800 well and that's correct and that's what i'm what i exactly what i tried to disavow was that howard
00:17:07.480 england didn't actually engage with the document as it is written down yeah i i sent a note to
00:17:11.880 howard i think i i have a couple disagreements with your article too he's a very smart constitutional
00:17:17.000 expert but but of course it's it's an op-ed and it's probably not as well research as the supreme
00:17:21.480 court brief and and i think he acknowledged that there you know that it was a very short op-ed and
00:17:26.120 if you want to dig into details you make some changes but just let me get to the thing that
00:17:29.720 you're saying and i'll get to the thing the part that i find the most troublesome and and it sounds
00:17:35.640 it sounds and again it's written down in both the policy and the free alberta strategy but you're
00:17:41.240 saying something slightly different one is you said hey declarations of constitutionally
00:17:46.120 constitutionality are only done by a court and and of course i i agree with that i mean that's
00:17:52.440 like that if we're playing hockey you know decisions about if it was if it was high sticking
00:17:57.480 or not are only done by the referee but everybody has an opinion right um everybody and often people
00:18:03.240 have a strong opinion but at the end of the day the referee decides so this is the same thing for
00:18:08.120 courts but but the free alberta strategy is very clear about that alberta should not follow the
00:18:14.600 rulings of courts where there are federally appointed judges. I find that very troublesome
00:18:21.800 and contradictory to what you've been saying. In addition, the policy itself says that if a court
00:18:28.200 finds it unconstitutional, any action taken by the Alberta government, if it's found to be
00:18:36.960 unconstitutional by a court, that the Alberta government will then have to decide what to do.
00:18:42.080 it doesn't say okay well if it's found to be unconstitutional we'll agree with that so
00:18:46.620 in both your strategy and the policy there's this in one case explicit in the other case implicit
00:18:54.040 uh claim that we will not follow the rulings of courts on constitutionality and this is the whole
00:19:00.620 this is where i feel like the whole rule of law problem as i said this is my biggest single
00:19:05.240 problem with the whole thing and as i said it's in writing so i don't yeah yeah and so that that's
00:19:10.460 very interesting point and i i let me try to explain what i think you said so that i'm not
00:19:15.100 misunderstanding and i think hearing it again might help help listeners too is basically um
00:19:20.540 there's this stream of thought in the in the free alberta strategy that when a court uh decision
00:19:28.220 is let's just say for now contrary to alberta's interests which i'm going to come back to that in
00:19:34.300 a moment contrary to alberta's interests in the view of the legislature in all of our mlas and
00:19:39.180 they'll hold a vote on it in the legislature and decide effectively during that vote what to do
00:19:45.580 and if they decide that look we're not going to enforce that court decision in the province
00:19:50.140 there'll be a time period over which that um that basically notwithstanding similar to a
00:19:55.580 notwithstanding will will function that i think that's a summary of what you're saying and that
00:19:59.900 that itself here is is an attack on the rule of law well i i mean there yeah i mean there's two
00:20:07.020 places i'd like to go in this conversation with you is one is to go through with what i think it
00:20:11.260 will be a so much so much more effective strategy which is to do what quebec does uh you know customize
00:20:16.940 it for alberta but do what quebec does as opposed to this this but by the way i want to tell you i
00:20:21.500 barry's a brilliant guy and and brought that i mean and i don't know i haven't met you before
00:20:25.500 but i mean i can i you if you're if you're hanging out with those guys you must be smart too right
00:20:29.580 um michael michael can i can i ask a question here yeah you say the quebec strategy uh we
00:20:35.740 should do the quebec strategy but then i go back to something you said that just has confused me
00:20:41.900 um you talk about this uh and i hope i'm saying this right please correct me uh this gas formation
00:20:46.860 you find that could be worth billions of dollars but quebecers can't even use that because the 0.97
00:20:51.340 federal government won't no no no that's the quebec government that's uh the quebec government
00:20:56.140 is expropriating it's not the federal government but the but you know we certainly what we know is
00:21:01.260 that the federal government's not been overly helpful in dealing with quebec blocking like 1.00
00:21:07.180 like the federal government the liberal federal federal government was certainly not very helpful
00:21:11.020 over pipelines they've certainly they've not been they've not been helpful you saw i don't know how
00:21:15.500 i mean i i listened to the entire press conference with the chancellor from of germany and and trudeau
00:21:23.020 very clear that trudeau's not really helping us on lng and i can tell you that in quebec um there
00:21:29.260 you know we've got an issue of being expropriated with no compensation which you know speaking of
00:21:33.500 rule of law is is also outside the rule of law even you know even if it might be legal so yeah
00:21:38.620 so but if i but it but that's not that that's a combination of provincial and federal jurisdiction
00:21:44.140 that is making it difficult for alberta on our oil and gas yeah so so i i mean i would like to
00:21:51.420 come back to you and ask ask what the what what you think the quebec strategy is but i want to
00:21:55.500 answer the rule of law question so i think i think what's important in um and how actually
00:22:01.340 howard anglin jason kenney and others have misconstrued and or misunderstood uh current
00:22:06.780 candidate brian gene does this repeatedly as well is um that it's just you know whatever the alberta
00:22:12.460 legislature doesn't like we're just going to say no it doesn't work here we're going to ignore it
00:22:16.620 court decisions nah we're just going to that that's not in the free alberta strategy certainly
00:22:23.100 we may suffer from a first draft problem if it if if someone can find that in there that's
00:22:29.180 not an intended result what is intended is this section 91 92 all the way to 95 lays out
00:22:38.780 often what's termed exclusive jurisdiction and if you go back long enough in in constitutional
00:22:46.060 studies and good night let's go to the quebec the quebec conference in 1864 during the quebec
00:22:53.420 conference 1864 john a mcdonald during the process of drafting these provisions in the constitution
00:22:59.340 said look the these these are so clear we're never going to have a conflict the pro we're not going
00:23:05.020 to have a conflict with the provinces everyone knows their jurisdiction we're going around
00:23:08.700 and uh you know honestly uh the problem started soon we didn't have a supreme court of canada
00:23:13.740 until seven years after that and uh the reason the supreme court purportedly wasn't there is
00:23:20.780 because the federal government didn't see a purpose for having a a court of final appeal
00:23:26.860 within within canada but eventually it became desirable to quote sort of sort of keep the
00:23:33.980 provinces in their place and so this is early on but would we did we have a senate yeah yeah we
00:23:42.380 wouldn't we just been the british system that your court of you would have gone to the set 0.99
00:23:46.380 to the bar oh yeah absolutely but there was no there was no court of final appeal within this
00:23:50.860 country so just saying that there was it was this idea at the time that the constitution's so clear
00:23:58.380 there's never going to be any conflict it didn't work out that way very obviously right and so even
00:24:04.060 even until 50 60 years ago this sort of uh the legalese on in the constitutional uh conversations
00:24:11.500 about jurisdiction was that there were watertight compartments and the metaphor had to do with
00:24:17.020 you know bulkheads in ships and so that when one part starts going down we put the bulkhead out
00:24:23.100 and it keeps the water out and the ships afloat right and the jurors but you're a lawyer right
00:24:28.460 so i'm going to grant you this point you're a lawyer lawyers draft contracts for me they're
00:24:32.060 always watertight when they're drafted they're never watertight when somebody decides to sue
00:24:36.380 me and challenge me in court or vice versa right so we can agree that that's just the way things
00:24:40.700 work and and and it's probably no huge surprise that there's been conflicts of people's economic
00:24:47.260 interests that have resulted in challenges to um challenges these these so-called you know water
00:24:52.700 tripe drafting but but i don't think anybody's going to be surprised to find that there might
00:24:56.700 be loopholes that people find in both constitutions statutes and contracts yeah now i i don't think
00:25:04.060 anyone's surprised at that but that's not what i'm saying i'm saying there's a fundamental
00:25:07.420 philosophical shift and now we're into the area of so-called cooperative federalism
00:25:13.100 which means this it's starting to mean this first off it was you know government is complicated
00:25:19.580 life is complicated sometimes jurisdictions overlap but now as i think all those of us
00:25:25.980 albertans reading the the supreme court's decision in the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act
00:25:33.260 reference we're very concerned uh many of us called it a trojan horse meaning that now the federal
00:25:39.980 government under the guise of environmental law can do whatever it wants but we all but you and
00:25:45.660 i we all agree on this too right like well this is this is why it's important and this is all
00:25:50.060 preamble to establish why the rule of law is important because now we have a lawless federal
00:25:56.460 government that's been you that's a that's a that's a throwaway line right what have they done
00:26:01.980 that's lawless that a court that a legitimate court has ruled as lawless like i mean i get
00:26:08.140 you're saying it's lawless this is my whole problem with the rule of law if the record
00:26:13.420 if the referee says it's high sticking and i say it was accidental who gets to decide me
00:26:18.380 michael you're the one that just told me that the expropriation of a gas field in quebec was lawless
00:26:23.740 no i didn't i said it didn't you said it was contrary to the rule of law it might be in
00:26:27.180 statutory law but it's and it might be permissible according to law but it's contrary to the rule of
00:26:31.660 law right but as you as you well know the rule of law is is is is an unwritten common law type
00:26:38.300 concept and that by statute and other reasons that there are times when the government has the legal
00:26:44.700 power uh under our constitution to overrule the rule of law you know that i know that no actually
00:26:50.540 no i'm actually very opposed to that understanding well i'm opposed to it too and as a theory
00:26:55.500 but but as a practice this has been the case for you know for probably a thousand years in british
00:27:00.940 common law right um no i don't think so so the rule of law for me maybe this is maybe this is a
00:27:06.620 problem that many people have with this is the rule of law is just that no one individual is
00:27:11.580 above the law that there's there's checks and balances that keep people within the law the king
00:27:16.380 is not above the law he is not the source of the law in fact our constitution explicitly denies
00:27:21.100 that by saying mentioning the supremacy of god alongside with that and the idea is you know
00:27:26.300 believe in god if you want it doesn't matter who it is but the idea is that the ruler is subject
00:27:32.460 to somebody else's law that's the concept and so the rule of law places the entire legal system
00:27:39.420 the politicians everyone within the law they cannot act contrary to the law without facing
00:27:44.380 the penalties of law now the westminster system they can change the law this will get way too
00:27:49.180 theoretical for people very quickly but the the whole point being is that there is a legally
00:27:53.900 passed statute that for example says i'm going to expropriate your property without compensation
00:28:00.380 yeah that statute is a law that's correct and that's actually in the absence of that statute
00:28:08.060 the common law or the rule of law would say you cannot do that that is incorrect that is in this
00:28:14.860 country there are no there are no common law property rights that will protect you from the
00:28:19.740 from the political authority expropriating your land. In fact, it's only established the principle
00:28:26.780 that compensation is due. I'll just say, Derek, I have a few reasons to have read the cases
00:28:38.220 on expropriation without compensation under the common law, and so let's just agree to disagree,
00:28:44.060 but but on the basis that i've read them carefully with good reason and recently but um so but what
00:28:50.700 i would mention i would get back to this idea to the main point here is the is that our can we the
00:28:59.100 your document says if we decide if the albert legislature decides that the government is being
00:29:06.620 lawless that we can ignore a court ruling that we also think is lawless and i'll just get back to my
00:29:11.500 analogy if the referee says it was high sticking but he was wrong or at least i strongly think he's
00:29:16.540 wrong can i just say well i'm not going to the penalty box okay so the your analogy doesn't work
00:29:22.380 and here's why it's because it it it puts us into the game we're not alberta government is not a
00:29:28.300 player in a hockey game we're not we're not a sub a subject of the federal government
00:29:34.380 it the the provincial government is another order of government that is equal but distinct
00:29:39.580 and so really what it is is uh it's it doesn't fit in the sense that we've decided we're going
00:29:46.540 to be subject to uh what whatever ottawa desires now this is the important thing and all this
00:29:52.780 preamble about the rule of law has been leading towards this but there you understand the analogy
00:29:57.180 i do understand the analogy and i don't think it works but the referee is the court right
00:30:02.300 yes oh no i do i do understand so the gp the ggpa the the carbon tax i'll just call it that from now
00:30:10.220 on the carbon tax was this trojan horse well what did that what did what lawyers mean and
00:30:14.860 commentators mean when they said that you allow the federal government to come to alberta and say
00:30:19.740 you know what your regulations on the type of furnaces you allow to be installed in people's
00:30:24.380 home we can't do that we can't allow people to have wood burning stoves because it creates too
00:30:29.100 much carbon dioxide or your tires aren't sufficient or refrigerators have to you know be of this type
00:30:35.660 it allows for such meddling in provincial rights property and civil rights that it can't be that
00:30:43.180 both have complete jurisdiction overlapping so in instances like that when the federal government
00:30:48.540 says we're bringing in the gpp what would the alberta sovereignty act do well it would say you
00:30:53.820 know what this is going to change fundamentally change the way uh the provincial legislature
00:30:59.500 controls property and civil rights in this province we're going to take a precision strike
00:31:05.500 and say look we're not going to allow the feds to regulate what tires you put on your car in
00:31:12.540 this way we have our own regulations it's our jurisdiction so did a court say did it did the
00:31:18.300 court in the reference case say look the federal government can control tires no it did not so
00:31:25.580 the court's decision allows for that it's a trojan horse but will the federal government
00:31:31.100 eventually try to occupy that space i think they will this is in my in my opinion on the on the on
00:31:36.940 the carbon tax they already are and and i think that's probably as the alberta court of appeal
00:31:41.260 ruled that was probably one of the most dangerous and saskatchewan yeah well yeah the alberta court
00:31:46.300 of appeal i thought did the best job of outlining the outlining the danger of expanding peace order
00:31:51.740 and good government and so i think i briefed i briefed the albert i did a briefing as the justice
00:31:56.780 asked me to do a briefing on that case and uh you know they they took a lot of what i told them but
00:32:01.980 the problem the one thing that they didn't do is i said you cannot let stand as a statement of fact
00:32:08.860 that there is a climate emergency because if you do then then in the when there's a climate
00:32:15.020 emergency getting back to rule of law issues i think that the supreme court may decide that
00:32:21.580 because it's an emergency there in a in a democratic and free society this will be a
00:32:27.820 reasonable use of the peace order and good government clause to override provincial rights
00:32:32.380 and the alberta none of the provinces ontario and saskatchewan didn't touch it at all uh alberta did
00:32:39.180 and i think that was i think that was a big error and i get why nobody wants to get into a climate
00:32:44.620 debate in the court but just you know taking it as you're right it's a climate emergency
00:32:50.380 the world is ending there's a fifth extinction coming but you know because the constitution
00:32:55.180 says this that alberta should get to decide for itself i mean you could see why there would have
00:32:59.420 been a motivation by the court to to potentially do what it does even though i strongly disagree
00:33:04.220 with it i think it's super dangerous for the future of the country i think in and of itself
00:33:08.220 it's a reason why alberta has to wake up and fight for autonomy so i'm 100 with you on that
00:33:14.620 I'll just come back to, and maybe we'll just agree to disagree.
00:33:17.800 I don't think, and I would say, if you want to talk about playing the federal game,
00:33:22.780 which Alberta is terrible at and Quebec is excellent at,
00:33:25.700 in the federal game, there is a referee.
00:33:27.660 It's called the Supreme Court.
00:33:29.460 And we all have to agree that we're going to follow what the referee says.
00:33:33.400 And when they say he was high-sticking, we have to go to the penalty box.
00:33:36.220 Even if we think it's egregious, unfair, the referee was blind, he was biased,
00:33:40.380 he was all these things.
00:33:41.720 If you don't go to the penalty box, the game is over, right?
00:33:44.840 And I would say, like, I'll just give a couple examples.
00:33:47.840 Like, what if it was an actual emergency?
00:33:49.780 Like, let's say it was a war.
00:33:51.300 And the federal government came and said, you know what?
00:33:53.240 We demand that you sell your oil to the armed forces, and we demand you don't sell your oil to our enemy.
00:33:58.900 And Alberta says, just a second, that's provincial jurisdiction.
00:34:01.520 It's clear.
00:34:02.160 It's in Section 91 to 95.
00:34:04.240 We get to decide that.
00:34:06.300 I think people would find that a bit egregious to think that Alberta could do that. 0.99
00:34:10.140 don't you think but don't you think michael that the you you have to have faith in your mlas as the
00:34:15.820 document i think lays out they would vote on it in a 24-hour period and you're acting like
00:34:21.900 alberta's going to abandon all of a sudden canada for sticking up for some of its rights
00:34:26.460 right in saying all this guys as i listen to you i don't think that i don't you don't think that
00:34:31.660 no the point of a constitution because if we all just thought that the mlas would always be 1.00
00:34:37.660 eminently reasonable and eminently fair and and and judicious that we wouldn't need a constitution
00:34:43.260 at all like the whole point of a constitution is to protect people from the people in power
00:34:50.060 and the whole reason to have courts and laws is to protect us i just find this whole idea
00:34:55.260 so contrary to what albertans believe the albertans are the most in favor of direct democracy
00:35:01.820 and here we're saying well we're going to give the power to our mlas to ignore the constitution
00:35:07.580 which is the only thing that actually protects us from them i find it i've got it contrary to our
00:35:12.700 i find it contrary to it certainly contrary to what i believe you know that the way you just
00:35:17.740 described it there is that i mean you're getting into brian gene territory there it's just not what
00:35:23.100 it's about i mean the same thing with with uh jason but i'm just reacting directly to sean's
00:35:27.340 point but can't we just trust our mlas and i'm going well yes i mean we do right now don't we
00:35:32.460 i mean what we're asking we don't know what i would say is that we have a charter of rights
00:35:38.380 why do i need a charter of rights because i'm worried that a politician might pass a law
00:35:42.140 the country okay okay so i mean you're you're off in left field to be frank uh again well okay
00:35:51.340 let's agree one of us is one of us is in left field for sure and i think the idea that we're
00:35:55.820 going to ignore court rulings is in left field and unacceptable and i think at the end of the day
00:36:00.460 albertans when they realize that what we're talking about is allowing a legislature to
00:36:05.900 decide itself when when it will follow the constitution and when it won't yeah that is
00:36:11.260 gonna i think i think you'll find albertans will be the most opposed to this once they figure okay
00:36:15.980 so there's two responses to that first that was a straw man and i'm sorry that's dismissive but i've
00:36:20.780 been over it already but the second one is that it's already happening we have a notwithstanding
00:36:25.500 clause in the constitution that applies to sections what is it two through seven and fifteen
00:36:29.660 and we struck we trust legislatures to do that it's been invoked a number of times
00:36:35.660 provisions built into the constitution act 1867 called disallowance and reservation which allow
00:36:42.140 the attorney general and the governor general to do the same thing so derek if you said to me
00:36:47.420 we would like to make a constitutional amendment to give us the equivalent of a notwithstanding
00:36:52.460 clause in alberta over sections 91 to 95 that's a great idea the notwithstanding clause you refer
00:36:58.460 to is inside the constitution yeah so now look at this what what and again i'm going to make this
00:37:04.620 point again i'm trying to make it clearly the idea is to stay within the constitution and essentially
00:37:11.580 what happens is okay the alberta government votes and okay we're not gonna we're not gonna under the
00:37:17.180 greenhouse gas pollution i promise to call the carbon tax i'll call it carbon carbon tax law
00:37:23.740 what's going to happen is uh they're going to start regulating the tires we can put on our cars
00:37:28.380 or the sand we can put in our sandbox is that good they're going to start regulating that
00:37:32.700 the alberta government then uh they have a debate in the legislature the public's involved the media
00:37:37.500 is there it takes a period of time rich debate they say you know what we're gonna we're not
00:37:43.420 going to enforce that for 60 days okay what happens is this now look when the federal government
00:37:50.060 infringes on our jurisdiction we have to go to court and we have to sue them and you know that
00:37:57.260 you know very well how long that takes the the carbon tax reference was extremely expedited
00:38:03.980 extremely expedited and it took how long it took a number of years now so what is that what results
00:38:10.780 is that going to get for us well we can wait a number of years meanwhile we have clear constitutional
00:38:15.740 jurisdiction in the in the in the opinion of our of our legislature which is supposed to be in a
00:38:21.980 dialogue with the courts right supposed to be in a dialogue with the courts and essentially what
00:38:27.580 happens is it makes the federal government come to us and sue us or negotiate with us say you know
00:38:34.140 what we're not going to regulate your your jurisdiction that way it gives the power back
00:38:38.940 to albertans through the legislature using the rule of law and again everything's tied back to
00:38:45.660 the constitution can well what will will we give the power to the legislature to ignore charter
00:38:50.620 rights no that's that's not that's not in ignoring the constitution okay this is the problem that
00:38:58.460 jason kenny has when he talks about well what if bc decides that they don't want to follow supreme
00:39:03.420 court decision allowing the pipeline to be built through its you know what the federal government
00:39:08.300 clearly has that authority bc couldn't enact a sovereignty act and dispute that that's not what
00:39:14.860 this is about this is about keeping different levels of government different uh levels of
00:39:19.820 government within their jurisdiction not expanding the jurisdiction of any level of government the
00:39:25.660 alberta legislature does not have the constitutional authority to violate the constitution what we're
00:39:31.820 saying is that your document doesn't say that right i mean you say well you know what to make
00:39:38.060 this work we're going to have to get our own police force because what if the federal government just
00:39:41.420 sent in the rcmp and then you say we have to have an independent banking act because what if the
00:39:45.340 federal government just were to come in and and talk to a business okay we're not going to let
00:39:50.700 you one of your specific examples we're not going to have a carbon tax anymore here because that's
00:39:54.540 unconstitutional we've decided in spite of what the supreme court says uh we've decided on our
00:39:59.420 own it was unconstitutional but by the way if if i had been the referee i would have come to that
00:40:03.900 conclusion but uh but i wasn't i wasn't and uh so but we but we're now going to set things right
00:40:10.540 here in alberta and we're going to say hey you know what businesses you don't have to collect
00:40:13.900 the carbon tax anymore people you don't have to pay the carbon tax anymore and the way we're going
00:40:17.820 to be able to do all that is it's not just a sovereignty act it's it's also we're going to
00:40:22.540 take over the all the policing we already have control over enforcement of property which i
00:40:27.100 by the way that that's what i think is the most interesting academic thing about your your your
00:40:31.020 paper is that the the intellectual academic exercise of saying hey if we wanted to do this
00:40:36.620 what what would it take to do it i find that fascinating and i really thought you're talking
00:40:40.460 was was excellently well done and then the final point you're talking about is we have to we'll
00:40:45.020 have to provide albertans places to put their money so that they so that the federal government
00:40:49.820 can't go collect that carbon tax from them directly and then then albert is going to
00:40:53.660 start collecting federal money and remit what we want to remit and i i'm going well let's okay
00:40:58.700 here's some so so there there's the you know that that's not even the illogical conclusion
00:41:04.220 that's actually where your paper arrives in writing right and i look at all that and say
00:41:09.180 well here i have a few problems with that like number one is it will take no more than a letter
00:41:15.260 from revenue canada telling me i forgot to remit my carbon taxes and by the way you could go to jail
00:41:20.220 and you'll pay a fine and i'll say well i don't know derek told me i'm keeping my money in this
00:41:24.220 new alberta bank and they can't get that and he's telling me the police can't come to alberta at
00:41:28.540 arrest me so maybe maybe it's okay for my business to continue to remit those taxes to the Alberta
00:41:33.760 government not to the federal government like they told me but I'll think you know what I think what
00:41:37.900 I find I don't know I'm a bit worried next time I fly to Toronto they'd arrest me and I'm a little
00:41:42.040 bit worried that maybe they'll seize my condo in Kelowna because I can't get the one in Alberta
00:41:48.060 and all of a sudden I'm going man oh man I have now I have I have to send the money to Alberta
00:41:52.480 government and I have to send the money to the federal government and so I mean I just look at
00:41:57.040 all of those things like wow this it goes it gets to the point where i don't think i could comply
00:42:02.240 with all of that idea um i will tell you though if it was if it was limited and your document is not
00:42:08.720 in any way shape or form limited but if it was limited to the way you're saying now we merely
00:42:13.760 want to put a stay on the enforcement of a federal law until it's determined if it was constitutional
00:42:20.320 by a by a by a court then while i'm not sure that would be technically constitutional or technically
00:42:26.240 legal i could see that hey as a practical matter you could at least stop the enforcement of the
00:42:31.040 law until so so i think michael you're you're conflating both the sovereignty act with the
00:42:37.360 the strategy you described the strategy very well and the strategy is you know i'm not going to say
00:42:43.040 that i i i want to see it implemented uh it's it was somewhat of an academic exercise and it was
00:42:50.080 you know a very first draft and this is a way forward to do what you said but the sovereignty
00:42:54.960 act is what we're talking about and the sovereignty act is different than the entire strategy well
00:43:00.720 is the last portion of what you described except as we established up front the sovereignty act
00:43:06.320 in the policy document is basically a layover for the sovereignty act in your document
00:43:11.600 yeah well yeah for me and not speaking for a campaign i think the reason reason we're talking
00:43:16.560 okay version of the sovereignty act um to my knowledge she has not endorsed the free alberta
00:43:25.920 strategy yeah i would agree i would agree with that i don't think she has either um i don't
00:43:32.560 think she has either the the the using the exact same name as in your document and using the exact
00:43:40.160 you know pretty much the exact same policy makes one wonder but but um but anyways i hear you on
00:43:45.680 that and i need to talk about the strategy in the whole because you you you laid it out and there is
00:43:55.760 sovereignty act was one piece of legislation i believe there's three four or five other pieces
00:43:59.920 of legislation that were drafted in consultation both with academics and many other lawyers and
00:44:06.400 the idea was look here's a possible path forward it wasn't this is the path forward this is a
00:44:13.360 possible path forward. This needs to be explored. This could get us to the result that we want in
00:44:18.860 the end of an Alberta that's freer and sovereign within Canada, that we'll finally put to bed
00:44:26.720 all these problems we have. Now, having said, you know, you're like my condo in Kelowna. Well,
00:44:32.920 there's nothing in this act that takes away the choice of individual Albertans.
00:44:38.300 No one's going to force you to bank in a particular place. Certainly, I didn't draft
00:44:42.380 with that in mind because i'm all about people making individual choice in fact that was one of
00:44:47.260 my biggest beefs with the last two years of code restrictions is that it removed choice and
00:44:51.900 socialized risk and so i am very opposed to that and what i hear you saying is that somehow we can
00:44:57.980 be cast as um as taking choice away from albertans with the free alberta strategy and and making uh
00:45:05.340 socializing the risk that that is not the case at all there was no attempt to do that if you have a
00:45:10.860 colonna and bc and you want to continue to remit carbon tax have at her you know what there's many
00:45:15.180 businesses with offices throughout canada it would be interesting and and and uh the whole strategy
00:45:22.140 if implemented which i have no idea if it ever will be would would have to be in a lot of
00:45:27.500 consultation with vested interests okay so you're probably too far down the hypothetical because
00:45:32.620 like even you said it was just agreed here here fellas let me let me hop in here sure sure michael
00:45:39.420 finish finish your thought sure your own document recognizes the problem though is that the federal
00:45:46.460 government has the ability to cut off money back to alberta yeah and so your own document recognizes
00:45:52.140 that if you're going to get away from this idea that we are not going to enforce these laws and
00:45:57.020 then the federal government choose to start enforcement they have a lot of tools in their
00:46:00.620 toolbox including the fact that they can tax you directly and then not remit the money back to
00:46:05.020 alberta and that you that that doesn't even get into rcmp and arresting people or anything 1.00
00:46:10.380 and so therefore alberta is going to run would run out of money quickly if you didn't have a find a 1.00
00:46:15.100 way to get some of those taxes remitted and as soon as you start doing that you're going to be
00:46:18.860 into all the problems i just said so and you're talking it recognizes that problem yeah yeah and
00:46:24.220 i agree with that i just wanted to make that point no no no i don't mean to cut off a good debate
00:46:29.900 going back and forth i'm just you know as i sit here and listen to you two go back and forth i go
00:46:34.940 okay so we get a new premiere in october okay and let's say it is danielle smith and she has
00:46:40.300 championed the alberta sovereignty act i don't think listening you two uh it's as easy as day
00:46:47.180 one the alberta sovereignty act is in effect or am i wrong in saying that after listening to you
00:46:51.980 two go back and forth i highly doubt the more people you add into this the more difficult and
00:46:56.940 And more heated a conversation could become on trying to flush out all the different ideas that this thing is talking about.
00:47:05.900 Alberta Provincial Police Force, independent banking, revenue agency, pension plan, you know, like it goes on and on and on.
00:47:13.200 There's lots.
00:47:14.140 And at times we go deep and at times we're just scraping the surface of going back and forth to you two.
00:47:20.260 Would you agree that, like, whoever comes into power, if it is Daniel Smith, day one, it isn't like all of a sudden all the laws change in Alberta?
00:47:28.740 What Derek said at the beginning is, I think, gives the comfort of saying, hey, look, it's a policy and it's not final.
00:47:37.060 And I think the policy itself says, hey, it's subject to debate.
00:47:40.840 It's subject to a vote.
00:47:41.720 It's subject to all these things.
00:47:43.540 And so I think the, you know, as Derek said, you know, let's not just jump to the conclusion that the statute's going to be the same as the policy is drafted.
00:47:54.140 Yeah, that's right.
00:47:55.120 Okay, so then I want to go back in the conversation earlier.
00:47:58.880 We talked about Quebec's strategy, but then I didn't hear what it was.
00:48:02.420 What does Quebec do that's so good?
00:48:06.120 And if you're Alberta and you could adopt it immediately, what would it be?
00:48:09.660 What is it?
00:48:10.420 Yeah, so here's what I'd say that I've learned from a long time there is that Quebec in particular is a very political culture.
00:48:18.560 It has, since 1763, been very focused on maintaining political power to protect itself from what it perceives to be an island of English who's out to get them, right, in order to persecute them. 0.84
00:48:31.200 And they would, you know, they probably would put it almost in those exact words, although I probably embellished a bit.
00:48:35.180 whereas I find Alberta to be a mercantile culture or a business culture mercantile not mercantilist
00:48:42.560 I find Ontario to be mercantileist which is to say we use business to to accumulate political power
00:48:49.340 and and Alberta is like I say we're we're we're like a bunch of we're we're very business oriented
00:48:55.100 mercantile culture and and I say we're a little bit like when Napoleon talked about we just we're
00:49:00.400 a nation of shopkeepers and most people in Alberta we just want to get back to running our shops I
00:49:04.300 derek and i i think agree on 95 of what we talked about it's just this issue of whether we're going
00:49:08.780 to whether we're going to follow court rulings or not it's probably what we're arguing about
00:49:12.460 the the uh but but what i would say is that because we have that business culture not political
00:49:17.580 culture in the federation we play a different game we constantly go down to ottawa and explain
00:49:22.860 to them like you know if you would just get out of our way and let us go back to our shops and
00:49:27.740 make more money it would be good for the whole country gdp would go up people would be wealthier
00:49:32.940 and what we don't understand is if you're in a political culture like quebec or a mercantilist
00:49:37.980 culture like ontario what they hear you saying is we want more political power it wouldn't even
00:49:45.500 occur to them that alberta would make more money and not use it for political fans because because 0.99
00:49:52.220 that's what they do and so what what i guess what i'm really saying is and i did on this other
00:49:57.580 podcast you know if we're playing rummy and they're playing euchre us getting better at playing rummy
00:50:03.500 is not going to win at euchre and i think what we have to do is learn to be political like quebec
00:50:10.460 a bit more mercantilist like ontario and start using that to make to gain political power
00:50:18.860 to in effect for us to keep them out of our politics but for them it's to get into our
00:50:23.580 politics and what i really mean by that is where does power come from power and i've done business
00:50:27.900 all over the world edward shiver nazi with a friend i mean so uh i i have seen how power gets
00:50:34.060 exercised in different cultures in different countries and to me it really comes down to
00:50:38.140 there's three things and just to make it glib guns votes and money and so if you know if you look at
00:50:46.460 pre the capitalist area in europe all the people who had all the money were the people with the
00:50:50.860 guns but with the invention of the company by the dutch in the 16608 or whenever it was the the
00:50:57.500 beginning of capitalism we've now seen that power has devolved more to the money like people with
00:51:02.220 money to them influence over the people with the guns and of course votes still has lots of political 0.89
00:51:06.780 power and in rome that would have been the mob uh throwing out an emperor today it's us exercising
00:51:12.700 your votes so when i look at canada well let's hope nobody's going to pull out their guns so
00:51:17.260 So let's put that to the side.
00:51:19.100 And so you're now down to votes and money.
00:51:21.560 Now, Alberta in particular, as we know, has less votes. 0.99
00:51:24.540 Certainly the West entirely has less votes than Ontario and Quebec combined.
00:51:28.020 The West does have more votes than Quebec, by the way.
00:51:30.440 People seem to forget that part.
00:51:32.060 But we don't have more than Ontario combined.
00:51:34.500 But here's what we do have.
00:51:36.180 We have an incredible ability to generate wealth.
00:51:39.480 And we do not use that wealth for political power.
00:51:43.820 Quebec does.
00:51:45.020 And I'll just tell you things that I know.
00:51:46.260 Well, Quebec has, and so you'll just have to take my word for this from people that I feel very lively.
00:51:53.260 Quebec, first of all, controls all of its own pension funds, controls all of its own money, even though it isn't a great place to generate wealth.
00:52:00.100 They control their money, and they have threatened explicitly or implicitly at certain times to take all of their money out of the Canadian financial institution, which would be very harmful to the banks, very harmful to investment funds, be very harmful to a lot of things.
00:52:15.560 But they're willing to use their money, even though they generate less of it than Alberta, they're willing to use that money for political purposes.
00:52:23.740 And, you know, we all go, they had a referendum vote, but that's but but they took they took a long time before they did that.
00:52:30.580 They first built their institutions to manage their own pensions effectively.
00:52:34.020 They police themselves. They collect their own revenues.
00:52:36.920 They have, so what I would say is they built the institutions to show they could govern themselves, and then they have used votes and money to exercise political power in the federation.
00:52:51.600 If you look at Alberta, what we do is we send our money down to Ottawa and let them manage it for us.
00:52:56.880 So here's the irony. Can you imagine this, right? Just the Canada Pension Plan, $700 billion under management. On an actuarial basis, $400 billion belongs to Albertans, right? 12% of the country. We have more than 50%. But let's talk about the power of, hey, I'm deciding where that money gets invested.
00:53:21.180 I'm deciding who earns a banking fee.
00:53:23.740 I'm deciding who's going to earn a sales fee or whatever, brokerage fees, all those things.
00:53:33.960 Well, if you're the RBC Dominion Securities, you go to Ottawa to ask them, could you invest
00:53:41.940 or could I get a fee, could I get whatever on Alberta's money?
00:53:46.280 So Ottawa is exercising the political power that comes from being able to generate money.
00:53:50.080 and in the modern capitalist world money's the big power today and it's because of capitalism
00:53:56.040 that's the way it is right so so that that's the way things are and we need to say i think in
00:54:00.740 alberta start realizing that's our one big power and here's some things people don't know alberta's 0.90
00:54:05.840 been running about a three billion dollar trade deficit with quebec if you take oil and gas out
00:54:10.980 it's closer to five for decades whatever happened to the customer is always right
00:54:16.040 so i so i would say what what so i think that you know in terms of this type of things that
00:54:22.960 quebec does alberta oh and and by the way i've been through i've been through two bap hearings
00:54:27.480 personally which is this environment commission in quebec where it's you know where they'll put
00:54:33.060 projects and you know to to kill them for political reasons if they want to right and and and our
00:54:38.540 project didn't fail the bap but the sagany lng project did and it got killed you know for that
00:54:44.340 an excuse well if quebec says i'm blocking your lng and your gas and your pipelines for you know
00:54:52.180 environmental esg environmental social governance for esg reasons well why doesn't alberta review
00:54:58.020 every product and every company and every service that we buy from quebec for for esg as well like
00:55:04.980 do we think that tell me what the gender impacts are of bombardier jets tell me what the full cycle
00:55:12.260 emissions are of bombardier jets like like like why don't we go through the same thing for your
00:55:17.540 products as you make us go through for our products and for that and by the way there's something
00:55:21.300 that is so foreign business-minded mercantile culture so you're telling me i might have to
00:55:27.140 pay two percent more for my jet why would i ever do that well i'll tell you why because it's a
00:55:33.140 because it's a sort of a penny wise pound foolish you save two percent but you lose your ability to
00:55:38.660 get your product to market well as we come up here on time derek uh you know any thoughts uh on on
00:55:46.580 on just on what michael said about how quebec operates anything there um you know before we we
00:55:52.260 uh we end uh on on i don't know on a few different thoughts here but uh derek if you if you got some
00:55:58.820 final thoughts please fire away i certainly would endorse personally endorse any any plan that works
00:56:05.780 i think that's what it comes down to if if what michael is proposing is is a completely different
00:56:10.820 species and i'm not convinced that the free alberta strategy and what he's saying are are
00:56:15.700 exclusive to each other i would thoroughly endorse that because i think albert is an attract an
00:56:20.420 intractable position it's it's becoming intolerable to have a confederation function as it currently
00:56:27.300 is and that doesn't mean that that's an attack on confederation as some of the candidates like to
00:56:31.860 think it's that we can do better and so i i think um i think by the way dick i agree with that when
00:56:38.100 i first saw the plan i said hey 90 of that works with what i'm saying is that let's get tough on
00:56:42.660 trade and start using our start using our ability so i do i do have i'm just thinking of three
00:56:47.860 comments on on that and that was you know this is the type of thing that i'm sure uh danielle smith
00:56:54.340 should she become premier is going to want to hear from you and your wealth of experience and your
00:56:58.900 ideas like there's it's going to be an open door because she's going to want to hear from people
00:57:03.620 because the last thing anyone wants to do when they step in is damage alberta but ted byfield
00:57:08.980 in 2001 2001 said and i'm sorry i have to read this off the screen my eyes are going to look
00:57:14.340 a little weird here the only way to change canada is to develop ways of getting out of canada we
00:57:20.340 must possess other options unless we make credible threats to set up on our own we will get absolutely
00:57:28.500 nothing in the way of constitutional change or any other kind of change i agree with that we'll
00:57:32.980 be bashed down every time thousand percent that's why we have to do what quebec did take the time 0.87
00:57:38.660 we need to build the institutions to manage your own money to police ourselves to collect
00:57:42.900 our own revenue all of which is in your free alberta strategy which is absolutely necessary
00:57:47.620 you nobody you know what the people in ontario they laugh by the way it's so frustrating i keep
00:57:52.660 talking but they laugh at me when i talk about the strategy albert alberta will never do that you
00:57:56.740 You guys, you guys will never do that.
00:57:58.460 They just don't take us seriously.
00:58:00.560 Well, you know, I think I remember a prime minister famously saying, just watch me.
00:58:05.680 Maybe, maybe we should take that sort of attitude.
00:58:08.120 But the reason is because we're a little bit like a teenager saying we're going to move out of the house.
00:58:12.800 And then the mom and dad goes, yeah, but I got all your money.
00:58:17.020 Yeah, yeah.
00:58:17.760 And so, yeah, we need we need to control that.
00:58:19.880 But so I want to just address what I've harped on this a little bit through this discussion today, which has been excellent.
00:58:26.740 that we need to actually have something credible that we can do and that there's certain things
00:58:34.700 that we know that will not work and flawed as it may appear to some the free Alberta strategy and
00:58:41.440 particularly the sovereignty act is an attempt to doing exactly what Bifield said we need to have a
00:58:46.380 credible threat or else we're not getting anywhere like election night federal election night the
00:58:50.180 elections decided for the most part by the time it gets to Manitoba as you pointed out Michael
00:58:55.800 But I want to point out that Taves has brought forth a strategy in response to the Sovereignty Act, which is just to willy-nilly slap tariffs on products coming in and contracts, goods, all sorts.
00:59:09.740 And if you want to talk about constitutionality, I spent seven years of my life on the way to the Supreme Court in the R.B. Como case, and we were discussing or addressing Section 121 of the Constitution about interprovincial trade.
00:59:24.260 Admitted free was the big thing.
00:59:27.240 And what we do know from 150 years of constitutional discussion is that Tave's plan is offside the Constitution.
00:59:35.660 Well, yeah, just but OK, so first of all, I think there's it's absolutely black and white clear based on Supreme Court decisions that you cannot absolutely black and white clear.
00:59:44.100 You cannot put a financial tariff on. But when I heard Tay's talk, I thought he was talking about the possibility of non-tariff barriers as well.
00:59:51.060 No, he uses the word tariff.
00:59:54.580 He's either misused the term or he or he doesn't understand the law.
00:59:58.440 It sounded to him. It sounded like a policy he came up or his campaign team came up with on the fly without actually thinking it through thoroughly, which is problematic as well. But then the other thing is we have another campaign talking about opening constitutions with the federal government.
01:00:15.440 Now, I am old enough to remember Charlottetown and Meech Lake and all the heartache and what actually was accomplished from those constitutional negotiations.
01:00:25.860 And there is no provision in the Constitution that allows someone to send notice to the federal government and say, you know what, we're opening the Constitution.
01:00:34.760 I don't know what that means.
01:00:36.480 It's never happened before.
01:00:38.580 And it certainly does.
01:00:39.680 yeah okay so first of all that's that's that's doing an extension of the precedent of the quebec
01:00:45.600 secession reference it is and i think i think and i think ted morton's points there have merit and
01:00:51.760 of course at the end of the day we'll find well maybe one day we'll find out what if a court
01:00:55.200 agrees or not well it's a misreading of the of the court's decision and and and they always
01:01:02.400 where the obligation of the rest of obligation of the federal government the rest of canada will be
01:01:07.200 to acknowledge acknowledge alberta's discontent and then that's that's it that's right i i i
01:01:15.600 hear what you're saying just getting back to the like what does quebec do differently they actively
01:01:19.840 look for loopholes too yeah right like they don't just like as you said hey this this this 91 to 95
01:01:26.400 it was ironclad but then over 100 years people find this loophole and that loophole and this
01:01:31.120 surprise judgment and so forth they actively look for those and that's another thing i find that
01:01:35.360 albertans are don't have again in our business mercantile culture we're trying to avoid contractual
01:01:40.480 disputes we're trying to be reasonable we're not trying to and i think we have to learn maybe to
01:01:44.720 start looking for some loopholes ourselves and one of them just on the tapes idea which i which i
01:01:50.480 which you know if he strictly means a financial tariff then you then of course you're right but
01:01:55.200 if he means tariffs in the broader sense of uh non-tariff barriers too then um uh non-financial
01:02:01.920 territories too then i think there's the loophole that quebec has found actually actually no
01:02:08.720 and i think the answer is that we do we do esg we do an esg trade barrier and we put those those
01:02:16.800 alberta's signatory both to the canada free trade agreement and to the northwest uh partnership
01:02:22.640 agreement and i actually had the opportunity to litigate through both of those regarding one of
01:02:28.240 of Joe Cece's, our former Billy Feuze Minister of Finance at the time, and had one of his illegal
01:02:34.180 policies, which was a tax and rebate scheme regarding beer. It was struck down by the trade
01:02:39.260 agreement. And so it's not just merely financial penalties. It can be slightly more convoluted. It
01:02:45.420 can be explicitly like it could be as simple as differential grading between products. Anything
01:02:51.780 that has the purpose of keeping a product or a service or a contract or eligibility out of the
01:02:57.280 province if that's the purpose the primary purpose of it then it's offside the constitution and the
01:03:02.900 trade agreements right but we just had the pog case which said that if there's a climate emergency
01:03:08.600 then there's exceptions to that and we just had the beer case in new brunswick which says if there's
01:03:13.440 a social reason there's exceptions to that and and i've also looked at the canadian free trade
01:03:18.460 agreement and you know what the penalty is if you're caught off first of all there's never been
01:03:22.600 one complaint ever done under it and second of all even if you do the penalty gets paid to some
01:03:27.100 some it gets paid to some um actually actually our success was was technically under the Canada
01:03:32.340 free trade agreement okay I don't know I don't know of a government that's that's that's done
01:03:37.240 that and maybe maybe you can help me but uh but getting back to though the idea but of like what
01:03:43.240 Quebec does these non-tariff barriers that are done for language culture environment all these
01:03:48.640 other reasons Supreme Court's shown both in the Fogg case in the beer case that they're very
01:03:52.840 supportive of the idea that if it's done for those reasons, it's an exception to free movement of
01:03:57.940 goods. Well, why doesn't Alberta do, why don't we do an ESG review too? Like, I'd like to call out
01:04:03.180 Quebec as the biggest greenwashers in the world and make them meet Alberta ESG standards. And so
01:04:08.980 what we're going to do is we're just not going to do business with you until you can meet Alberta
01:04:13.520 ESG standards. Yeah. Essentially, I think, not to use too many political jargon or talking points,
01:04:19.720 But this really reminds me of what Danielle Smith has been saying, that it's time for Alberta to grow up and no longer be a teenager, as you said, and start acting like a senior partner in Confederation.
01:04:31.480 Yes.
01:04:31.780 We have weight to throw around.
01:04:34.120 Let's start throwing it around.
01:04:35.760 So, you know, boys, I could probably hold you here the rest of the day and sit here and just listen to this.
01:04:40.580 And honestly, I got no problem with it.
01:04:42.340 I just want to be respectful of your guys' time.
01:04:44.600 Can we maybe all agree, and maybe I'm wrong on this, that one of the best things then that has come from the Alberta Sovereignty Act is people are actually listening and talking and hopefully starting to debate more on the merits of it and things that Albertans need to do.
01:05:01.460 I mean, I go back to what Todd Lowen said on stage in Vermilion about the firewall letter in 2001.
01:05:08.420 It's not like this is a new idea.
01:05:10.260 Actually, it's been around for a very long time.
01:05:12.660 can we all agree that hopefully alberta is going to maybe uh to use both your terms grow up a little 1.00
01:05:20.280 bit move out of the parents house uh start acting for itself and start to move in the direction of
01:05:25.560 maybe some of the things quebec has done right and take whether it's you know a year away or
01:05:30.920 whatever the time frame is i don't know um but start to pull some of the things back that allow
01:05:36.320 them to have a little more influence in the country is that a fair enough statement yeah
01:05:40.760 And you know what? I have to tell you, I think that the that every leadership candidate and maybe I should say the five out of seven who have read all their stuff, they they have all come up with a plan to get tough for Alberta.
01:05:56.060 And I think we can give Daniel some credit for being a catalyst for that.
01:06:01.200 And and I and I agree that the discussion is good to say, hey, it's time for us to grow up.
01:06:06.620 I like 90% of what I see in the free Alberta strategy.
01:06:10.140 The part about that we're not going to, that we're going to, you know, no longer, we're
01:06:13.260 going to decide to opt in or out of court rulings, I find goes far too far for me.
01:06:17.960 But the rest of it is great.
01:06:19.600 And I think that if we add a get tough on trade strategy to that, I think we're moving
01:06:23.980 in the right direction.
01:06:24.700 But I think this whole idea that, you know, growing up means let's find ways to, you know,
01:06:31.500 obey the constitution because it's our fundamental protection against government overreach ultimately
01:06:36.080 let's obey the constitution we don't like it let's force a change even your document free
01:06:41.480 alberta strategy basically says if we can't force a change ultimately in the constitution we might
01:06:45.200 have to separate so uh so even you at that sense are saying we're going to open up the constitution
01:06:50.020 at some point and i i agree that's what we have to do so but but i think growing up is i'm going
01:06:56.420 say growing up i think is we don't ignore our courts we we do follow we do follow constitutions
01:07:03.060 we understand that they can change we use our political we we we develop the institutions to
01:07:08.340 manage our own money to manage our our own cells so that we actually start to say hey we're grown-ups
01:07:13.540 then we start to show that we're willing to throw our political power around maybe we take our money
01:07:17.860 out of canada maybe we stop buying five billion ten billion dollars a year of stuff from quebec
01:07:23.620 maybe we do things like that they start to see we're willing a we've grown up b we've got the
01:07:27.840 institutions c we're willing to throw our weight around if we if we can't then i think uh and if
01:07:33.080 that doesn't work then i'm with derek then it probably comes down to a referendum but but not
01:07:38.280 a not a declaration by the legislature an actual referendum that we go to the people and say that
01:07:42.560 we want to go for autonomy okay well final final point to you derek and then uh i just appreciate
01:07:47.900 once again you guys hopping on and doing this and being open uh you know uh to me sitting here
01:07:53.540 almost as a fly on the wall i like to think because i didn't really interject a whole lot
01:07:57.300 i just let you guys kind of riffed on you know derek the guy who's in the band uh you know that's
01:08:03.020 kind of what this to me feels like uh sitting back and letting two guys um passionate about
01:08:08.520 a lot of different things namely alberta and the best way forward regardless derek any final
01:08:14.900 thoughts here before I let you two get on with your day? Well, I'm really actually quite hopeful
01:08:20.580 that this new leadership candidate who is selected in a few weeks will do something
01:08:28.480 important to advance Alberta's place in confederation. Because I think at the end of
01:08:32.980 the day, the Free Alberta Strategy and Sovereignty Act being one component of it is an attempt to
01:08:38.360 protect Albertans from what I view as a lawless federal government, a federal government that's
01:08:45.500 just going to do whatever it wants to us and feels like it can always rely on the courts to
01:08:51.120 get what it wants. That concerns me. It concerns me as I see the trajectory of that. And whichever
01:08:57.660 political candidate is elected, of course, I do favor one. I do favor Danielle Smith.
01:09:04.700 and i think it's very important that we have somebody who has displayed a willingness to
01:09:10.460 stand up against ottawa um and quite frankly i think uh the polling on this now shows that it's
01:09:18.700 it's some polls are showing as low as 64 but many are higher than that of albertans within the ucp
01:09:26.140 party actually support the concept of a sovereignty act and i think it's important to say the concept
01:09:31.180 of a sovereignty act because as we've discussed that later there is no actual written document
01:09:36.300 and i think it displays it displays the willingness of of conservatives in alberta to say you know what
01:09:43.500 it's time that we we stood up to ottawa in a meaningful way and here we have an actionable
01:09:48.780 plan other people can come up with their actionable plans as well and uh certainly the the door i
01:09:54.140 don't think will be closed in the premier's office for other input and advice and uh we may actually
01:10:00.460 have a leader in this province who wants to take this portfolio seriously and that's extremely
01:10:05.660 encouraging to me well either way fellas uh i appreciate you coming on and doing this and being
01:10:11.580 open to it and uh and sharing some thoughts and your knowledge because you both come with a wealth
01:10:17.420 of knowledge uh to not only myself but all the listeners who are tuning in and i just appreciate
01:10:23.180 you guys doing this and all the best here in the days to come and like i say and like we pointed
01:10:28.220 it out here in the next what is it less than a month few weeks away we're gonna have a new
01:10:31.580 premiere and we're gonna find out what it's what's gonna happen and hopefully uh you know
01:10:36.300 some of these ideas uh continue to get flushed out as we move along either way thanks guys for
01:10:41.440 hopping on yeah thank you thanks for having us and by the way i've been wanting to meet
01:10:44.700 there for a while so thanks for setting setting that up as well well there you go okay thanks
01:10:50.480 guys. Bye-bye. Bye.
01:10:57.040 You can become a Western
01:10:58.240 Standard member for just $10 a month or
01:11:00.360 $99 a year.