Carney Shot Himself In the Foot - Says He Won't Recognize Majority Separatist Vote!

Added: 2026-05-28

[00:00:00]Hey guys, Wyatt Clayool here and welcome back to the National Telegraph YouTube channel. My favorite genre of Canadian political content is watching Prime Minister Mark Carney stick his foot in his mouth because he thought he was rhetorically more clever than everybody else and didn't realize the mess he was causing. And that's exactly what the man did with his really stupid comments about Alberta separatism that he didn't seem to realize was going to tick off a bunch of people in Quebec. It seems like Carney thought he was just going to be able to dunk on the Alberta separatists to make himself more popular in the rest of the country, not realizing he was ticking off people in the liberal stronghold of Quebec that could actually result in him losing the bi-election to replace Steven Gilbo in his Montreal area riding that mind you used to be held by both the NDP and the former block kebab leader Gil Deep. You can't make it up. But anyways, before we get into the details of the story, I just wanted to remind you guys if you live in British Columbia 1BC and Dallas Brody and myself will be doing three events in June in the city of Cam Loops, Prince George and Colona. That being on the 7th, the 10th, and the 14th in that order of the cities. Uh so if you want to show up to any of those events, make sure you check out the event link pinned at the top of the comment section below.

[00:01:29]Make sure to like this video if you like the channel, subscribe if you're not yet a subscriber, and consider hitting the join button and become a contributing monthly member, making the channel far more sustainable for me. Of course, salute to all of you out there who are currently members. It genuinely makes it very easy to run the channel because I don't need to be like freaking out only making videos on the most like clickbaitable type topics. I can kind of cover whatever I want because I'm not like don't have the YouTube algorithm hold hanging over my head for income.

[00:01:59]Anyways, so uh Mark Carney said something really stupid yesterday that started off a firestorm not in the province of Alberta, but it also did.

[00:02:10]But in the province of Quebec, check this out.

[00:02:13]>> Is 50 plus one enough?

[00:02:14]>> No, it is not. Uh it is not for under a Clarity Act. It is absolutely not. And I would just recommend that you read the Clarity Act. very clear. Not surprisingly, the Clarity Act is very clear.

[00:02:24]>> No, the Clarity Act is not clear. The Clarity Act is in fact very vague. And what he is doing right here is hiding behind vagaries. It needs to be a clear question and there needs to be a clear majority voting in favor of separatism in order for you to actually separate.

[00:02:42]I'll let him keep talking here, but I'll kind of explain what that really means in reality and how he's twisting it in just a second before we get to the block kebab and the party kebab freing freaking out about this. uh and a termination uh and there's a series of conditions which I responded in the house uh for the record >> is 50 plus one enough >> very clear is 50 plus >> uh I I gave a very I gave a sorry just to be clear um the because it is a question about a question I mean it's uh it it it doesn't it's not a b it's explicit in the question that it's not a binding referendum this is what I expected but I uh you know as I said uh in French that um as prime minister and issues particularly issues of a constitutional nature. I like to make sure I have the uh official advice before us which is why yesterday I was careful in terms of my >> is 50 plus one enough.

[00:03:34]>> No it is not uh it is not for under a clarity act it is absolutely not and I would >> so yeah that's just playing again but like my goodness it's just such basically what he was previously saying before that guy asked him the question of is 50 plus one enough he was saying like well it's a question about a question so really we don't have to honor it at all because it's not even a clear enough question. Well, it actually is a clear question. It's saying, "Do you want a binding referendum on separating?" Now, Daniel Smith had to do that because this court struck down the stay free Alberta question. That was a clear separatism question. They said, "You have to cons consult with indigenous people and this could affect their rights and everything. So, I'm not letting the the petition be certified."

[00:04:17]And so, Danielle Smith put up this question so the court wouldn't smack it down again saying, "Hey, we're not actually affecting indigenous rights.

[00:04:24]We're just asking if we can even have a question be tabled and then we'll do all the consulting to ensure that we can actually put that question forward if it gets a yes vote or you I only think it's a yes vote. Basically, someone marks the box saying yes, I do want a referendum on that. Uh but then Carney didn't seem to realize that by basically trying to poo poo the Alberta separatism question that he's also poo pooing the Quebec separatism question which is as if not more popular and he didn't seem to remember that's kind of a big stronghold for the Liberal party. He basically just told all of his own voters, "Yeah, I'm not letting you leave if you ever want to if you ever rethink being part of Canada." And the block kebab party is popular enough at different times of history. A lot of people who vote federal liberal used to vote block and they probably haven't changed their minds on separatism. They probably just don't see it as very realistic. Unless you kick them directly in the face and say that even if you voted 50% plus one, I'm not going to actually allow you to leave Confederation.

[00:05:34]Now we need to move on to now the block attacking uh Mark Carney. This is being translated from French obviously because this was quite delicious. I'm just going to show you this one interchange that happened at the very start of question period with the block house leader. Uh but we because you don't need to see like the other three or four blocka MPs ask him the same question. The fact that they were dogging all dogging him really does show you that this is absolute political blood in the water for the block.

[00:06:04]>> 50% of the votes plus one. The prime minister knows this. All his laws are passed with 50% plus one. His majority depends on 50% plus one. Even his parliamentary secretary for justice said the rule is 50% plus one. That is democracy.

[00:06:22]Except for referenda because of the clarity act. Will the prime minister repeal this author authoritarian overreach?

[00:06:32]>> The right.

[00:06:32]>> Now, the actual clarity act doesn't say that you can't separate with 50% plus one. It basically just says there needs to be a clear question and there needs to be a clear majority. Clear majority isn't some just abstract concept where if the prime minister determines in his mind that you need 72%, you need 72%.

[00:06:49]Clear majority and clear question means that you can't ask a deliberately confusing question in order to engineer an outcome. And a clear majority would be like let's say you had a question where there were multiple outcomes.

[00:07:02]There were multiple things that you could check off and a plurality of people chose like I want to separate.

[00:07:09]But then there was a bunch of non-separating answers of saying well I want to not separate but I want this too and I want to not separate but I don't want any changes or I want to not separate plus this or that. You can't engineer an outcome where oh a plurality of people or a majority technically of people voted to separate because we had a bunch of qu we had a bunch of answers that technically if you really squinted sounded like separatism but they don't really but if we cobbled them together it's technically a majority. That's what the clarity act is saying. Again clarity act is not saying it needs to be 55 60 75 or 100% of people. It just needs to be a clear majority. A clear majority is 50 plus 1%. And now the block of acquire is saying, well, if you can't even read the Clarity Act, right? Well, then we obviously need to repeal it because you're using it in an authoritarian manner to block separatist petitions or referendums that you do not like. So, here is Mark Carney's response.

[00:08:07]>> Honorable Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, you have to respect democracy. You have to respect parliamentary legislation and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada under >> I'm sorry. The Clarity Act isn't democracy simply because it was passed.

[00:08:23]It was passed by representatives. But representatives cannot pass an anti-democratic piece of legislation.

[00:08:29]It's not democracy for a majority of MPs to vote for a piece of legislation that is then going to be misinterpreted as we don't care if you vote a majority way.

[00:08:39]We're just not going to respect the result of your referendum. the Clarity Act. The House of Commons must consider the following factors to establish this determination of a clear vote. The scope of the majority that are valid expressed in favor of the successionistic option and the percentage of eligible electors who took part in the referendum. It is not 50% plus one.

[00:09:09]>> Yeah. So, that's complete crap. And now he doesn't just have the block Kebbeekqua and their MPs on his back. He also has the leader of the party Kebeekqua who is very much not happy with this because he runs a provincial separatist Quebec party which by the way is currently leading in the polls in Quebec. And that's a lot. like they are leaving with like 32 33% of the vote, which is a lot considering they have like five or six parties that can presumably win seats in that province.

[00:09:41]So, that's a big lead in in Quebec.

[00:09:44]>> I don't I don't think we heard uh your reaction since Daniel Smith announced that she'll start the process for a future and potential referendum. How do you react about this?

[00:09:56]>> Uh what's happening in Alberta? I'm >> kind of surprised at what Carney said.

[00:10:01]Mark Carney seemed to be willing to give many things to Alberta in exchange for some peace.

[00:10:10]And I think the premier of Alberta, Daniel Smith, is just doing her job as a premier saying that uh of course they are free to consult their population and of course they're a parliament free of making any laws that they deem fit fit that the deem fit to uh for their objectives.

[00:10:31]So for Mark Carney to all of a sudden uh start saying that uh it's a bluff, it's dangerous, I think it's really out of out of line and I'm I'm not sure where that is heading. But make me let me make clear that in the case of Quebec, our laws are clear. The historic uh the history of the two referendums are very clear. We are free to consult our population at any time and there's no blackmail or any comment that will change that principle. And I'm pretty sure that it's the same reasoning in Alberta right now.

[00:11:04]>> Yeah. So, he didn't specifically mention the 50% plus one thing, but those comments were triggered afterwards because he had also been making making comments about how the separatist referendum is a dangerous bluff and effectively acting like he's not going to let a pipeline go forward if Danielle Smith lets the referendum go forward, even though she's not doing it. She's simply letting the petition uh the citizens petition process play out because a judge blocked it unfairly.

[00:11:32]she's putting up her own version of the question to actually honor the fact that they had actually collected more than enough signatures to trigger it happening. And just because of a judge's ridiculous opinion, it's not going forward. And so, yeah, this is not great for Mark Carney considering that he has now somehow unified Alberta and Quebec against him and his arrogant kind of perspective on federalism just being a massive cradown from Ottawa onto the provinces. And even if you vote to leave, he just will he'll read the results wrong and decide that you can't leave. Uh, so great work, Mark Carney.

[00:12:14]You may have lost a bi-election from your big stupid mouth. And also at the same time, you may have made Quebec and Alberta partners in Confederation, even though those two provinces disagree on effectively everything other than the fact that Ottawa sucks. So, I don't know what else to say here. Actually, maybe we will wrap up one more clip of the block kebab complaining at Mark Carney because I do find that entertaining. So, I might actually just pause this to grab one more just so we can end off the show with that.

[00:12:49]Okay, we are back for some entertainment. Here is another one of the block Kemakqua MPs coming at Mark Carney with piston vinegar here because of his 50% plus one comments.

[00:13:01]>> The honorable member for >> Mr. Speaker, there is no place in a democracy for a law that does not respect the will of the people expressed by 50% of the votes plus one. There's no place in a democracy for a law that overturns the people's decisions by claiming after the fact that either the question or the result of the vote was not clear enough. There is no place in democracy for a law that flouts the rules of the ballot when the result just doesn't suit the government. This is an authoritarian overreach we must avoid.

[00:13:34]Will the prime minister finally repeal the anti-democratic law on referendum clarity?

[00:13:41]>> The right honorable prime minister, Mr. Speaker, we respect the laws of Canada. The Clarity Act is clear.

[00:13:53]At the same time, we respect the will of Quebecers. that is to build a strong, resilient Quebec within a strong and resilient independent Canada.

[00:14:06]>> Like, oh my goodness, what a stupid response. He's basically saying that I respect Quebecers when they agree with me. When they voted in a lot of Liberal MPs, I liked them, but proincially they put forward a referendum question on separating. That's illegitimate based on the fact that I'm prime minister and I have a lot of Quebec MPs. I'm sorry. How does it change a Quebec separatist referendum if the Liberals won a majority or not even a majority, but they won a plurality of the Quebec seats? Sorry, they could win. They could literally vote in this case based on how he's talking. They could they could vote like 90% to separate in Quebec right now. And he'd be like, well, I feel like they voted for me to, you know, they voted for a strong elbows up liberal uh government. They wanted a a strong Quebec and a strong Canada. I feel that way. So question's not clear enough like what is this? Anyways, so that should be it for me today guys. Uh if of course if you want to show up to those 1BC town hall events, check out the link pinned at the top of the comments below. Like, share, and subscribe. And I'll see you guys all