MARTY UP NORTH: Chaos at the Select Special Citizen Initiative Proposal Review Committee

Added: 2026-05-25

[00:00:00][music] [music] [music] [music] >> Welcome back. How's everybody doing today?

[00:00:26]Um hey, I'll tell you honestly, I'm in a weird, giddy mood, feisty mood. I'm in a good mood. I was going to wear shorts. I was going to walk I was going to come to work calling it come to work. I was going to come to the studio today wearing shorts, but then after this, I'm heading over to the annual general meeting of local oil and gas company called Peyto. So, I thought, nah, I better better dress up a little bit, look like a shareholder. Um it is it is that time of year, right? It's shareholder annual general meetings for all industries, basically. Any and any business in Canada that runs on a uh uh January 1st to December 31st calendar year, usually finish you know, waits about 3 months. By March, they've they've closed out the year, finished their books, and then they spend time doing their annual reports, and then now is the season of annual reports.

[00:01:20]And I like to go in person. I'm glad because uh there was a long period there where all annual general meetings were online, and I hated that. Now, we're back to having them in person, and I like going to to to those meetings, especially oil and gas ones. Um so, uh call-in show, folks. It's all about you, right? So, this works way better if you call in. You got the number there down on the bottom, uh 1-866-479-WEST.

[00:01:51]Uh John, the producer is working on finding us a um switchboard, but I think we've got things working pretty good now. So, when you call, uh he he he might put you on hold while I'm talking to somebody else, but I've got we we're we're getting things figured out.

[00:02:08]Uh all right, where where to go? So, um I you know, the the I think the thing I got I got about three topics uh high on my list that I want to talk about today. Of course, uh it's always a topic. It's always independence, and there's definitely been some movement on independence. There's There was a weird event in the legislature yesterday, which I definitely want to talk about.

[00:02:31]Uh Smith had an announcement this morning. She did a minor shuffle on her cabinet. I'd like to talk about that.

[00:02:37]On uh on the Alberta-Ottawa relationship, I definitely want to talk about the part two of the MOU and the meeting last week between uh Smith and Kenney talking about advancing pipelines. I found that one a little bit weird. We'll get into details, but you know, he's kind of like saying one thing to us here in Alberta, and then he rushes over to BC, and then when he's in BC, he's kind of like uh don't worry about what I said to those guys, you know, and he he he has sort of two stories. And um and I want to talk about the snowbirds just from a personal point of view. Um I I'm I'm always I just don't like what's happening to Canada's military, and this is another example, but it's also speaks to the bigger picture of uh of of neglect and and failures of the liberals, and then a couple of miscellaneous topics. But let's So, let let's talk about what happened in the uh in the legislature yesterday. Um so, as part of as part of the Citizens Initiative Act, uh any group that petitions the government, so there's two in front of the government right now. There was uh the Lucassic petition and the um and the uh Miss Sylvester petition.

[00:03:51]The procedure is once the once the uh Chief Electoral Officer certifies the petition, counts it, then he gives it to the government, to Danielle Smith, and and to uh and she is obligated under the act to form a small committee to study what the petition act asks, right? So, the petition doesn't necessarily ask for a referendum. It can ask for a change in policy or something else.

[00:04:16]And so, when Thomas uh Lukaszuk handed in his petition uh at the end of last year, a committee was formed.

[00:04:24]Uh and the committee is called um the special uh the Select Special Citizens Initiative Proposal Review Committee. So, that's the committee.

[00:04:33]It's a six-person committee was formed late last year, and uh four members of the UCP and two members of the NDP form this committee, and then this committee was supposed to study Lukaszuk's question.

[00:04:47]Now, they didn't meet for most of the last 3 months. They never met because that we were told there was a specific reason for that, which was the government knew that Mitch had filed a petition, and that there would likely be a second petition. So, they were kind of thinking, "Let's hold off on this committee, and let's wait until we get Mitch's the Take Back Alberta petition, and then the committee can study both at the same time."

[00:05:13]Well, as we all know, Mitch's petition is uh basically null and void now because of the courts, until there's an appeal. So, that's all happening. So, so nothing much going on with Mitch's petition. So, bring back to the committee. The committee was meeting yesterday to talk about Thomas Lukaszuk's petition.

[00:05:32]And and the committee turned into a bit of a gong show because um halfway through the So, the committee was scheduled to go from 2:00 till 4:00 p.m., just a 2-hour-long committee, and right around the 3:00 mark, out comes a press release.

[00:05:49]And the press release basically said that the committee had agreed to a variation or to had agreed to some sort of um uh independence question for a referendum, that it was going to make that recommendation to uh Danielle Smith.

[00:06:06]Well, the committee was taking a break when that happened. And when the committee came back and reconvened after their break, the NDP immediately raised not just a point of order, but a point of privilege and read this um news release that had come out. And And with And the news release said that the committee had agreed on a motion, you know, basically had decided on a question.

[00:06:33]And uh the committee hadn't. And so, and the point of privilege is an important one, right? This point of privilege is a point of like was literally quote say trying to put portray the committee as being not the committee, the chair of the committee as being in contempt of Parliament.

[00:06:51]And the point of privilege tried to pass a motion asking that all the kerfuffle be uh forwarded to the speaker of the house for a a a ruling and opinion from the speaker of the house.

[00:07:06]Now, luckily for the Conservatives, the point of motion the motion as point as the point of privilege failed because um the two NDP voted for it, but three members of the committee uh the of the UCP voted against. And then, of course, the chair didn't need to vote. So, it was defeated three to two.

[00:07:28]And And uh And then, that allowed the committee to resume. But by then, the committee was running out of time. The committee had decided to run from 2:00 to 4:00. And so, then the next order of business was to try and get the committee extended past 4:00.

[00:07:43]And at that point, the the clerks reminded everybody that the only way to extend the timeline of the committee is by unanimous vote. And as soon as it was brought up as a possible motion, the two NDP said, "No." And so, the meeting came adjourned right away without having done anything.

[00:08:03]But the interesting thing about that, other than being caught with, you know, with either prematurely, well, by by prematurely sending out that memo, it kind of shows that the that the UCP had a plan all along, and their plan was to force some sort of motion and get some sort of vote on an on a referendum question.

[00:08:24]There's no doubt about that cuz they they they issued a memo. And they could have done that, right? If they hadn't issued that memo, and if they had just let the committee proceed, they could have played done the theatrics and pretended to listen and argued, you know, whether Lukiwski wanted a a referendum or not. They cuz they brought Lukiwski yesterday to the committee.

[00:08:44]And by the way, I watched all this live.

[00:08:46]Like I I I watched this cuz I'm still one of those guys who likes to watch the odd committee or watch question periods and things like that. I get on my treadmill in the morning or in the afternoon. And I And while I'm running, I got nothing else to do for an hour or so, I'll just watch some of this stuff.

[00:09:02]And so then I like yesterday I watched Lukiwski trying to argue back and forth with Nixon that no, he never intended his petition to be a referendum question, blah blah blah.

[00:09:13]The cons- The Conservatives, if had they if had they played this well, would have for- proposed a motion somewhere near the end of the committee and would have won on a vote three to two. And the NDP, there's nothing they could have done about it. And then they could have validly said, here you know, presented Danielle Smith with some sort of question.

[00:09:33]And by by doing what they did yesterday, they made a mockery of the whole process. They showed their cards. I mean, I I understand I you know, I play both sides of politics and uh and I understand and I I agree with the NDP who are upset about this and with people who are upset with the process. I'm even upset about the process myself. Like, even though I know this is going on, when you see it so blatantly, it's a little bit upsetting. And as a as a as a guy who spent hours collecting signatures, I mean, my preferred course would be that the signatures be counted and the process work. And and I'll get a question on the referendum the the the way I you know, we intended it.

[00:10:17]Plan B would be a debate a proper debate on Lukaszuk's question and maybe get it on the referendum that way. But after the theatrics of yesterday, I'm afraid that um it's going to be interesting to see how Smith manages to find a solution out of this because um she's scheduled for a press conference this later this afternoon almost this evening. I think it's at 6:00 or 7:00. Don't quote me on that.

[00:10:46]And the rumor is she was going to talk about this about uh uh the referendum.

[00:10:52]And so it's going to be interesting and that was pre-recorded. So I think that press conference was pre-recorded yesterday. So I imagine they're re-recording the conference and we might see something different at 7:00. I mean, my gut feeling right now is that uh is that a an independence question on the referendum on the upcoming referendum in October is almost off the table.

[00:11:14]All right. Uh same rules as usual when you answer, let me know where you're calling from, uh what your name is, and uh go ahead with a comment or a question. Uh go ahead, caller. Where are you calling from?

[00:11:28]Hey, Marty. Uh thanks for uh letting me speak. uh, from Edmonton. Um, I heard, uh, Mitch, uh, say that, uh, he was actually, uh, told by, um, uh, the premier's office that it would be better to actually go via the referendum route as opposed to the cabinet bringing, uh, the question in.

[00:11:49]Um, clearly, that was the wrong route to take.

[00:11:52]Uh, is there any issues now between the party leadership and the premier? Or what's the premier doing here? It seems like sabotage to me.

[00:12:01]Actually, that's a good That's a good point. Uh, just to stay on the line, uh, let's have a chat. That when I saw the events yesterday, that was almost the first thought that crossed my mind is like somebody sabotaged this by releasing it prematurely to the press, right?

[00:12:15]Um, listen, at this point I I I don't I I don't Nothing's off the table.

[00:12:21]To me, right? I mean, we we've seen everything. We've seen We've seen injunctions. We've seen court battles.

[00:12:26]We've seen both sides fighting. Like, I I I honestly don't know what to make of it. Um, so, I'm assuming you're, uh, pro-independence?

[00:12:37]Well, yes, I am, but I'm a little confused as to the tact the party's taken. It's clear that there's, uh, conflict now between the party and the leadership. Uh, the leadership is, um, I guess not a sovereignist while the party is.

[00:12:51]So, how do you, uh, square square the circle, right? Well, I mean, there there's only one way to me for me for her to square the circle and that's to go with the membership, right? And then the membership is beyond just the party and the people the MLAs. The membership is the is the 30,000, uh, UCP members that meet at AGMs. And the And that that membership is pushing her towards, uh, towards a referendum and towards, um, severing ties with Ottawa. And And I I I Part of me can see that she's trying to play the the the fine line. It's a tightrope and she's trying to please everybody, but at some point she's going to have to I guess by definition go with what the leadership wants. Does that make sense?

[00:13:38]Well, it does, but I'm a little also confused by the fact that you decided to pile on nine more questions on top of five referendum questions. So, I'm a little suspicious of her motives here, but I don't know what you think about that. Yeah, no. Um I've said this before. I mean, my opinion of what Danielle's doing depends changes really weekly. You can ask me this question today. Today, I'm confused. You ask me the question a month ago. I I I had more clarity, you know, and then and then Well, if you ask me the question last week when she's all gleefully meeting with Mark Carney and and bragging about this pipeline deal and everything else, then I see her as as as being a full-on federalist trying to keep Alberta within Canada. And then and then today, I think we might see something different. She's really really really trying to please everyone and I think at the end of the day that's going to be almost impossible to do.

[00:14:32]There's no win-win. There's no win-win-win-win, right? Like the win-win-win is is satisfy the party, satisfy the separatist, stay in power, keep Nenshi at bay, keep Ottawa, you know, [snorts] in check. I mean, the win-win-win is difficult. And and I think we as a party have as a membership have asked have sort of chosen one path for her, which is like push for independence.

[00:14:55]But she's she's stubbornly trying to find a win-win-win somewhere.

[00:14:59]That's my thoughts.

[00:15:01]Thanks, Nick.

[00:15:03]Any party Any party comments or that's good, Nick.

[00:15:06]Well, >> [clears throat] >> I I kind of wanted to actually hearken back to my first question with regards to the referendum itself uh because it seems to me and Mitch uh was actually misled by the party in even starting to get signatures for the referendum.

[00:15:22]Uh because what but now the party better in the premier's office, right? Like basically what wanting to kind of have this initiative from the bottom up.

[00:15:32]Where it's clearly should have come from the top down. It's where the cabinet that should have actually fielded a question. Yeah. Right? So that's that's kind of what what really makes me scratch my head. I mean, does she is she not responsible to her party chair at all or what's How does this even work?

[00:15:51]Yeah. No, lots to unpack there. And and and the other thing that I'll add to that that that I've also been a little bit disappointed in. And and and I'm disappointed with this in a lot of governments lately is it she some days I think she's moving too fast.

[00:16:05]I'm always critical of governments who move too fast, even if they're moving in my favor. I'm So, you know, she she passed the citizens Well, Kenny passed the Citizens Initiatives Act, but it didn't really get a test until recently with Loukianec and and and uh and Sylvester. But then it failed some quick first passes, right? Remember the the the judge last year didn't approve the initial question and then it got slapped and she changed the law quickly and then and now you know, I don't like that. I don't like making laws back and forth between, you know, the courts and the government and and then adjusting on the fly. Like maybe maybe there needs to be a re-thought on on the whole process. Um yeah, appreciate the call, Nick. Thanks for calling in.

[00:16:50]Have a good one. Yeah, yeah, you too.

[00:16:52]Um yeah, it's um yeah, that's a that's a real frustration. That's a real frustration of mine and that's a real frustration of a lot of other people, right? Like the the the law in this instance, I get that. I get that. Governments pass a law and then the law has to be tested and some laws don't get tested very often.

[00:17:12]Um you know, as an example, the Emergency Measures Act. It it got passed like 30 years ago and finally gets enacted and then the courts decide that it was incorrect.

[00:17:23]Now the government has time to change it. In this instance, the Citizens Initiative Act was passed uh, you know, less than less than a decade ago, less than 5 years ago. Kenny passes it and then it gets tested and it fails, gets adjusted, gets tried again, fails, gets adjusted. Like, I don't like I don't like that's not a very good process.

[00:17:42]That's the engineering me speaking.

[00:17:44]Like, you know, uh uh design by trial and error is not my favorite way. It's an approach. You can do it, but um sometimes you look a little bit silly doing it that way.

[00:17:54]And so, um well, we'll see. So, there's um you know, the the is the referendum is the possibility of an independence question on the referendum dead?

[00:18:06]Uh I's I'm I'm I'm I'm weighing it 50/50 at this point and we'll see what the what the premier has to say later this afternoon.

[00:18:14]Um she did have though a quick press conf- or not press conference, there was um there was an event this morning. It was uh it was televised or on video. She did shuffle her cabinet.

[00:18:27]And and again, uh this is so new, haven't had a chance to completely digest it. Uh people here uh Derek uh had a piece on this. Derek predicted some of this quite accurately. And um so, go read Derek's piece on that. But, two ministers stepped down uh in the last couple of days. Um All right. Well, let's go with the call on the line. I I I really prefer chatting with people than reading sort of my script, but I got to remember where I'm at. So, I'm talking about ministers. So, go ahead, caller. Where are you calling from?

[00:19:02]Cochrane. Hey. And what's your name?

[00:19:05]Stu. Stu. How's it going, Stu?

[00:19:09]Not too bad. Um then your cliff required the people that pushed her into the MOU. That's my opinion.

[00:19:17]What do you think? The MOU Say that again. Fire who?

[00:19:22]The people that pushed Danielle Smith into uh setting up the MOU. I You're you're you're I wish you would call a few minutes from now when I'm I'm I'll dive into the MOU, but I will dive into the MOU. I I I used to think that maybe somebody else came up with the MOU and that she was, you know, my my original theory on the MOU was simply that she had a sort of an image problem and some difficulties with uh with the separatists and and and the NDP and others. And my opinion last year cuz remember last year when the MOU came, it came just before the annual general meeting in Edmonton. So, I used to think that sh- um she had some difficulties at the time. Carney had difficulties at the time and I used to think that they just got together, slapped together this MOU to try and find something, you know, to to benefit each other. Both could talk about it positively.

[00:20:20]And I agree And last year I used to think it was a bad deal. I think it's an even worse deal now that I've seen the details and we'll talk about I I I'll I want to talk about it a little bit later, not not just now, but I so uh but to your but to your point, I don't I think she's I think she had a part in it. I don't think she just gave it to somebody else.

[00:20:40]Interesting. Yeah. Well, that was a big mistake. Yeah, well, we'll see. So, okay, so I I've noted it, Dan. Thanks for that. I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll bring it up in a minute here. I'll keep talking about it, but um yeah, appreciate the call.

[00:20:55]Thanks for taking my call. You bet.

[00:20:57]Um yeah, I'm I'm tempted to jump right into the MOU cuz it is something I wanted to talk about, but I but I I just want to finish on the two ministers that that resigned yesterday or this week. Uh Nate Horner is the um was the finance minister.

[00:21:12]And you know, he's been a minister for about 5 years now. It's a second term and me personally, I'm not sad to see him go. I don't think he did the best job as a finance minister. Um that's one of the things that I'm very critical of this government is that the budgets have outpaced population growth and and inflation and and they just I I really wish that government that Alberta would bring its budget under control and shrink the size of government. And so I don't think Nate gave Smith the ammunition necessary to do that. Now he's gone. He's simply saying that he's just not running again in the year from now and is stepping down to give whoever is going to replace him time to get up to speed. Well, um I can and cannot buy that. I mean that's you know, I I think something else happened there, but we we won't know.

[00:22:14]Maybe you guys have an opinion on what happened to Nate Horner. And then Matt Jones, he stepped down. He was in charge of hospitals. I think for him it's more and back to Nate. I think Nate might have pushed the wrong way against Smith and she kind of might have said, you know, you need to step aside and he kind of got displaced and and that's my basic theory.

[00:22:38]Uh Matt Jones, I think just literally his is legit. He's not seeking re-election and I think being in that portfolio in charge of hospitals and everything else. Again, he didn't do a very good job there. Just this week there was another story of somebody you know, dying while waiting in an emergency room somewhere and and so um you need somebody really tough to want to tackle Alberta health and and reform that. Uh we've talked about, you know, tackling uh Smith where Smith was a big help in tackling uh education and going against the teachers, but she hasn't been very vocal when it comes to going after Alberta health and she's left that entirely to her ministers and her ministers are kind of struggling to bring Alberta health under control. So, they um they they they both resigned and then this morning she made the announcement of of who's stepping in and uh Horner's being replaced by Nixon, which I find to be a completely interesting case. Again, it it um he's been a long-time minister. He's uh he's he wasn't in this cabinet, actually.

[00:23:47]That's an interesting thing. He was snubbed recen- recently, but he's been a minister in the past. And uh he um uh but he has a zero financial background. Zero web whatsoever and I think that's a super critical, you know, to me the the the finance minister is kind of like the second in command and I really don't see Nixon as being the second in command.

[00:24:10]So, I'm so again, we'll we'll time will tell why he was put there. Um I'm sure you guys if you guys have opinions, let me know and I actually can't even remember uh who got Matt Jones' position. I think it was if I um I was going to say and uh LaGrange I thought maybe got shuffled around, but um sorry, I don't I I I I didn't write that down.

[00:24:37]Anyways, that that that's what it was this morning. So, um some some interesting developments. So, it should make for an interesting press release or press conference later this afternoon.

[00:24:46]Uh well, I guess we're going to Okay, so if nobody's calling, I guess we'll This does tie in nicely. I wanted to talk about the MOU.

[00:24:54]And um and I and I think I want to dive into that one a little bit more, right? So, last week Carney came to Alberta and him and Danielle again did the press conference holding up kind of like the Trump thing, you know, they hold the MOU with their signatures on it and stuff like that.

[00:25:14]And the MOU Carney would Let me let me step back.

[00:25:20]I I predicted a week a couple of weeks ago before the by-elections, right? When Carney still had his minority government, he was focused on censorhip and he was focused on really minor stuff, you know, like food stamps for people and and GST rebates and stuff like that. He wasn't rocking the boat. He wasn't he was proposing stuff, but he wasn't moving on anything. And I said this, right? Very clearly that once he got his majority, even though it's small, once he got his majority, we would see a different Carney. And we are seeing that different Carney immediately. The Carney that came visiting here this week is the Carney from from from the last decade.

[00:26:02]It's the Carney who's pro who who who truly believes in climate change as a calamity. It's the Carney who believes in in net zero and in electrifying and doing all these things. That's the Carney that we're seeing now. And when he came back this, you know, a year later after signing the MOU, there's been no progress. Nobody Nobody has stepped up to build a pipeline.

[00:26:27]And Carney and Smith both basically signed an agreement to increase the carbon tax. So, John, can you quickly bring up the graph on Canada's greenhouse gas emissions cuz I think it it it sort of explains this quite nicely. So, that's Don't You don't need to go hard into the details, but that's Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, you know, for the last 25 years kind of thing. And there's a little arrow there in the middle, which is 2005, which is the year that they they at the Paris Accord and other accords, they agreed that that was the baseline year, which I I can't zoom in. I think it's 862 or something like that.

[00:27:17]And and we agreed that we would reduce, not we, I would never agree to this, but the liberals agreed that we would reduce, Canada would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 40% lower than the number that's on the screen right now. And if you look at the And if you put that number, if you put a red line somewhere on that on that graph, it'd be like so low. We're never ever ever ever ever going to meet our greenhouse gas emissions, not the way we're going. And so, I'll come back to that, um but let's go to the caller on the line, but I definitely want to come back to that. Go ahead. Where you calling from and name, please?

[00:27:56]Hey, Marty. It's Mavros from Sudbury.

[00:27:59]Holy smokes.

[00:28:00]>> Sorry. Yeah, almost almost my old stomping ground. Good. How are you?

[00:28:06]How are you You were a next-door neighbor for a while, I guess? Uh long, long time ago. Uh 40 I'm 58, so about about 60 years ago we lived in Timmins.

[00:28:19]Oh, nice. Yeah. Timmins is great. Full camp. Okay, I got a I got a tough one for you today because I kind of agree with what you're saying in that you're saying that Carney isn't giving up his net zero. I don't think he ever intended to. I think that's still the ideology that's chiefly driving him and most of his decisions. But I really don't have a clear answer as to why he would politically risk his position cuz it's a weak minority. It's It's incredibly weak. I mean uh pardon me, majority. It It can break at any moment. You've got people leaving in the summer. Uh they're they're going to have possibly have elections to come up. So, I don't think he's ever been in a position of strength that he's going to use a risk that political capital by signing the MOU. Um I'm wondering how how in your mind he justifies this risk cuz if I listen to, you know, the mainstream media, they're talking on the exact uh opposite of of what we're talking about here at Western Standard. They're like, "This guy's crazy. He's He wants the pipeline. He doesn't care about the environment." They're saying the exact opposite. So, he's risking a lot, and I'm wondering how how you uh Yeah, yeah.

[00:29:38]>> explain that in your mind. How No, I I hear you. I hear you. I mean uh and stay on the line. Like, you're right. Like, when he just Remember when he signed the MOU last year, he pissed off Steven Guilbeault to the point where Guilbeault like, "I'm out of cabinet."

[00:29:50]Right?

[00:29:51]And um Right. Yeah, yeah. If you read the Quebec media in particular, he's losing a lot of popularity. But I But But he's sacrificing a little I I I think he does currently have a minority, but if you look at his projections in the polls and whatnot, if there was an election tomorrow, he'd still win. Like, he would still win, right? So, uh in fact, I'm surprised he hasn't called an election because I think he is he is still that popular. So, he's he's he's I think he's playing that game a little bit. He knows that he's got an opportunity to make a few unpopular decisions to win a little bit of support in a little bit of time.

[00:30:28]I don't think he's fundamentally worried about losing a general election if there was one. And And the other reason I don't think he's worried is A, he is fairly popular, but he was installed, right? I mean, he like there's powers that be and what and and so he's he's cocky confident to the point of being cocky cuz he knows he's not going to lose. Does that make sense?

[00:30:51]I would agree with your statement that he there was some level of installation there because it wasn't a democratic process by which he was initially put in. He was just placed there and then we ended up with an election shortly thereafter.

[00:31:06]And I I still I'm I'm going to say he's democratically elected officially yet, but he appeared in a in an entirely undemocratic way where he just suddenly appeared and took over the leadership of the party by some flimsy rules that probably should be looked at in the future. Yeah, now let's expand on that just a little bit. So you're calling from out east. So what like I mean to me he's as a now bird I can see that he's gaining a little bit of popularity here and it's working well for him. Is he really losing that much out east? Like is he pissing off people out east? Like friends not talking saying his cabinet but around you are people pissed off at him?

[00:31:50]No, because I'm in Sudbury and you know the people who are in the northern Ontario tend to think a little bit more independently than those in the major cities.

[00:32:00]So we still have a dedicated movement towards, you know, uh values that are more traditionally based I would say than the big cities which are much more, you know, they they ebb and flow away from um mainstream ideas. They they reject capitalism all of a sudden, they take on woke ideology, they take on all sorts of crap that's almost like a uh fad. Yeah.

[00:32:25]Whereas that didn't hit that didn't hit I think cities like Timmins or Sault Ste. Marie or Sudbury at heart. Now you said something you you said Go ahead.

[00:32:38]Yeah.

[00:32:39]No, no, go ahead. No, you said something interesting though. So, you think he's you said he's going to lose some people in the summer. Do you What what rumor are you hearing about losing people? Cuz I I I The only person I can think of he might lose out of cabinet is Nate uh Eskiero.

[00:32:55]>> Or Or Smith, Smith, right.

[00:32:56]>> Yeah. Anybody else? Or >> I don't have I don't have anybody extra on top of that. But I'm just saying if I've heard rumors from the the big networks like CBC and CTV that this has created a backlash in his caucus in general, not within the cabinet for certain, but definitely in caucus, pushing for this pipeline. They see it as a rejection of net zero values. So, there could be further dissension in the ranks.

[00:33:25]And a Northern Perspective is one show that talks about this.

[00:33:29]>> Yeah. Uh those two guys on there.

[00:33:32]You know, you'll We'll we'll let you go here in a second, but keep listening to the show. But when I will talk about the MOU and the pipeline, you know, he like this MOU for me as an Albertan, it's all about greenhouse gas and net zero. Like he he he he you know, he he made Danielle Smith increase the carbon tax, and we have to build this thing called the Pathways Alliance. Like we have to build this giant CO2 capture system.

[00:33:58]>> Yeah. So, he's selling it that way hard.

[00:34:01]I And in the short term in the short term, I mean, if the people out east are upset pipeline, what he'll probably remind them is he he'll do the same thing he did to BC.

[00:34:11]He'll put his hand like this. He'll go like, "I promised them a pipeline, but the pipeline's never happening." You know, like in the short term, uh CO2 capture will happen. I mean, that's what scares me is that in the chicken and egg thing, we're the Alberta's committing first, and I don't think he will follow through on his promise.

[00:34:29]Interesting.

[00:34:30]>> But >> of the things they're One one of the things they're upset about already is the reduced carbon tax. So they're like saying, "How did they get it so low for Alberta?" Now they're going to want it low for every other province. Whereas Alberta is saying, "This isn't low enough. I think it's 140, right?" I I saw your reaction there. Yeah. We don't 140 isn't isn't good, but all the East are like, "No, no, it should be higher. It was originally set higher, so it it should be higher." And now other provinces are going to seek it lower. This >> interesting that they Yeah, no, this >> of arguments you get are the exact opposite. This this awesome. Thanks for that. I mean, that ties nicely into what I'll finish on my chat on greenhouse gas. So I appreciate the call, absolutely. Thank you.

[00:35:13]Um hey John, just scroll down. I I think we need to recognize once in a while we get these super chats, right? So uh somebody RC Lamoureux there said that less than 30 days politicians and bureaucrats are going to be arrested and jailed for treason. I wish we could have a follow-up to that comment. I'm I'm I'm wondering where that comment comes from. It's a uh you know, we've never When's the last time somebody in this province in this country was arrested for treason? I think it goes all the way back to Louis Riel. So I I hear those comments all the time. I'm kind of smiling. I I've I've had some interactions with RC, and I think he's a bit maybe pulling my leg, but uh thank you for that comment. Um Oh, what do you got there? You got another question. I thought the MOU was Danny's way of showing that working with the feds doesn't work. Uh that's a spin, right? I mean, um it That's a possibility, for sure. So let me let me let me quickly finish on on my graph there. So um At the end of the day, Albert Canada's not going to meet its greenhouse gas emissions, right? And and I think Carney is still committed to that. And as the caller just said, a lot of people have bought into this narrative, and they believe in climate change, and they want us to do something. Now, if if um if you see what if you break down where Canada's greenhouse gas emissions come from, sure, about half of them come from industry, and then industry includes trucking, rail transport, stuff like that. But then a big chunk of it comes from oil production. In the process of making oil in Alberta, we produce a lot of greenhouse gas emissions. The other half of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions is personal. It's people burning gas in their furnaces at home, and oil in their furnaces, and and and gasoline in their cars, and stuff like that. And the targets that the government have set are absolutely ridiculous. And and if if they were honestly, truly serious about meeting them, then they would have to go after the public. And and, you know, force people into driving less, flying less, burning building smaller homes. And we know that's never going to happen. So, they keep going about it the way that the only way that they can, which is targeting industry in these most ridiculous ways. And here in Alberta, this whole this whole Pathways Alliance building a $30 billion system to uh inject carbon dioxide underground makes almost everything else that comes after that uneconomical.

[00:37:41]And you you can get rid of that graph there, John, where but so and and and Carney keeps talking about this, right?

[00:37:48]So, I'm I'm worried about that because Danielle signed on board with this.

[00:37:53]She's going to do she's agreed to keep pushing the It's a chicken and egg, right? So, let me let let me let me continue on that, right?

[00:38:01]Um Well, let me give you a very, very, very personal experience. So, I worked for TransCanada, and I was working for TransCanada when we uh were developing Keystone and Keystone XL. And so, let me tell you how that works, right? So, for when we were thinking of building Keystone, we It's a chicken and egg So, we went we sent people to go meet with industry.

[00:38:26]TransCanada's got an idea. It's like we think there's value in building a pipeline from Canada down to Houston.

[00:38:33]So, then we send out crews of of marketers and people to meet with industry and we asked we asked Cenovus, CNRL, Husky, all the producers, "What kind of forecast do you have in the future? How much oil are you going to produce and where do you think you'll sell that oil?" And they all came back to us saying, "Ah, I can do 100,000 barrel. I can do 100. This guy can do 100." And so, we all start to, you know, agree. So, you got a bunch of producers that said, "We will if you build a pipeline, we will commit to filling the pipeline."

[00:39:04]You see how it works? So, you you need to mutually trust each other. So, when after a bunch of negotiations, TransCanada said, "Okay, it looks like we can build a pipeline for about 500,000 barrels a day because we got five we got producers committed to 500,000 barrels a day for the next 30 years. So, it's all profitable. It's all worth doing. And and then and then everybody signed agreements and TransCanada said, "We'll build this pipeline within these tolerances, give or take, you know, 10 billion dollars, give or take. And then and then if it's a little bit over, we'll buy the overage, but if it's right on target, you guys are committed to producing."

[00:39:42]And it worked and we built the pipeline and everybody's happy.

[00:39:45]If you try and do that today, um first of all, the the TransCanadas of the world, they got burned. They're not interested in doing this anymore because their 10 billion-dollar pipelines end up being 20 and 30 billion-dollar pipelines. It's too complicated. And the producers, they're not interested in doing it because they don't think the pipelines will get built. And then the people who finance this, they're not interested in coming here to finance this because they it it takes too long. The dollar that they invest take sits on the sideline for too long, doesn't have a return on investment. You see what's happening? And there's too many regulations. So, how do you break that vicious cycle?

[00:40:24]Well, the way to me, the way to break that vicious cycle is for the government to bring back a climate, an environment, a regulatory framework where people will want to invest, because all these parties that I talked about, they're worried about risk. They're worried about how long things will take.

[00:40:45]Changing regulations, changing governments, being competitive with other jurisdictions, right? And so, and and in this country, how do we break that cycle? What happened in the last 10 years? The The Like something broke in the last 10 years. Too many regulations, too many too much talk about greenhouse gas and stuff like that. So, if Carney's serious about building pipelines here, he would have to piss off the people out east, like we just heard the caller say, and he would have to repeal Bill C-69, Bill 47. He would have to get rid of the tanker ban. He would have to stop talking about He'd have to stop imposing um requirements that that that that Like why is he deciding on, you know, decarbonized oil? Let the client decide what kind of oil. And I want to come back on that decarbonized oil. So, uh call Can you guys tell I'm a little bit agitated right now? I love this topic.

[00:41:38]So, uh go ahead, caller. Where are you calling from?

[00:41:42]Hey, Marty. Jesse in GP here. Hey, Jesse. We've talked before, right? See Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

[00:41:49]Um I'm wondering, do you think the UCP has given the electorate the opportunity to see for themselves the Disco MOU or any other subsequent agreement that's beholden to carbon tax is not the the right direction for Alberta within Canada?

[00:42:05]Rephrase that a little bit. Like expand on your thought on that one.

[00:42:10]Um well, I think you know, perhaps Danielle is creating or the UCP is creating this MOU or the you know, the agreement or updates to the agreement that just happened. It shows how we are beholden to this carbon tax and that it's probably not in the best direction for Alberta for carbon tax, right? Um and then it brings it to the public's attention more so because the mainstream media or the legacy media is not going to uh which is actually kind of funny because they're talking about more carbon tax which is driving more people to Alberta Independence which is probably our only viable path in my opinion.

[00:42:48]Yeah, no, yeah I guess fun of your you're sort of the second person to bring up that that angle today, right?

[00:42:58]You know, is she is she setting up Kenney for failure is basically what you're asking, right?

[00:43:04]Pretty much. Pretty much. Well, and or yeah, so the electorate can then do their own research so they understand that uh there's no getting away from this carbon tax with the current liberal government or any other subsequent government going forward in federation. Yeah, it's yeah, it's an interesting argument. I mean, you know, like it also goes back to last week when she made the announcement and then we're making the announcement there was surprisingly nobody from industry there, right? Like if this was a good deal, like if truly this was a good deal, there would have been right over her shoulder, there would have been somebody from Cenovus and MEG Energy and whatever all the all the big boys, but they weren't there.

[00:43:43]Um Uh no.

[00:43:46]>> And pre- previous uh well, previous that week previous they just came out with a statement, a few of them, indicating how the uh uh current climate is not a conducive to investment due to the carbon tax, right?

[00:43:59]Yeah.

[00:44:01]Yeah, no, if I have to weigh like is she doing it to look is she doing it to appease her base here and look like she's or part of her base part of Albertans and is she doing it to to look like she's working with Carney instead of against him? Or is she or is she doing it to as some sophisticated education campaign so that we will all finally realize what's happening? I'm going to go with the first one, right? That she's genuinely just trying to work with Carney and and like I said at the beginning of the show, she's navigate she's walking a tightrope and trying to please a lot of people.

[00:44:37]That's my gut. That's the one I'm going with. I mean and and the reason I'm still going with that gut is like we just had how many other nations now have dropped their carbon taxes and have dropped all talk about net zero and carbon and have bailed out of the Paris Accord. I mean even the United Nations last week basically said, hey, sorry, our bad, you know, all our predictions about the climate change were wrong, right? Like we're we're we seem we seem to be one of the last places hanging on to that and and and I and when and Carney's one of the guys hanging on to it. Now the bigger question to me is is he genuinely does he genuinely think that way or is he just milking it and trying to be profitable for you know, like selling heat pumps for Brookfield as long as possible. Like what is it when it comes to Carney?

[00:45:28]Yeah, and he's keeping his defense and and his pocketbook all propped up, right?

[00:45:33]>> Yeah. And I agree and one last thing I'll just say that you know, obviously that statement from the gentleman in the East regarding the higher carbon tax and how the East wants wants more carbon tax and it's not enough and we need to do more clearly indicates that our only viable path is saying yes Yeah. to that independence vote. Okay, cool. I'll let you go but appreciate the call and and as usual, I mean you call every week almost. I really appreciate it but you you I'll let you go, but you made me think of one quick thing. So, thanks.

[00:46:06]Talk later. You bet. Um you know, he he he brought up he brought up the East, and and again, I'm going to say there's a bit of hypocrisy here on the East when they talk about carbon tax, and I said it earlier, right?

[00:46:19]They they they they want to help the environment, but not when it what not if it affects them, right? So, they want to a lot of people are like that. A lot of not just the East. A lot of people talk a good story until it affects them. Ask somebody out East if they're willing to give up the, you know, go to half the horsepower on their cars or or be forced to smaller uh buildings or things like that, and I think you'll get a different reaction. And and and an example of that, I've always pushed for this, right? And it ties again to this MOU.

[00:46:49]You got Carney coming here telling us that the world wants decarbonized oil.

[00:46:54]And then you got everybody out East going, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everybody wants decarbonized oil."

[00:46:58]I disagree.

[00:46:59]It's not up to him to decide what our customers want. How about we ask our customers?

[00:47:04]And and and if I make a deal with China and I sell them oil, and they're happy to buy my oil, are they going to come here and see how I'm making that oil? I highly doubt it.

[00:47:13]And then to bring that argument closer to home, I guarantee you that if I at the pump if I put a, you know, you go to fill up at Shell in or Petro-Canada in Eastern Canada, and if at the pump I had you know, regular gas, premium, premium plus, and then I had this category at the bottom that said decarbonized, and um and that the decarbonized was like 50% more than the regular gas, because it's decarbonized, because you get some offset credit. How many people do you think will actually pick up the decarbonized one and put that in their car? Not a lot. I mean, it's the same argument that's been made. Remember Remember like 20 years ago mutual funds start and businesses started talking about you know, oh, we we are ethical funds. We don't invest in sweatshops in China and we we only do green this and green that. All those mutual funds failed because they were novelty, but nobody bought into them.

[00:48:08]Because at the end of the day, the mighty dollar speaks, right?

[00:48:12]I mean, there's so many examples of that. Like go to go you know, people talk about um you know, like I said, go go to a Walmart and put apples that are there that are organic apples, net zero apples and and regular apples and these ones are a buck, two bucks, and three bucks. And you tell and you watch all day long who's buying what, you'll see. So, that's where it's interesting to observe the difference between what people say, which we often refer to as being virtue signaling versus what they actually do. And and so, I find I find that disconnect fascinating and um so, at the end of the day, the MOU last week was I I think a disaster. Um and and I don't I I guess you guys are seeing it the way the same way. I don't see the win-win. I just don't see why Danielle keeps going down this path bec- or or Kenney for that matter. Well, I guess I see why Kenney's doing it because he he's buying a bit of favor from Alberta. And he he has a Well, again, I can I can I can go both ways on this, right? We've talked about this. Kenney has an advantage of letting us go. We could go for if Alberta disappears and goes its own way, then there will never be a a conservative government in this country ever again. So, I can see how Kenney would have a a reason to want to piss us off and let us go on our own, but then is he more interested in the money, hypocritically speaking? Uh very interesting.

[00:49:43]Um okay, well, we got a um let's let's keep going down. I got a couple of the other big story I wanted to talk about last week. Again, it all ties into some of this in one way or another. Um who here was upset about the announcement regarding the Snowbirds?

[00:50:00]Like I I I was and uh So, the Snowbirds um aerial demonstration, right? Every almost every country in the world has an aerial demonstration team. So, we we had uh we had a predecessor to the Snowbirds. I can't remember what they were called, but well, I wasn't around, but we've had an aerial demonstration team as far back as like right after World War II. So, in the '50s and '60s, we had aerial demonstration teams in Canada.

[00:50:30]And then in the 1970s, the Snowbird there was a a naming contest and the Snowbirds uh the the demonstration team became became the Snowbirds.

[00:50:41]And then the Snowbirds started flying those little planes that you see right there. Those little planes are called tutors.

[00:50:47]And so, in Canada in every military every Air Force around the world needs to train pilots. And when you train pilots, and if you you you start training pilots in planes that are called trainers. So, trainers are special planes that are more easily easy to handle, more forgiving, and usually have two seats either side-by-side or back-to-back so that the the the student can be in the front and the instructor in the back.

[00:51:12]And when you start in the Canadian Air Force, your training your first stage of training to become a pilot is in a propeller-driven plane.

[00:51:20]So, most pilots learn in a propeller-driven plane and then some will stop there and then they go on to propeller-driven planes like the Hercules and other things like that.

[00:51:30]But some of our guys in Canada, we we've we've had jets as part of our arsenal since the 1950s, right? We had Sabres, Voodoos, uh Canucks, uh the F-18, and in the future we're going to get the F-35. So, So we are an Air Force that had jets, we had little prop planes for training and then we had little jets for training and that's the plane you're seeing on the screen right now. The Tutor, it's called Tutor, t u t o r, teaching Tutor, was a small Canadian-made plane developed for specifically to train future jet fighters.

[00:52:07]So we've had Tutors in this country for since like the '60s, but somewhere along the way in the 1970s, the Tutors were adopted by the Snowbirds as the demonstration plane. So who who's seen the the them fly? I've seen them fly hundreds of times, right? Like a a Canada Day celebration is without the Snowbirds is unimaginable. You've seen them at air shows. I mean, we're lucky.

[00:52:32]We live in Alberta. I used to live up north. Cold Lake is an amazing base and we got the bombing run at uh at um uh God, I'm drawing a blank, but um So the Snowbirds have been around forever, but those little planes are getting old.

[00:52:49]And and people in the military and the Air Force have been saying those planes are getting old forever and ever. I mean, those planes are 60 years old. So somewhere around like in the in the '90s, they started saying they're old.

[00:53:02]In the 2000s, they're saying they're old. In the 2010s, they were saying they're old. And they and the and the Liberals put it off, put it off, put it off, put it off, put it off and and never found a replacement um jet trainer.

[00:53:19]Now we found a replacement propeller trainer. So for the last few years, we've had a propeller driven plane that's used for training, but we don't have a jet trainer, which is completely remarkable because we're about to buy we we've bought the most sophisticated jets in the planet or some of the most sophisticated jet. We bought the F-35s. We collaborated with the Americans and the other nations to develop this really amazing Can you find a picture of the F-35 John?

[00:53:48]So we we bought the F-35 we're about to start taking well, maybe we won't because the liberals seem to change their mind on everything all the time.

[00:53:56]But but at at last news at last I checked we were taking possession of the F-35s. But we have nothing to train the new pilots on the F-35s. Never mind the F-35s. We have no jet to train the new pilots. So we can train pilots on prop planes but we have no jets. And and and that's that's weird. And so now and now they the the tutors are finally so old that the government this week said they're unsafe to fly and they're going to let them fly for this season.

[00:54:27]And then and then that's it and then no Snowbirds until we get a replacement plane. And I thought okay, so we're getting a replacement jet trainer? No, we're getting the replacement plane that the Snowbirds are getting is the is the prop driven version and we get those in 2030. So for 4 years we will have no Snowbirds.

[00:54:47]And when the Snowbirds reappear in 2030, they'll be flying in in propeller driven planes. And everybody's like, well, they they still go fast. It won't be the same man. Watching propeller planes versus watching jets is not going to be the same. So you know, and and this Carney yesterday in a press release said something like, well, I inherited this problem. Really? You inherited this problem? The liberals have been in power since 2015.

[00:55:14]The Minister of Defense, the Minister of Procurement, the Minister of all these ministers, they're all the same people.

[00:55:20]So maybe you Carney are different but the whole organization that you work for has been in power for 11 years going on 12 and you're trying to blame this on your predecessor. This is just pure lack of planning. Um there's there's no other explanation for it. and and and sadly, it's it's just another nail in the coffin for the poor Canadian forces and military. Like I feel bad for people who dreamed of of joining the Air Force, you know, you're a you're a 12-year-old kid who saw the Snowbirds a decade ago and then you finally turned 18, you joined the Air Force, you're learning to be a pilot and you're hoping someday to get tapped on the shoulder and go fly with 413 Squadron and be one of the Snowbirds. And now you're finding that there will be no Snowbirds for the next 4 years. And they'll reappear in 2030 and by then, think of the institutional knowledge, the traditions that will have been lost. It it is it is so discouraging when I when I see stories like that and and I'm I'm I'm trying to stay positive on behalf of our soldiers because they have an amazing reputation of doing the best with absolutely terrible equipment. But this is government incompetence and and it's a double slap in the face when you know that they're wasting money on so many other things and sending money overseas to Ukraine and places like that and we can't keep enough money for our guys, which led to which is you know, we're running out of time, but this will maybe be the last thing I talk about. So this week all of this came to a head with the Americans and Donald Trump indirectly, Donald Trump, but the Americans announced that they were pausing the Canada Defense Board, right?

[00:57:02]So there's this group, there's this US Canada alliance called the the the the the the US Canada Defense Board where we talk about future strategies together and make sure we're aligned, right? Like when you're make we we do it as part of NATO, but we do it very closely because we're so close to the Americans. So when we buy stuff, we need to make sure it's compatible and we share each other's long-term plans and we share long-term opportunities. Like, "Hey, if you buy those planes, maybe I can train your guys. And if I buy your boats, maybe you can train my guys." And we we we collaborate. We plan exercises in the future. We do all those kinds of things.

[00:57:42]And Trump put an end to that board right now. And it's kind of a it's another symbolic uh not a symbolic, it's more than symbolic.

[00:57:49]It's another example of this this uh ongoing tension between Carney and Trump is going too far. Like it's going too far, right? It served Carney well to to to vilify Trump and get elected, but he's gone too far with this, right?

[00:58:08]And so uh and I think that's another example of that.

[00:58:12]Um and like Trump basically said he's tired that Carney's all words, right?

[00:58:16]Like Carney said, "We're going to increase the spending on military to to more than 2% of our GDP." He even bragged about making it 5%. Well, giving raises to our soldiers and spending a few more bucks on upgrading the barracks and fixing the runway at the Edmonton Airport, whatever. Those Although they might have a military application, that's not what Trump wants when he talks about military spending going up to 2% GDP. And and the whole [snorts] fiasco with the Snowbirds is that it's an example of a missed opportunity. We could have just Carney could have just sent some generals down to the US and on a shopping trip. You know, give them 5 billion bucks and then they could have gone and said, "We need little trainers.

[00:58:58]What do you got?" And the US would have said, "Well, you could buy these T-5s or these T-6s. How many do you want?" We could have said 20 as a starter. The US would have said, "Sounds good." Imagine how how much that would benefit the relationship between our two countries to do something like that. But instead, the Liberals are going to study this problem for the next 30 years. They're going to order planes that are bilingual, good for minus 50 weather, and all sorts of other ridiculous requirements.

[00:59:24]Uh what a what a what a what a what a world we live in.

[00:59:30]Um all right, well listen thanks for calling in let so yeah recap. I mean it was an interesting week.

[00:59:37]It's it's going to be quiet in the coming days because or coming months now here in Alberta the legislature recessed last week doesn't resume officially until October 27th. So now we got four months with no major legislative legislative activity going on in Alberta Ottawa is in getting is also in its summer recess. So I don't know hopefully we keep finding things to talk about on this show. Again it thanks for calling in it all depends on you guys. Please don't be shy. Make sure you join every Thursday at 1:00 p.m.

[01:00:14]And as always thanks for the Western Standard for giving me the opportunity to share their studio and and and lending me the space to to have a voice.

[01:00:25]Thanks to you guys for calling in. Make sure you support the Western Standard.

[01:00:30]It's only $10 a month. It's $100 a year if you get a yearly subscription.

[01:00:34]Bringing new content like this doesn't come for free. We need a few bucks to buy a new switchboard by the way and the link for for the subscriptions right there on the screen www.westernstandard.news subscription and I hope to see you guys next Thursday. Cheers everyone.

[01:00:55]>> [music] [music]