Carney lays out pipeline conditions, Eby negotiates B.C.’s priorities | Power Play for May 20, 2026

Añadido: 2026-05-27

[00:00:09]Hi there and welcome to Power Play. I'm Vashi Capello in Ottawa on this Wednesday. Tonight, Alberta separation.

[00:00:15]>> She's been changing the rules so much over the last year that she finally painted herself into a corner where she has to pick sides.

[00:00:24]Multiple sources tell CTV News the premier of Alberta could soon decide whether separation makes it onto a fall referendum. The politics of that is heating up in the province with two senior cabinet ministers announcing their resignation today and a cabinet shuffle tomorrow. Former deputy premier Thomas Lukazic who's leading the pro-Canada group in that province will be with us in moments. Then Carney and Eie go one-on-one.

[00:00:49]If things get stalled here, we're going to be spending more time elsewhere in the country.

[00:00:54]>> When I uh uh think about uh what I'm hoping for out of this meeting, it's a fair share for British Columbia of federal investment.

[00:01:05]>> The premier of British Columbia meets with the prime minister after accusing Mark Carney of rewarding Danielle Smith's quote bad behavior. So, did the prime minister and premier of BC patch things up? And what are the political stakes of the meeting for each? We're going to ask our front bench panel.

[00:01:19]Sharon Carr, Dimming Isinger, Erica Budis, Dmitri Sudis, and Rico Walsh will all be here coming up. Plus, a Conservative MP in Taiwan.

[00:01:30]>> We do do not take direction from a foreign government about where Canadian MPs can travel.

[00:01:37]>> Michael Chong is on a solo trip to Taiwan where he's just met with the president despite recent warnings from the Chinese ambassador against any travel there by Canadian parliamentarians. Why is Mr. Chong in Taiwan and what does he hope his trip accomplishes? He'll join the program a little bit later on in the show. First though, we're going to start the show tonight with the latest out of Alberta where the politics of separation is looming large this hour. Two senior cabinet ministers in the province have just offered their resignation, saying they don't intend to run again. A cabinet shuffle will take place tomorrow and the premier of the province, Danielle Smith, will likely address Albertans in prime time tomorrow night where she could announce her government will add the question of separation to a fall referendum. The question itself, though, well, it's the thing. Separatists signed a petition saying they want that question to be one on whether Albertans want to separate from Canada. A pro-Canada group signed a competing petition asking rather, "Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?" Both groups hit the threshold for their question to make it to a referendum, but the separatist one got shot down by a court last week which said First Nations were not properly consulted in the process. Thomas Lucas is the former deputy premier of Alberta and currently heads the pro-Canada group Forever Canadian. He is at this moment before a legislative committee on this very issue. I spoke with him right before his appearance.

[00:03:01]>> Hi, Mr. Lucas. Pleasure to welcome you to our program. Thank you for making the time.

[00:03:05]>> Well, thank you for having me. Do you believe that it is the committee's intention to advance that sort of pro-Canada question that that you asked in your petition as a question on a referendum in the fall? Do you think that's what's going to happen?

[00:03:19]>> Well, most likely. Uh Alberta government found itself in a really tough position.

[00:03:24]Uh they they made a promise to separatists that they will advance a constitutional binding referendum on the question of separatism, but courts said not a chance. you have to consult with First Nations first. Uh so they're looking for a second option and they will now adopt any question as long as they can put it on a referendum to fulfill that promise. But Vash, they have a problem because uh the Forever Canadian question uh wasn't designed to be a constitutional binding question. It doesn't meet the uh the Clarity Act uh requirements. It was meant to be a policy question to be asked in the legislature. So now Alberta government and the premier in particular will have to make a decision. Is she going to pose it as a binding referendum question uh and then she has a problem with First Nations or is she going to pose it simply as a referendum that's not binding then she has a problem with separatists?

[00:04:14]>> So let me ask you about the latter and we'll get into the the claims around policy or or referendum in a second. But let's say for sake of the argument it is the question she puts to to a referendum in order to to you know have people be able to have their say. Um, but ultimately the stakes are are not as high, let's say, as if the question were, uh, let's secede, let's separate from Canada. Is that necessarily such an inherently bad thing?

[00:04:42]>> Well, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. It's just if you vote yes to one question, you get the same outcome as voting no to the other question. The question is, will the premier consider this question on a referendum to be binding, a constitutional question that would immediately spark a constitutional process for separation, or is she just treating it as a poll like any other referendum under referendum act where she can but doesn't have to act on it?

[00:05:07]And and that's why I indicate Vashi, she is in a tough position because both sides, First Nations and Albertans versus separatists, expect two opposing things and she has to finally pick a side. She she's been changing the rules so much over the last year that she finally painted herself into a corner where she has to pick sides and today's committee will decide on what question they go with. But there has to be one more decision whether this question will be binding or not. I >> I did want to also ask you about sort of your assertion that this wasn't really what your question was meant for because I do take your point that on the initial application I think you could have checked a certain box that that said constitutional referendum and you didn't. But in in part of what you did submit, you did say since a referendum appears to be imminent anyway, it should be objective and not directed by special interest groups. Therefore, we as represented by the signator and applicant below propose a referendum on the following question. Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada? I imagine the premier goes ahead with that. That will be her argument, the one that you made.

[00:06:06]>> Well, that will be her argument, but but she needs to acknowledge the fact that at a time when I tabled this uh question, a referendum was inevitable.

[00:06:14]government just made a deal with separatists that on July 4th on American Independence Day, separatists were going to file a binding referendum, constitutional referendum. And then the rule was that if somebody preempts them, which I did, and files another question.

[00:06:30]There could only be one question at a time. And if I get the required signatures, I block them from having that binding referendum for 5 years. But premier also changed that rule and allowed them to file their referendum question anyhow despite the fact that we have gathered nearly half a million signatures. So the rules have been changing. You have to read that in the context of what the rules were then.

[00:06:52]Plyier prior to July 4 uh 2025 last year and our intention was to simply block the separatists from imposing a binding referendum on Albertans that would spark a process of separation if they were to win. So, do you think though that people signed your petition thinking that that was the only reason or did is it understandable if they had the impression that this would be the question that they would vote on in a referendum?

[00:07:18]>> Oh, 100% they knew what they were signing. The question simply said that on the petition and our volunteers have been advising that we're trying to avoid a binding and divisive referendum uh by tableabling this and we're always asking consistently our premier and all the MLAs in the legislature to put that question to a vote and avoid a referendum. But it seems that government of Alberta is committed to having a referendum on separatism. They'll use any question now uh to have that referendum. But as I said earlier, now all Albertans need to know is are they treating this as a serious referendum and it will be binding on government or are they just simply pulling Albertans but by doing so causing so much irreparable damage to our province both economically but also socially. Alberta has never vastly been as divided as it is right now. Neighbors literally don't speak to neighbors anymore over this issue. So, I I asked the premier a few days ago about some of what what you're putting forward and and her contention and it pretty consistently has been every time I uh you know challenge her on the issue of separation that essentially stifling that sentiment, not allowing it to be expressed through a question on on a referendum would have the reverse impact. It would it would simply amplify the divisions that the very divisions that you talked about.

[00:08:33]Does she have a point?

[00:08:35]>> Well, I don't believe she does. You know, she's been very successful negotiating with Ottawa right now. some great me memorandum of understanding and agreements are being reached. If you want to show that Canada works and Alberta wants to stay in Canada, show it through leadership. Uh collaborate with federal governments, sign more of these memorandums, uh get agreements on pipelines, you know, lower the carbon tax. Those are a great moves that are showing Albertans that Canada works.

[00:08:58]That is how the premier should be leading. uh not putting a divisive referendum that is in breach of two court decisions um that really runs a rough shot over First Nations rights um and will further divide. We're looking now at 6 months of a very divisive campaign in Alberta that will cause nothing but damage whereas the premier has the opportunity to show that Canada work very well collaboratively by imposing the referendum on us. She's been giving so many offramps. Courts on two occasions gave her an offramp.

[00:09:29]elections. Alberta gave her an offramp with my question. I gave her an offramp, but she seems to be committed to a referendum. When we know that consistently polling shows that no more than 25 to 30% of Albertans would even consider separatism, why not listen to the 70% and just let this issue go away?

[00:09:48]>> But what do you do about the the 25%.

[00:09:51]The thing is, if they if they don't um and and you know, I spend a long time there. you you know it better than I do, but not all of them are so as committed to the cause of separation. Lots of them just feel really ignored by central Canada, by federal governments. I know you're you're very familiar with with that sentiment. If you tell them that they can't express that, does it just go away?

[00:10:12]>> No, Vassie. As a matter of fact, some of the separatists are bringing up really good points. There are issues that need to be resolved. But I think since the advent of Prime Minister Carney and this good collaborative spirit with uh Premier Smith and and Prime Minister Carney uh we have been now showing those separatists that actually the system can work when we work collaboratively as partners in one country. And then there are other issues that I believe should be put forward to a robust national discussion. You know transfer payments, a number of seats in the House of Commons in in the Senate. Those are issues that we should be discussing, but separation is not the way. You know, at a time when we are confronted with really existential threats from the outside of Canada, uh dividing ourselves internally right now is is not the answer to the problem. It'll even create more problems. Uh I implore Premier Smith to work collaboratively, show by leadership how can Canada work and avoid this referendum at any cost.

[00:11:14]>> Just one quick final question for you, Mr. Lucas, as you look ahead to the next number of months, should this all occur in October, I I know it's not a a perfect analogy, but lots of people wonder, you know, hey, Brexit had a very low level of support for a while too, and then that sort of took on its own life. Do you think that risk exists here?

[00:11:31]>> By all means, you know, referenda, contrary to what many want to sell them as, are not very democratic. um you have a situation where people have not been consulted often don't understand the consequence of their vote because you know Albertans don't know will we still have Canadian citizenship will we be able to use Canadian passports what currency are we going to use none of those questions have been answered so we're asking Albertans to vote on an existential issue when they fully don't understand or don't have any means of to gain understanding of what the outcome would be plus some people will be using a referendum like often they use bi-elections to simply send a signal to Ottawa on something else. And in Brexit, yes, the support was 30% and it quickly converted into 52% and that possibility is here. And I am suggesting that Premier Smith doesn't have the mandate um to put a question like this with so many risks attached to it to a referendum uh before proper consultation even took place.

[00:12:28]>> I'll leave it on that note. Thank you very much for your time today, Mr. Lukakazic. Appreciate it.

[00:12:31]>> Thank you for having me, Vassie.

[00:12:36]And we've got some breaking news to share with you. You heard at the outset of that interview. We recorded it just before Thomas Lucas appeared before a special committee that has been convened to examine essentially this question that his petition put forward and whether or not it goes to a referendum.

[00:12:52]That committee that that the that Mr. Kazak was appearing in front of has just issued a release that they have passed a motion uh to recommend to the government of Alberta that it includes a question on the October 19th, 2026 provincial referendum uh that of an option for Albertans to vote for Alberta to remain in Canada. So essentially the question that Thomas Lucas's pet petition put forward the let's stay in Canada. Do you vote to stay in Canada question? This committee of the legislature in Alberta is recommending to cabinet and to the premier that they put that question on a referendum in the fall. Why is that important? Because there is a ton of speculation right now. Multiple sources telling us that is very much something the pro the premier of the province could decide to announce before this week is over. basically that she will put that question on separation but in the positive sense like we want to stay in Canada rather than separate from it in order to have a vote on the issue in that referendum. We await any news on that front but that committee has voted in favor of sending that recommendation to the provincial cabinet. Our front bench is of course going to talk about the politics of all of that and there is a lot to talk about. Sharon Carr, Diamond Isinger, Erica Broodies, Dmitri Sudis, and Marico Walsh are all standing by to join me a little bit later on in this show. But I do want to turn to some other significant news out of this country today. Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anin is directing officials to summon Israel's ambassador to Canada over the treatment of detained pro Palestinian activists. In a social media post, Anita Anin described this footage posted by Israel's national security minister as quote deplorable. It shows dozens of detained civilians with their hands bound behind their backs. The detained individuals were previously aboard a flotilla destined for Gaza and included Canadian citizens. The Israeli minister who posted the footage, widely viewed as a far-right figure in Israeli politics, can be seen and heard taunting the pro Palestinian detainees.

[00:14:52]>> What we've seen, including the video shared by Itar Bengavir, is deeply troubling and absolutely unacceptable.

[00:15:00]Canada has already imposed strict sanctions on Ben Gavir, including asset freezes and a travel ban in response to his repeated incitement of violence, the protection of civilians, and respect for human dignity must be upheld at all times.

[00:15:21]Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted on social media that Israel has every right to prevent provocative flotillas from reaching Gaza, but stated, quote, "The way that Minister Ben Gavir dealt with the flotillaa activists is not in line with Israel's values and norms." Coming up tonight on Power Play, Conservative MP Michael Chong is in Taiwan right now as the Chinese embassy here rebukes his visit and says no Canadian parliamentarian should visit the country. So why did he decide to go? Mr. Chong is my guest after a short break.

[00:16:00]>> Do you have any plans to call President Lie of Taiwan before you make a decision on the weapons package?

[00:16:06]>> Well, I'll speak to him. I speak to everybody.

[00:16:09]Uh we have that situation very well in hand. We had a great meeting with President Xi. He's really It was amazing actually. It was amazing. You many of you were there. Uh we'll work on that the Taiwan problem.

[00:16:25]>> US President Donald Trump there today saying he's open to a conversation with Taiwan's president following recent remarks he made that's put into question long-standing US support for the island.

[00:16:35]Trump was in China last week meeting with President Xiinping. During the visit, she warned any mishandling of the Taiwan question, as he called it, would put the USChina relationship in quote jeopardy. So why is Taiwan such a focus for China? Well, China sees it as a breakaway part of its country that should be reunified while Taiwan sees itself as independent. It just so happens a Canadian MP is actually in Taiwan right now. Conservative MP Michael Chong, the Tories foreign affairs critic met with President Ling Day today. I spoke with Mr. Chong right after that meeting.

[00:17:09]>> Hi Mr. Chong, welcome back to the program. Thanks so much for making time for this.

[00:17:13]>> Thanks for having me. Why is this a trip, Mr. Chong, that you wanted to take?

[00:17:18]>> Well, there's two reasons. First, uh to show solidarity with uh Taiwan, a democracy here in the Indoacific region.

[00:17:26]You know, Taiwan, like Ukraine, is facing threats from an authoritarian state. In Ukraine's case, it's Russia.

[00:17:33]In Taiwan's case, it's the People's Republic of China. Uh the second reason for my trip is to assert Canadian sovereignty. We are an independent sovereign country. uh we do do not take direction from a foreign government about where Canadian MPs can travel and where Royal Canadian Navy ships can transit through international waters.

[00:17:54]Um, and so I'm here to make it clear uh that we will not uh follow the dictates of uh Beijing whose ambassador just warned recently that Canadian MPs were not to travel to Taiwan anymore despite the fact that uh this has been going on for decades. And so uh those are the two reasons for my trip. Just jumping off that that exact point, I did want to put to you part of what the embassy here in Canada, the Chinese embassy said in response to your trip and and get your response. China resolutely opposes countries having diplomatic relations uh with it engaging in any form of official exchanges with the Taiwan region. We urge Canada to earnestly abide by its one China commitment, effectively restrain any words or deeds that violate the one China principle, and refrain from interfering in China's internal affairs. What do you think they're trying to say there? And what is your response?

[00:18:48]>> Well, first off, they're trying to change they're trying to move the goalposts. For decades, Canadian MPs from both sides of the aisle have been visiting Taiwan as part of uh a broader uh pattern of enhancing two-way relations between Canada and Taiwan. Uh they're trying to move the goalposts by saying that that travel should no longer take place. Uh my visit here is a declaration that it should take place uh and that we can't allow as a democracy uh an authoritarian state like Beijing to dictate uh our terms of engagement in the world community.

[00:19:25]>> Do you think China feels emboldened to take uh this position? I know it's a position they've long held, but do you think that they feel emboldened to express it with more specificity, with more severity, um given what's going on with the United States, given our own country's sort of evolving posture and certain aspects of our economic relationship with China, and given what Trump, you know, said last week, which was essentially, you know, I'm I'm not going near independence. I'm hesitating on selling this weapons package. Like, it feels like the climate has evolved.

[00:19:57]Do you think they feel emboldened?

[00:20:00]Well, I think as as the United States uh reduces its leadership role in both Europe and Asia, uh it's incumbent on democracies like Canada uh to step into the breach uh whether it's on military and defense spending, whether it's on engagement at the legislative uh level.

[00:20:18]I think it's it's incumbent on us to step into the breach and to make it clear that the world's two or three dozen democracies uh are going to continue to stand up for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law and stand up for other democracies that are on the front lines of a rising authoritarianism around the world. Uh so that's my view on the role that Canada should play in this new world context.

[00:20:41]>> Do you met today with the president of Taiwan? uh is he worried about uh a lack of what you just expressed not just from Canada but for example from countries like the United States given what Trump said last week.

[00:20:58]Well, the the president didn't uh explicitly uh refer to uh the comments of uh President Trump, but um what is happening here in the region is that other democracies are stepping up to make it clear uh that Taiwan's status here in the region is important to them. Um, late last year, we had the Japanese prime minister make it clear uh that uh Taiwan's uh Taiwan's status was an existential question for Japan. And just in the last 24 hours, we've had the president of the Philippines make a similar comment. Uh and so democracies in the region uh are stepping up to the plate uh to fill uh whatever question mark there is around uh the status of Taiwan. And so, um, my trip here is is part of a broader effort, uh, I think to reinforce the importance of a democracy like Taiwan here in the region.

[00:21:58]>> When you're there and and representing the views that you are, is it on your own behalf? Is it on behalf of your party? I know you paid your own way. Um, I know you also notified the federal government. Is it on behalf of sort of Canada more generally? like how would you define uh who you're repres >> I'm here as I'm here as I'm here as a parliamentarian and as the vice chair of the foreign affairs committee as the as a member of parliament of the official opposition um I'm here uh in that capacity I've I've notified uh the Canadian government that I would be ahead of time that I would be visiting Taiwan they have uh issued a statement uh of support >> uh I'll take some credit for prompting uh that statement statement of support that Canadian MPs uh should be able to visit Taiwan and and that this is part of a long-standing practice. Um I've been supported by Canadian officials here on the ground um during my visit uh and I thank them for that. Did you hesitate at all about going? And I know you have a very principled stance and and I've covered your stance and in your your um sort of navigation of of issues related to Chinese foreign interference and a host of other things for for a number of years. But did you hesitate at all given the current context and the fact that there are uh certain sectors of this economy right now which are benefiting from improved relations with China, certain agricultural sectors for example?

[00:23:24]>> No, not at all. In fact, I think it's at moments like this we h it becomes even more important for us to reinforce the status quo and to reinforce uh what our country stands for because if we allow Beijing to move the goalposts uh we then are acquiescing to their demands and that creates a more unstable environment here in the Indoacific region and instability is bad for trade and investment. So in the long run, uh continued uh peace and stability here in the region is so vitally important and that is reinforced by us continuing to stand up for the things that we believe in and also continuing with long-standing practices like parliamentary visits here to Taiwan. To do otherwise is to reduce the cost uh to Beijing of unilateral action across the Taiwan Strait. and and in the long run that's bad for trade and investment.

[00:24:24]It's bad for Canadian companies. It's bad for investment and it's bad for global trade in general.

[00:24:29]>> Did you hesitate at all um to take the trip given the fact that you yourself and your family in in the past have been targets of China?

[00:24:39]>> No. Um my view is that I've I've got the privilege of being uh of being elected to high office uh of being a member of parliament in the Parliament of Canada.

[00:24:50]um that gives me uh the ability uh to be a voice for the voiceless. There are countless citizens in democracies around the globe that are facing transnational repression that are suffering in silence because of the threats coming from authoritarian states. They don't have a voice. And I believe it's incumbent on people like me to stand up for those for those voiceless and to make sure that their voices are heard. And that's part of the reason why I'm here in Taiwan to make it clear that we will not be intimidated uh by the threats coming from Beijing or from other authoritarian states like Russia. Uh and that if democracies stand together uh we will be much more powerful uh than the authoritarian states that we face. You know there are some three dozen uh democracies in the world and each alone is not very uh big but together uh we represent a huge part of this of the of the globe a huge part of the global economy and together if we stand together we will be stronger and and I think that's really uh the message that uh I'm delivering here to um to Taiwan and that I hope other democracies will also deliver.

[00:26:09]>> I'll leave it on that note. Mr. Chong, thank you so much. I appreciate you making the time and safe travels.

[00:26:14]>> Thank you.

[00:26:16]>> Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anan was asked today if she's supportive of Mr. Chong's decision to travel to Taiwan and whether China should be dictating who Canadian politicians engage with. The independence of Canada's parliament is a pillar of Canada's democracy and members of parliament and senators have a longstanding practice of visiting Taiwan and indeed regions all over the world and at the same time our foreign policy uh does operate within the framework of the one China policy which has been maintained by successive governments.

[00:26:56]of Canada since 1970. And so there is a need really to understand both of those important threads.

[00:27:08]>> That's foreign affairs minister Anita Anin. Still to come tonight on Power Play, we're going to turn back to domestic politics because there are some big stories going on right now. You can see there British Columbia's premier next to Prime Minister Mark Carney. It's their first meeting happened today in Vancouver after Premier EIE took a swipe at the federal government for what he said was rewarding bad behavior in Alberta's Premier Danielle Smith and the pipeline deal. Sharon Carr, Diamond Isn't Erica Bud, Demetri Sudis, and Rico Walsh will all be here, our front bench in just moments to talk about that and what's going on in Alberta.

[00:27:52]When I uh uh think about uh what I'm hoping for out of this meeting, it's a fair share for British Columbia of federal investment that the prime minister is committed to for this country and a fair share of federal enthusiasm for the projects that we're bringing forward. And what's important is that we take those principles of building in the right way and work on those projects and others others which we'll identify today. uh and build in a way that makes us stronger uh makes the province and the country more sustainable uh and makes us uh makes us more independent.

[00:28:29]>> The prime minister and BC Premier David Eie there striking a cordial tone ahead of what might have been a pretty tense bilateral meeting in Vancouver. Premier Eie accused the feds of rewarding quote bad behavior in theirou with Alberta that's aimed at paving the way for a new oil pipeline to the west coast through British Columbia. Speaking to the Vancouver Board of Trade before that meeting with the premier, Prime Minister Carney said his government wants to move quickly on supplying the world's increasing energy needs. And if BC is opposed to that, well, have a listen.

[00:29:00]enormous and >> if if if things get stalled here, we we're going to be spending more time elsewhere in the country because we need to move forward. We need to invest at scale in the country. We need to for all the reasons I mentioned, affordability, sustainability, independence, uh and prosperity. And so all of that is um all of that involved.

[00:29:28]So, can the two leaders smooth things over and what comes next? Perfect topic of conversation for our front bench.

[00:29:33]Sharon Carr is a CTV News political analyst. She's former deputy chief of staff to former finance minister Bill Mnau. Diamond isn't a former special adviser on Canada US relations in the prime minister's office. She's now a trade adviser at Global Affairs Canada.

[00:29:47]Erica Budis is a conservative strategist based in Alberta and host of the Erica Budy show. Dmitri Sudis is former communications director to Prime Minister Steven Harper. He's now a strategic adviser at TAC and Ra Walsh is a senior political reporter with the Globe and Mail. Hi everybody. Great to see you. Ra, I'll start with you. I I thought that clip that we just aired of the prime minister is actually very significant. He he essentially like he wasn't, you know, throwing flowery language David E's way. He came into this meeting basically saying, >> "If you're going to hold us up, we'll just go somewhere else." That's big.

[00:30:18]>> Yeah. And it wasn't just those clips that you played. At another point, he said, "We don't want to hear what you're opposed to. we want to hear what you're for. Like he's not here to talk about, you know, the political issues that David Eie now has with the pipeline. And on top of that, at that board of trade event before he met with Eie, you know, Eie maybe should have been in that in that room for that briefing because there were some pretty clear shots fired. And also he said clearly, we're here to make a deal on the port. We can help on the port. We can help expand capacity, build out trade quarters, all those things. that clearly seems what he wants to deal with and he's not really interested in belaboring the Albertaou with him.

[00:30:57]>> Diamond, you're you're in BC. What is the kind of domestic provincial political context that Eevee is uh operating in? Yeah, I was at that board of trade uh breakfast this morning and I thought it was interesting because obviously enthusiastic crowd of business people keen to see things built, but the BC government also has a roster of I believe 35 projects that it's already identified as major priorities. Some rhetoric from the prime minister suggesting that BC might get in the way of development is a little bit challenging when they have projects that they would like to kickstart. Um the the reality though here on the ground in BC is that pipelines are still a very contentious issue and concern especially with the precarious balance of indigenous support for some other major project development. So we'll see how BC and the feds continue to have these conversations as Alberta potentially develops its way into British Columbia.

[00:31:49]>> Yeah, I take Diamond's point, Dimmitri, that uh the prime minister may not want to talk about that opposition, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[00:31:58]>> Right. and and also the flip side of the coin uh it also doesn't mean that support doesn't exist uh including amongst first nations in terms of Premier Eie I I honestly think he's behaving um like a selfish toddler and I'll tell you why. Um in terms of the major projects office um almost onethird of the projects are actually from British Columbia. Um so he should be happy about that and his behavior at this critical time quite frankly um is is the opposite of what every single premier should be doing and there is already a pipeline that's going from Alberta to British Columbia. What if David Eie was landlocked? A premier of a landlocked promise. What would he want?

[00:32:43]So there's access to the Pacific which gives us access to Asia. My my conclusion on absolutely everything I've seen from David Eie politically he's struggling. Um the conservatives are having a leadership race and they're tied or or slightly in some pose. EB um the conservatives are ahead and I'll tell you this if anybody's looking for a nation builder please don't call David E.

[00:33:05]>> What do you think about that Sharon? Is is the de is the sort of political context in BC relevant here from where you sit or is David Eie reflecting uh a a valid position that various people in his and stakeholders in his province hold?

[00:33:20]>> I'm with Dmitri on this. Now listen, I'm sure there's a number of people that David Eie is trying to appease, but he's being a bit petulant in the sense that there is a need for these projects. Uh I think Demetri used the stats. One out of three projects being referred to the MO are BC projects. That's $84 billion.

[00:33:37]We're not talking about something inconsequential. We are talking about something that is actually meaningful and impactful. And when we've just gone through this era of unity, uh Alberta is landlocked. They need to go somewhere.

[00:33:49]For him to kind of stick his feet in the ground and say like, "No, I'm not doing this." I think it's irresponsible for him as premier. And you're seeing his fear. He is fearful politically because he does not know which direction this is all going. So he's trying to be political publicly with what he says, but I think he has been a poor team player. And what he is doing is he's not only impacting the BC economy with this rhetoric that he has, he's actually impacting the whole discussion around unity. So I quite frankly think he's acting in poor behavior and not actually looking out for the best interest of BC's economy and its people.

[00:34:21]I will say though if you demarcate Erica like the premier's rhetoric in November versus the premier's rhetoric now like yes we play some select clips right but for example the one where he's accusing the the federal government the prime minister of rewarding bad behavior that took like 18 questions before he actually said that everything else was like I want to advance stuff in BC I want to you know he he he isn't quite as um accusatory as he he was six months ago. ago or or even eight months ago. Do you think there is a road wherein there is a middle ground they could all arrive at? And is it like a pipeline along a southern route versus one to the north coast?

[00:35:03]>> I just don't think that EB is willing to compromise. And I don't want this panel to be a lecture on how to communicate to a premier or how to play well with others, but apparently that's what we're doing today. Because I I would disagree with you, Vashi. I mean, this is the same premier that came out and purposely was driving rhetoric around Alberta separatists wanting to be the first 51st state, which isn't the case. I I think he's talked himself over the last nine months uh out of the room uh and in those conversations with the adults, which now shocking to many are Danielle Smith and Mark Carney having those conversations. So I look at what I'm watching from Alberta with Premier Danielle Smith and Mark Carney who are ideologically very different but are both compromising on either side to get anou done. And it seems like David Eie is only coming to complain with an state of problem not a solution. And so perhaps the the two uh individuals working together will propose something like an alternative with a with a southern pipeline um along the kind of along by the TMX. But I wouldn't say that that's David Eie coming to the table and actually talking about collaboration. I think those are two adults solving the problem for him.

[00:36:19]>> Diamond, last word to you. Do you think Premier Eie wants to be a dealmaker here or or something else? I I think the BC premier is actually pretty inclined to engage. I sort of disagree with some of these other takes and that his job is to champion the interests of British Columbia. We can agree or disagree on whether or not a pipeline is the avenue to do that. But he deserves a seat at the table just as any premier does regardless of whether or not other premers or the prime minister wish to engage with any individual. It's still their role to be part of this Canadian federation and have these conversations.

[00:36:51]So I'm hopeful that there are some productive uh ways to work together. One comment that the prime minister made this morning was about you know the sequential steps required that end up being more like a ven diagram and overlapping information that uh proponents for example need to keep submitting to government and how labor intensive and long that is. I totally agree that efficiencies could be realized in project development but not at the expense of things like indigenous consultation and partnership and broader community buyin for these projects.

[00:37:22]Okay. Uh, speaking of all of that, this kind of leads us into the next part of our discussion, which is about the politics of separation in Alberta, which is essentially exploding on our watch at this very moment. I'm going to explain after a short commercial break, and then the front bench will weigh in back in a moment here on Power Play.

[00:37:50]She is in a tough position because both sides, First Nations and Albertans versus separatists, expect two opposing things and she has to finally pick a side. She she's been changing the rules so much over the last year that she finally painted herself into a corner where she has to pick sides and today's committee will decide on what question they go with. But there has to be one more decision whether this question will be binding or not.

[00:38:16]>> The question of separatism is looming large over Alberta politics this week and things are developing by the hour right now. Two senior cabinet ministers just offered their resignation saying they don't intend to run again. But both ministers a few weeks ago articulated their opposition to the separatist movement. Those resignations set the stage for Premier Danielle Smith to shuffle her cabinet tomorrow. And then Smith will likely address Albertans in prime time tomorrow night where she could announce her government will add the question of separation to the fall referendum. So what does it all mean for the premier and her political future?

[00:38:46]Our front bench is back to take a crack at that question. Sharon Card Diamond isn't Erica Budis, Dmitri Sudis and Ma Walsh. Okay, just before I'm gonna throw to Erica first, but just before I do, so we interviewed Thomas Lucas who put forward the question, a petition on a question of staying with Canada rather than separating a committee, a special legislative committee. He just testified in front of. They were going to hold a vote on whether to recommend that to cabinet. They hadn't yet held the vote, but they issued a press release, which we reported on earlier on the show, which said, "We passed this motion. we are going to recommend that this question go to referendum in October um to cabinet and now they've just they're they're still debating. They had a recess. The opposition NDP is upset that this press release was issued. They have a they have issued re-released it saying it was issued in error. But basically this leads me to believe Erica and correct me if I'm wrong. There's some sort of plan here to get that idea to the premier so she can say hey this is what the committee recommended I do.

[00:39:46]Does that make sense?

[00:39:47]I do not think that you are out to lunch on that speculation. I also got to watch because my favorite thing as an ex-political staffer and living five kilometers from the legislature is watching committee meetings. Um, and so this one was kind of a fruah where they now are arguing a point of order over a press release that probably wasn't supposed to go out. However, I will say I think that they're going to get to the same conclusion and that press release is ultimately that in the referendum that has about nine questions coming forward in Alberta in October will have a question on it. Um I believe that that question is going to be the one that Thomas Lucas got 400,000 or 500,000 signatures for which is to stay in Canada. I think that will address the premier's challenges around the recent court decisions um of First Nations consultation because this doesn't um need consultation if it is to stay in Canada as opposed to leave. So, I actually think politically this is a very wise move for Smith because she doesn't have to tell the separatist she's not putting a question forward. I live here and I want this darn question to come forward bec either way because it's an elephant in the room and we just need to address it head on. So, I think she's actually getting an out in solving a problem. I will say I think a lot of people just tripped over their own toes today in getting that message out though, >> right? Sharon, is it is it sort of wise politically or is it inherently very risky for the premier, for example, to be the one to say this is going to be on the ref a referendum question?

[00:41:21]>> I don't think she has a choice uh not to at this point just given everything that's been happening. I think she has to say something. People are expecting her to say something. trying to keep up with this whole situation today has just been like juggling eggs. I had to call Erica before this to say, "Wait, can you make sure that I'm understanding this all correctly of how this is happening and this is the question versus this."

[00:41:41]So, I think she does have to um she does have to because if not, I think there's going to be a large number of people who are going to be trying to see whether or not she is fit to lead. Uh and I just do want to point out, so there is this whole discussion that tomorrow there is going to be a cabinet shuffle. two members of cabinet did resign today. But I think there's a nuance here. A lot of people are like, there must be something horrible going on for them to resign.

[00:42:04]These are people who were not going to run again. And it actually just gives them the grace to step down in their own way. So I'm my guess is that this was actually something that was orchestrated to allow them to do that. And and some might agree or disagree, but I think it's to allow tomorrow's Newsuesday to be a lot cleaner than to make it look like they were taken out of cabinet. And that's the story.

[00:42:23]>> Yeah, that's one view, Dimmitri. The other is these are two ministers who have been explicit about their opposition to a the separatist movement but b in the case of the finance minister it going to a referendum.

[00:42:35]>> Right. And and the nuance I'll bring to the conversation is that uh Mr. Lucashik's petition actually called for a vote in the legislature not um uh a referendum uh not a plebite. Um this is becoming so messy. It's becoming so messy that today we're saying this is a brilliant move. uh but it can implode at any time. Why? Uh because there is still some level of uncertainty if every single member of the UCP caucus actually stands for a strong Alberta within a united Canada. Um, and I will dare speculate to go all the way to not only this has the risk the potential risk to cost Premier Smith her leadership, it also has the potential risk for the this party to basically go back to the wild r wild rose and and the progressive conservative party of Alberta. The big challenge in all of this is is and I'll say it I guess bluntly is sometimes when you let the prisoners take over the asylum when you are when you are nuanced on being 100% federalist building a strong autonomous Alberta within a united Canada if if if you're playing between both of those lines you end up in situations like this one.

[00:43:51]>> How risky do you think this is for the premier diamond politically? It's an yeah, it's an incredibly risky spot to be in. And I have to circle back to the previous topic that we were speaking about, which is this Alberta BC project development opportunity, pipeline, etc. I mean, that was in some ways seen as a bit of a concession from the federal government to make sure that Alberta feels like its needs are being served by the federal government, but I think ultimately this possible referendum or this ongoing question or uncertainty is that for Albertans to resolve. It's not going to be uh incumbent upon any uh offering from Ottawa or anything that some other province can do. It's incredibly important that Albertans themselves speak up. Uh that those that believe in uh a unified Canada and Alberta's place within it, that they accept that role uh as championing that within their communities and having conversations with their neighbors and perhaps a good time for folks elsewhere in Canada to phone an Albertan friend and uh and encourage them to engage in this process.

[00:44:54]At first glance, from where I sit, if this is what the premier decides to to go ahead and do, I I think the risk ma is massive on a couple of sides. The first is from people who will criticize her for being the one to advance this specifically to a referendum. The second is from separatists who have already said if she does go ahead with the positive Lucas kind of question, uh, that they will quote unquote bring her down.

[00:45:19]>> Yeah. So now I think Lucas said she's painted herself into a corner and politically she has. I don't think everybody agrees that she had to call this question. She had to if she wanted to stay as the leader of the UCP, but if she just wanted to stay as the premier of Alberta and focus on what was good for Alberta, maybe calling a referendum.

[00:45:37]>> Hard to say they're not the same.

[00:45:39]>> Yeah, hard to say. But you know, there were other steps that other decisions could have been made earlier that didn't lead to this. I think that, you know, it also leads to questions that you've talked to her about about the uncertainty in the oil patch, uncertainty in investments. If she starts the starting gun tomorrow, all of the focus, all of the attention of the federal government, of Alberta, of investors is on this referendum. It's not on theou. It's not on striking that deal. And it does distract and it does take away from those other things that Mark Carney's talking about striking deals. So there is huge risk not just for her but also for the federal government also for Canada and I don't think it's something that anybody is taking lightly in Ottawa. They are much more worried about this referendum than they are about the potential for one in Quebec.

[00:46:23]>> Excellent point. A lot can happen between now and October. I'm going to leave it there guys. Thank you. I appreciate another great discussion. Our front bench Diamond isn't Sharon Carr, Erica Budis, Dmitri Sudis and Ma Walsh.

[00:46:34]We're back in a moment here on PowerPlay.

[00:46:47]A little update for you before we go on that committee we're watching in Alberta. The committee is looking at the question of uh putting to a referendum whether or not Albertans want to vote to stay in Canada. That's our guest Thomas Lucas. The question he put forward in a petition many months ago. Well, that committee issued a release saying that they voted in favor of making the recommendation it does go to referendum to the provincial cabinet except for the vote hadn't actually taken place. They then issued another release saying that they had issued the first one in error and then there was a whole bunch of debate that occurred between MLAs and opposition MLAs in that committee.

[00:47:23]Ultimately it adjourned and then it came back or sorry recessed and then came back and now basically uh they didn't get unanimous consent to continue the meeting. So I believe that the vote I'm just looking for updates right now. The vote has not actually happened which means the recommendation will not go forward at this moment in time to cabinet. So a lot to unpack as we look ahead to the political events in Alberta over the next few days. I'm going to leave Power Play there. Your top headlines are next. Have a great night.