Shaun Newman Podcast - #721 - Dennis Modry

Episode Date: October 3, 2024

Dennis received his B.Sc. and M. D. Degrees from the University of Alberta, and his MSc. Degree and training in General Surgery, Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery and Critical Care at McGill University, he spent 3 more years of training in transplantation immunology, heart and lung transplantation and high-risk cardiovascular surgery at Stanford University Medical Center. He implemented Western Canada’s first heart and lung transplantation program and served as the Director of both the Heart and Lung Transplantation Program and Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit for 20+ years. He spent 30 years as a practising doctor and is the former CEO of the Alberta Prosperity Project. We discuss Alberta’s position in Canada, the pace of government and the Alberta first mindset.  Clothing Link:⁠⁠⁠https://snp-8.creator-spring.com/listing/the-mashup-collection⁠⁠ Text Shaun 587-217-8500 Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcast E-transfer here: [e-mail] Silver Gold Bull Links: Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/ Email: [e-mail] Text Grahame: [phone]

This is Chris Sims. This is Tom Romago. This is Chuck Prodnick. This is Alex Kraner. This is Danielle Smith, and welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome on the podcast, folks. Happy Thursday. We got some teasers coming here.

So hang on. We're going to start with Silver Gold Bull, my go-to for precious metals with their complete in-house solutions, whether buying, selling, storing, or adding precious metals to your retirement accounts. This is where you want to head, silvergoldbill.com. Of course, they got their start in Rocky Mountain House.

Now they're housed in Calgary and Las Vegas, and they want you to know that, well, the price of gold is literally at all-time highs. And, you know, trust in government is not surprisingly at all-time loans. And they have an exclusive offer just for you, the SMP listener, on quarter-ounce gold coins from the Royal Canadian Mint. For anyone looking to protect their savings with physical gold, these low-cost fractional coins are a great buy. You can text her email Graham down on the show notes for more D.E.

details and they're a huge part in why the Cornerstone Forum is heading where it's heading. Okay, that's enough of a teaser. There you go. I showed up to Silver Gold Bowl for, you know, forcing me not to drag my feet on moving it to, but we're getting ahead of ourselves. My hat tip to them. My hat tip to them. Yes, we've had lots of conversations over the last, oh, I don't know, a month or so.

Mikkel Thorup, he's got the world's largest offshore event taking place entirely. online. That's next week, October 7th to 11th. He is the host of the expat money show. He was on the stage at the last Cornerstone Forum here in Lloyd Minster. He wants to discover why international diversification is a must for those looking to preserve their liberty and wealth, learn everything you need to know about crafting your perfect plan B, how to quickly acquire a second passport, diversify your finances offshore, invest in international real estate, and get in-depth insights on geopolitics from world-renowned experts, including Dr. Rom Paul, Doug Casey, Scott Horton, Tom Woods, Mark Faber, Tom Luongo, and others.

Just go to expatmoneysummit.com to reserve your complimentary ticket. That is expatmoneysummit.com. You get a free ticket. Nice and easy. And you can watch all those guys and more. McGowan, professional, chartered accountants. Yes, I'm talking about Kristen McGowan and her team over there. They've been in the financial industry since 2009,

and they offer accounting, bookkeeping, business consulting, and training, financial planning, and tax planning. and Kristen is looking for a CPA. She's been turning away customers and needs one of you find folks out there who is a CPA looking for, you know, basically walk in and you're going to have business immediately. She's willing to work with you on work schedule, on what she's going to offer for a wage, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I think there's a whole bunch of opportunities there. McGowanCPA.ca.ca.ca. and I think I don't know I like Chris and team they deal them with me and I probably give them a few gray hairs but anyways

they're looking for a CPA if they want to work with more of you find folks but in order to do that they got to find a CPA to help take some of the workload substack um yes once a week right now Wednesdays Sunday nights 5 p.m we've been releasing week in review

this week in review this specific week is going to be big. We're going to announce where the Cornerstone Forum is heading in 2025. I think a bunch of you already have an idea, and I probably already have talked lots about it, but we have the location, we have the date, all that coming on Substack Sunday night. So make sure you subscribe.

If you're subscribed and you haven't seen anything, maybe check your junk mail and just figure out where the heck that's going, and make sure you're getting the update. because Sunday at 5, we're going to announce where the Cornerstone Forum is heading. Friday, November 29th, we got the S&P Christmas party bringing in the dueling pianos to the Gold Horse Casino and Lloyd Minster. I got nine tables left. And if you're a business looking for a Christmas party or you're a guy or a business that wants to take some customers out, no better place than having a great meal, some dueling pianos, and all the entertainment and everything right there.

That's November 29th. Shoot me a text down in the show notes. Okay. Let's get on to that tale of the tape. He implemented Western Canada's first heart and lung transplantation program. He served as the director of both the heart and lung transplantation program and cardiovascular intensive care unit from May 1984 until January 2007. He spent 30 years as a practicing doctor here in Alberta. He's the former CEO of the Alberta Prosperity Project.

I'm talking about Dr. Dennis Modry. So buckle up. Here we go. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. today I'm joined by Dr. Dennis Modry. So, sir, thanks for making the trip, finding your way here. It was a pleasure. Thank you for the invite.

Yeah, well, your name, you know, I go back in, I was just telling you a little bit about myself. The first time I ever got introduced to you was an APP, non-official debate, official debate. I don't even know what they, but regardless. I went to it. It was my first time kind of, you know, one of my first times ever. following a political race, you know, like I was just telling you I was a hockey guy. Yeah. So the political side of things I'd never really given much attention to.

And one of the things that I'd done a debate in Vermillion with five of the seven candidates pretty much right before that. And one of the things I admired about yourself and Ezra Levant was the questions you asked on stage. I'm like, oh, I've got to get better at that. Those are like, well thought out, right to the hearts of the issues that people. care about and if we got better at that um paul you know like it was it was it was really entertaining to listen to not only that you also got them on the record on like a whole bunch of things

that people really care about right it was it was a blending of two things i thought like um it really stuck out to me so to finally have you sit in studio i'm i'm excited for this excellent now now i think if you're sitting in alberta i feel like most people know most of your story But certainly we got listeners from all over Canada into the states. Sure. So maybe we could just start with who the heck is Dennis Modry? And we'll go from there. All right.

Well, so a little sort of personal background then. Born in Camrose, raised in Edmonton, eloped when I was 18, had four kids, graduated with my BSC. in two years with joint majors in physics and chemistry, graduated from medical school when I was 23, had three kids by that point. One more after moving to Montreal, where I spent eight years training in general surgery, cardiac surgery, vascular surgery, thoracic surgery,

critical care. And then I went to Stanford for three years, where I particularly was interested in transplant immunology. I did postdoc transplanted immunology, but I also spent two years on the cardiac surgery service. And on the cardiac surgery service, I was also the transplant chief, so did a pile of heart and lung transplantation procedures, and then came back to L.

Alberta and started Western Canada's first heart and lung transplantation program, which I then directed not only the transplant program, but I was also the director of the cardiovascular intensive care unit for the majority of my 30 years in practice. Now, in concert with coming back to Alberta in 1984, I became, I've always been a big fan of Alberta. and I've been a big fan of our industries in Alberta, particularly our oil and gas industry. And although I was supposed to go back to McGill, because McGill partly funded my training at Stanford,

the University of Alberta made me a much better offer. Plus, I was, like I say, a real fan of the oil and gas industry. And so McGill wasn't very happy with me. and apparently they sued the university, and somehow it all got settled. It was out of my control, but I never did go back to McGill, primarily because they didn't have the enthusiasm to get the transplant program going. And having spent the amount of time training, those three years at Stanford, set the stage for me to really lead a program like this.

So we started the program in 1984. and like I said earlier, the majority of my 30 years in practice was directing that program as well as the ICU. But I had another interest, and that was making other things happen. And so I was invited and became a participant of the Finance Committee when Don Getty was the Premier. And similarly, served on the Finance Committee when Ralph was the Premier. when Stelmack was the Premier. And I was very impressed with, you know, what had transpired in terms of moving on from what I had recognized as the dysfunctional relationship between Alberta and Saskatchewan as

in relation to Ottawa and the federal government, became very innervated because of the perspective that I had that Alberta and Saskatchew and the West in general was really considered to be a colony to serve the interests of the east. And so I spent a lot of time evaluating the history of how it is that we kept getting the short shrift from Ottawa on many things. And so, concompetent with my career in cardiac vascular thrastic surgery and transplantation and intensive care, I did play a role behind the scenes politically. And particularly, starting with Don Getty, asked my opinion about health care

and what I thought could be done to improve the circumstances. similar questions came with respect to taxation, interestingly enough. And I didn't hesitate responding on that either. And that created some interesting publicity. And then when Ralph was the premier, I was invited to do a whole lot of things behind the scenes, such as Ralph asked me if I would mediate the negotiations with the Nervations. nursing union. Heather Smith is still the head of the nursing union. And I did. We met at Government House with her entourage and myself and some people from the government. And it was an

interesting discussion. We solved the problem. But there were a variety of other things that I did. When Don Mazenkovsky left federal politics and came back to Alberta, Ralph asked him if he would write an evaluation of our health care system here in Alberta. And I provided the background document for Dawn. But as he said to me after when I read his ultimate report, he said, I don't think the public's really ready for what you're suggesting. And so a lot of the suggestions that I made at that time are still germane. now and would be quite relevant in terms of improving quality, cost, and access.

So Ralph and I became really good friends, actually, and I sent him a lot of information on a bunch of different things. And one of the things that I was most interested in doing, though, was solving the problem of the dysfunctional relationship between Alberta and Ottawa. And so I've been thinking about this, and I did a lot of research and looked at the history and a lot of things frustrated me. And so I thought, well, there has to be a solution.

So in 2003, at the annual general meeting of, at that time it was called the Provincial Conservative Party, of which Ralph was the leader. But 2003 at the AGM was in Red Deer. And I had the thought in my mind as to what the solution could be and started drafting it. So I said to Ralph at the meeting in Red Deer, we just had a couple of minutes of private time. And I said to him, Ralph, I think I've got a solution to the dysfunctional relationship between Ottawa and Alberta, particularly between you and Kretchen.

And he said, you do? And I said, yeah. And I said, would you like to hear about it? He said, absolutely. I said, well, it's based on this question, Ralph. If you were the president or the prime minister of the sovereign country of Alberta, and Canada came to you and said, we would like Alberta to you. to join Confederation under the current terms and cost of membership, would you? And he looked at me and he smiled. And I'll always remember his response. He said, to ask the question is to know the answer.

Of course not. And I said, well, I'm glad you said that because the corollary is, do you not think that you and caucus have a moral and an ethical and an economic response? to Albertans to fix this dysfunctional relationship. And he says, yeah, I guess we do. And I said, well, I'm working on a document that I'll share with you when I've completed it. And we didn't talk any more about it at that time. And now, remember, this is January of 2003.

In August of 2003, it was completed. and it was entitled Alberta at the Crossroads, Status Quo, Refederation, Autonomy. Now, why I said Alberta at the Crossroads, why I titled it that way, was because on September 1, 2005, that was our centennial, right? 100 years since Alberta joined Confederation in September 1, 1905. So I thought if he embraced the recommendations in this, this could be a whole new beginning for Alberta and Canada. Okay. Now, the premise of the document had to do with the issue of leverage.

Alberta didn't have the leverage to deal effectively with Ottawa on a whole range of subjects because it didn't have the political clout. So how could you gain leverage? And why would you want to gain leverage with respect to dealing with the federal government? Well, it's because the federal government unilaterally makes decisions, which oftentimes are at variance with political or with provincial constitutional authority. So, for example, just take one thing. If you take health care as an example, well, that was provincial constitutional authority, but then what did the federal government do? they implemented the Canada Health Act.

And the Canada Health Act gave them control over how health care is delivered throughout the country. And given the problems that we have in our health care now with respect to access quality and cost, and there are serious problems in all of those areas, and in Alberta greater than a $26 billion budget at this time, It seemed as though we're not getting the biggest bang for our buck. So getting back to the document, how do we get out from under the oppression of the federal government? How do we get out from under being overgoverned, overregulated, and overtaxed by the federal government? And how do we get out from under the federal government usurping provincial constitutional authority?

you need leverage to do that. And so what is the leverage that is available? Well, there is none per se, but there is a legal pathway. In fact, there are two potential legal pathways. One is a legal pathway and the other is the potential. So let's look back at 1995. What happened to 1995? The Quebec secessionist party had a referendum, the party Quebecua.

And that referendum came within a fraction of a percentage point of winning the sweepstake of of provincial autonomy, or Quebec becoming a nation unto itself, untethered to Canada, except perhaps by trade and other sorts of relationships. So the issue was the issue of leverage. And as a consequence of that 1995 referendum, the Quebec government posed a question to the Supreme Court. That was called the Quebec Secession Reference. And the essence of the question that was posed is, does Quebec have the right to unilaterally declare its independence? And the Supreme Court ruled on that. And the outcome of it was the Clarity Act. And the Clarity Act provides what ostensibly is a

legal pathway for Quebec to leave Canada, and for Quebec, other provinces as well, to leave Canada. Now, what does a referendum on Alberta independence or Alberta sovereignty really mean? It does mean different things to different people. So, for example, there are people in Alberta in Saskatchewan and maybe other regions of the country that would like their own province to become an independent nation. More people, I'm advised, and from polling, we understand, more people want more control of their wealth and affairs, but don't really want to leave Canada. So they want sovereignty within Canada, is what they're after. But if you have a successful referendum on Alberta sovereignty,

that gives the premier of that province the political clout or the leverage, if you will, to negotiate for the first time from a position of strength. Because in other words, that premier, along with the negotiating entourage of other individuals, is sitting in front of the prime minister and the leaders of other provinces, they have an obligation through the Clarity Act, you see in the fourth paragraph of the Clarity Act,

it obliges the federal government and other provincial governments to negotiate in good faith with the province that has had the successful referendum. But it's interesting when you look at the fourth paragraph of the Clarity Act, it says negotiations, it forces negotiations. You absolutely have to have these negotiations legally. That's what that referendum outcome is. It forces the negotiations. But the last paragraph of the preamble of the Clarity Act is quite brilliantly written.

It says negotiations might lead to secession. What does it also say? Negotiations might not lead to secession, right? Why would they not lead to secession? They would not lead to secession. Why? Because Alberta, for example, if it had a successful referendum on Alberta sovereignty, very likely, if it was negotiated by our Premier, we would get sovereignty within Canada. In other words, we would have the control of our wealth and affairs within Canada.

We would be out from under the oppression of the federal government. And there are a lot of areas where we would have control of our affairs. Take policing, for example. And that seems to be unfolding by stealth, if you will, right now. Immigration, pensions, employment insurance, and provincial tax collection. That could all be in our domain. In fact, all five of those things could be in our domain without having to be. to have a referendum. That could happen just unilaterally. The Premier could say, we're taking

control of all of these things, and that would happen. But these are areas in which, by taking control of these areas, it sets the stage for taking control of other things. So what are the other things? Well, getting out from under or improving the Canada Health Act, for example, adding to the five tenets, which are universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration. You have to have one other thing if you want a health care system

that is going to work and is going to give is going to help solve the problem in a health care system, and that is choice. Choice in terms of how you access health care, pay for it, and the quality you get. But there are other areas of well, as well, that we need to have control of. That is,

in the full unfettered control and development and transportation of our natural resources. Okay. Forestry, et cetera, oil and gas, mining. These are areas of provincial jurisdiction in which the federal government keeps encroaching in our domain, as it were. So the advantage of envision Danielle and her entourage, now sitting down with whomever is the prime minister, and we all have to be realistic. You know, we may want here in Alberta, Polivov, to become the prime minister, but if there's another liberal NDP, perhaps block coalition, might not be Polivvav.

We have to face that potential reality, and what are we going to do about that? So let's envision that we've empowered the provincial government. through a referendum on Alberta sovereignty. And we have a plurality. The Clarity Act has two other interesting components to it. One is when we have a referendum on secession, it is the House of Commons that will determine whether the referendum question is valid

and whether the magnitude of support for that, referendum is sufficient to justify independence, but they will only make that decision after the referendum. So there's a simple solution here, and that is use the same question that Quebec used in their referendum. And secondly, just ensure that we have a significant plurality on the referendum, although democracy requires what? 50% plus one. So presumably, if you believe in democracy, 50% plus one should be sufficient. Now, let's get back to the negotiations now. So Danielle is negotiating with her entourage and the federal prime minister, whoever that might be,

and wants these various things outside of those five things that I already mentioned. wants to change the Constitution and would have the ability to do so. And if, for example, she was negotiating with Mr. Trudeau, and Mr. Trudeau said, okay, well, we'll agree to these things, but we're not going to agree to these other 15 things that you want. Well, Danielle has then the legal right to then declare into. which is an interesting thought. Now I'm just going to make one other comment about this because I'm sure you may have some questions about this,

but there is another way to achieve Alberta sovereignty. Okay. And what does that mean? Because it means different things to different people. So when we pose that question at various seminars, would you like Alberta sovereignty wherein Alberta becomes an independent sovereign nation untethered to Canada? Or would you like Alberta to become a sovereign nation within Canada? Or would you like Alberta to join the U.S.? For example? Or would you like

Alberta and Saskatchewan and maybe other regions in the West to form their own country? So there are different concepts of sovereignty. It all boils down to control of your own wealth and affairs. and to be free to make decisions in your life that are within the law, of course, and not to be censored. I mean, free speech is fundamentally the most basic foundation of a democratic society, of a free society, and we're seeing that squelch.

So let's just say, Danielle says, no, I want these other things as well, okay? And Saskatchewan says, yeah, you know, we like that as well. We're going to have a referendum, too. The outcome of all of this is you can only speculate right now how things would unfold if you ever got to the point of having a referendum. But Danielle would have the right to actually say, we're leaving because you're not, these are the other things we want control of. Okay. At the end of the day, when you think about how confederation could have been,

could have been more like the U.S., more like a republic, in which the provinces have far more control over their affairs. But even what we're saying in the U.S. is the federal government, you know, usurping state control in various areas as well, particularly with a Democratic Party. But there's one other way in which Alberta can. achieve sovereignty. This would be sovereignty either within or without Canada as well. And there's a model for it. If we go back to January of 2008, can you think of a country that

unilaterally declared its independence? Kosovo. Kosovo and Serbia were an entity together at one time, and they tried to work out a relationship where they would separate. they couldn't do it. So January 2008, the individuals who were responsible in irresponsible positions in Kosovo unilaterally declared their independence. Not every country in the world recognized Kosovo's independence, but you know what the first two countries were that recognized Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence? one of them was Japan. Can you take a guess of who the other one was? Canada. Canada recognized unilateral, a declaration of unilateral independence. And guess what? United Nations did as well.

So what would happen if Alberta did that? What would happen if Alberta and Saskatchewan did that? you would need to have some form of international support to go that route. Jeff Rath, who's on our board of the Alberta Prosperity Society, so does Layton Gray, who is a constitutional lawyer as well as Jeff. They both think that that is a reasonable thing to do. The problem is, to really make that work, you would need support from the U.S. And I don't think in a Democratic administration like Kamala Harris that we would get that support. Under a Trump presidency, very likely Alberta would.

This is just my opinion. We're just speculating. But I've given you two mechanisms to achieve Alberta sovereignty conceivably. The other way is incremental, which may or may not, ever happen. And it's kind of like what we've tried over decades and decades. And it's interesting to speculate why just trying to be nice and negotiate, you know, more control of your wealth and affairs doesn't work. I don't know if your listeners understand why that is the case, or you do. But do you? Let me pose the question. Do you understand why we're in the situation?

that we are? Because if I was sitting on the other side, I wouldn't want to change anything. You wouldn't want to change anything. But how did it all start? Do you know that? We were basically an outpost of upper and lower Canada, essentially. Right, we were, right. So have you heard of a gentleman by the name of Sir Clifford Sifton? Okay, this is really very important to understand. So Sir Clifford Sifton. So Sir Clifford Sifton, was the Minister of the Interior in the Liberal government of Sir Wilfred Laurier. He was responsible for bringing Alberta and Saskatchewan into Canada, okay, on September 1, 1905. But in 2004, he gave a presentation in Winnipeg, and this is a quote from a book entitled Clifford Sifton,

volume two, page 95, right-hand side, second paragraph. This is what he said. For your listeners, it's so important you understand this because it set the stage for everything that has happened bad to Alberta. This is what he said. He said, we desire and all Canadian patriots desire. Now, 2004, Canadian Patriots were only the people living in, in, in, and we desire. We desire. We desire. We said, we in the east, particularly in the Laurentians of Quebec and Ontario. Did I see 2004? Yes, you know. I'm sorry, I did.

Yes, 2004. 1904. Okay, so 1904, Clifford Sifton said these words to an audience in Winnipeg. We desire, and all Canadian patriots desire, that the great trade of the prairies, now trade of the prairies is Alberta, Saskatchewan's wealth, that the great trade of the prairies shall go to enrich our people in the east to build up our factories and places of work and in every legitimate way contribute to our prosperity. Not the prosperity of the West, but the prosperity of the East.

Nothing has changed. And let's look at a couple of key examples. Started with the wheatboard. okay all western wheat had to be shipped to the east at a subsidized rate so we couldn't achieve world market prices for our grain that eventually got reversed then it came to be equalization 1957. And for a few years, six, to be exact, Alberta was the beneficiary of equalization. But by 1963 to now, we've been the major contributor to equalization. Now, in the 70s, the late 60s and 70s, Alberta was becoming the economic center of power in Canada.

what do you think the East thought of that? There was a major demographic shift of industry and people from elsewhere in the east of Canada to Alberta, from around the world to Alberta, and the major banks. All five major banks at that time were planning to move their head office to Calgary, and one did, CIBC. And why?

Liquid gold. There was oil everywhere, right? Alberta was absolutely booming in the 70s, in late 70s. But what was happening in Alberta clashed with what was happening in Quebec, with the Quebec secessionist movement. And so Mark Lalonde, who was the finance minister, came up with a very good idea, if you're a Laurentian Easterner. And along with Pierre Elliott Trudeau, they implemented. the national energy policy. You've heard a lot about the national energy policy. But why was it implemented? What you heard, what people of Alberta and Saskatchewan

heard about the national energy policy was that we needed to implement the national energy policy so that we could ensure that other regions in the east had sufficient finances to maintain comparative social programs throughout the country. That's what they told us. That wasn't the reason. The reason was two things. One was to buy Quebec's loyalty to Alberta with Alberta's wealth.

And second was to ensure that Alberta never became the economic center of Canada. those are the two reasons right out of Mark LaLan's mouth okay now when you think about the first one to buy Quebec's loyalty to Alberta I mean what to buy Quebec's loyalty to Canada now you understand why two of every three dollars of equalization goes to Quebec a lot of people don't understand that let's look at the effect of equalization and the national energy policy economically to this point, $700 billion, give or take, has gone from Alberta to Ottawa to be distributed, two-thirds to Quebec, and one-third to the rest of Canada. Alberta has not received a cent of equalization since it started, well, since 1967, I should say. So here we are now with a carbon tax and all of the other things going on. You know, our industry is being attacked, our oil and gas industry, our natural resources are being attacked.

We're being told, you know, what we can do. They want to expand the Caribou region, which compromises even the indigenous population, who are trying to run businesses, you know, out there. DEI, wokeness, et cetera. I mean, there are all kinds of things that are irritants that are problematic. And I have to say that, you know,

we have really for the first time a provincial leader in Danielle Smith, that is willing to stand up for Alberta in a very different way than former premiers. Although Lahi tried to, with respect to the national energy policy, but he didn't. He caved at that time. So what do we see Danielle doing?

Well, she hasn't reduced taxes like she said she was going to do. Will she? We'll have to wait and see. But there is movement with respect to policing. There are discussions with respect to, as you've seen, regarding immigration now, to control the amount of immigration. We're not against immigration. I mean, I'm Ukrainian. Well, actually, I'm Ukrainian Czech and Polish.

So, by background. So my grandparents were Ukrainian. Polish and Czech, depending on which side of the family. And so we are a nation of immigrants anyhow, but the immigrants that built this country are not necessarily the same as some of the immigrants that are coming now. So we have kind of unfettered immigration,

and Danielle has said, you know, we don't have the capacity to handle too much more in the way of immigration. And so she stood up for that, that. And she's standing up to, in a way, with respect to health care as well, in terms of permitting alternate forms of administration of health care and financing of it. And I don't have the full details, you know, as well. I'd like to see, I'd like to see, I'd like to see, I'd like to see or do more with respect to the informed consent. For example, on the COVID-19 immunization

file, not to prevent it, immunization from occurring, but to better inform the citizens as to what the potential harms are. I could talk more about that at length based on a lot of new information. But I think that in terms of the Premier, she is standing up for Alberta in a different way. And the tangible evidence of that is the Sovereignty Act, Bill 1, Alberta's sovereignty within a United Canada Act. So that tells you what's in her head with respect to sovereignty. She wants sovereignty for Alberta but within Canada, right? So what could we as citizens do?

We could empower her to achieve that objective fully and rapidly with that referendum if we could ever get there. It's going to be interesting to see what happens at the AGM coming up in just a few short weeks. She's facing a leadership review, but she's really only been the 11th. elected leader by Albertans for 18 months. It was what May of 2020. 2023. So she hasn't had a long time to be in the position, and I suspect that she gets through this leadership review that we'll see an acceleration of some of the initiatives that I think she would like to see implemented. I should tell you an interesting story about how I met the Premier. And it goes back to Maggie Thatcher. So, do you remember when Peter Paucington owned the Oilers?

Certainly. All right. So I was a good friend of Peters. And every year he sponsored Junior Achievement. And he would invite a famous person, usually in a an international leader to come and give a keynote speech at a Junior Achievement event, which he used to have at what formerly was Rexall Place. And one of the things that he would do is he would invite a small number of people to his home where he had a roundtable for 12 people. And he and his wife, Eva, would invite a group of people to meet with, some famous leader. It kind of was a princely sum to have dinner with Peter and Eva,

and I'm not sure that the funds that he raised went to Peter, went to junior achievement. But nevertheless, I had the fortunate opportunity to have dinner at Peter's place with with George Boer Sr. and Maggie Thatcher. Oh, and Jerry Ford was the first one. But Maggie Thatcher was very interesting. And when you're talking about leaders, how do they make decisions? So there was an interview that Maggie Thatcher did with, I believe it was Pamela Wallen. You're going to like this. So they're sitting about five feet across, no table in between.

Maggie Thatcher is sitting with her arms crossed and her legs crossed, and Pamel Wallen's leaning forward. and the discussion has been about social programs and the Falklands War and I don't remember all the details, but Pamela Wallen made the mistake of saying, didn't you think to compromise? Well, Maggie Thatcher uncrossed her arms, uncrossed her legs, leaned forward, and a very loud voice said, compromise, I hate compromise. Compromise implies that both parties are wrong. and on values and principles, you never compromise. Pretty good point. When you read the biography of Maggie Thatcher, she made decisions. She didn't ask for permission. She made decisions. Love her or hate her, that's how she operated. She felt in her mind she knew what was the right

thing to do and she did it. And if there was any pushback, she convinced. people that she was right. And then she'd get a vote in support of it. So in March or April of 2022, before Danielle had announced that she was going to run for the leadership, she called me. She had invited me on her show a couple of times,

but Chorus wouldn't let them interview me. So she called me this one day after I had had a meeting with Michael Binion from Quest Air Energy. And we were talking about leaders and we had a good discussion. But in any case, Michael contacted her and suggested that she contact me. And so that was on a Monday with Michael Binion. Tuesday, Danielle calls me and asks if she can meet. And Wednesday, my wife and I meet with Danielle at the Sawmill on Calgary Trail for three hours.

We have a good conversation. And I asked her a question. And this is based on, now you'll see where this goes back to my comments about Maggie Thatcher. I said, Danielle, if you became the leader of the UCP and you are the leader after the election, how will you make decisions? Will you make decisions based on polling? Or will you make decisions based on values and principles? What do you think she said?

I assume she said values and principles. Any smart person would say that. Correct. All right. Now, ask yourself the question, is she making decisions consistently based on values and principles? Or is she being influenced by the NDP and the media bashing her every which way they can? And are the MLAs in caucus making decisions based on values and principles?

or are they responding to a thousand NDP people who are calling in and complaining and saying, we've got to back off on this, we've got to back off on that. That is not leadership. Okay? That is not leadership. Let's take just for argument's sake, one thing. Okay. Take the pension plan.

If there was an Alberta pension plan and the potential, financial benefits of an Alberta pension plan accrued to all pensioners, current pensioners, and to all employers and employees through reduced contributions, who does not win in the province? Everybody wins. So why would the NDP oppose it? Okay. Why would people, people will oppose things because they don't understand them and they're afraid of change. That's one thing. But that's not the reason the NDP would oppose it. They would oppose it because they don't want the Conservative Party or the UCP to have a win on anything, okay, that shows that it's beneficial. Let me give you a good example of this kind of thinking.

When Ed Stelmack was the premier, the NDP were bashing the heck out of them because of the health care premium. eliminate the health care premium. Remember that? I don't know if you remember that. Okay, eliminate the health care premium. So this would have been about 2006, 7, 8, somewhere around there. Well, eliminating the health care premium, that health care premium was one of the only things that ever gave people in the public

the notion that there, gee, there is a cost to health care. but by eliminating it, that removed a billion dollars of revenue for the province at that time. So what did he do? He genuflected to the NDP, and then what he did is he said, we're going to have a royalty review, and that royalty review obviously was influenced, and the result of that royalty review, stalemak government at that time. This is about the time I left, I left the Finance Committee. That review resulted in the oil and gas industry paying an additional billion dollars of royalty revenue

to the government. So you see how he harmed the oil and gas industry to benefit the NDP. That was a conservative government. So let me ask you this. Let me ask you. It didn't make sense. What did the oil and gas industry do? Let me just make this final point. They shut down operations to some extent.

Some just, you know, said, well, we'll do more in Saskatchewan now or we'll do more in Montana or whatever. Sure. Okay. That's what they do. Any case, go ahead, ask a question. Well, how many years, Dennis, have you been a part of Alberta politics? Just give or take.

Since about 1985. So that's almost 40 years. Yeah. Okay. Over 40 years, you've got to see what I'm told you would have got to witness it firsthand. Yeah, I experienced it. It was the greatest premier of Alberta's time, Ralph Klein. You wrote the document towards the end of his career that said, listen, we need to remove ourselves from this bad relationship.

Heck, we have Harper, who was on the firewall. letter, right? Like we have all these things. All these great human beings, rah, raw, conservatives, amazing. Alberta. Let's do these things. 40 years. Yeah. And I sit here and we go, we're looking at Danielle.

We're going, is she going to do any of this? But then you bring up the pension plan. You bring up, is she being governed by principles and the right way to do things or by polling? And I go over your 40-year career of surrounding yourself in this realm. what makes you believe we're going to get there? Because I'm just new. I look at it and I go, you know, the Sovereignty Act walked in.

I'm like, here we go. Apologizes about what happened to the unvaccinated. Okay. And then the world turned on her and holy crap, she's been under fire ever since. And she's made some missteps, I'm sure. But like, I sit there and I see a wealth of knowledge. Let's sit here and listen. I up until this point I'm instead of peep.

Because I'm just like, just keep going. Okay? But now I go, okay, where are you sitting today, Dennis, and what gives you the thought that we can get a referendum or get out of some of the harms that are coming from having a controlling abuse of government? Yeah. Well, I think there's a couple of things that are very important to address here. Notwithstanding the, let's look at, let's look, I'm going to start with the last election. 62% of eligible voters voted. But the UCP basically won as a result of 2,700 people out of Calgary supporting the UCP. Otherwise, we'd have an NDP government.

All right. So what gives me alarm and what gives me hope? Sure. What gives me alarm, first of all, is that, I do not want Danielle to be replaced by anybody because if not her, who? Who is going to stand up for Alberta better than she has done already? Okay, given the constraints that she has, and she got a number of UCPMLAs that are Canada first, Alberta second. And they should really ask themselves the question, who are they really governing for?

And whether or not it's in the best interests of Alberta that they carry on in the next election. What we need in Alberta is, from a solution perspective, is Alberta MLAs that are Alberta first, Canada second, that want Alberta sovereignty, meaning control of our wealth and affairs within Canada. Okay, we need at least that. Now, if we look at, so there is a problem, right, and there was a solution that I just told you in terms of locally. federally, we need if Trudeau and Sings and Blanchette form a coalition and form the next federal government, well, we need a hammer then to force negotiations in Alberta. That would be a solution as well. But then we absolutely need to empower Danielle to negotiate from a position of strength.

The only way to do that is through a referendum on Alberta's sovereignty. Okay. What else is coming at us? What else is coming at us is things like what the WEF and UN are doing with their agenda 2030, which, of course, is the pandemic treaty as well. and that seems to be moving its way through. If I'm remembering correctly, I think it's already been approved by the House and Commons that's waiting for approval in the Senate.

It's that second reading, Bill 293. Yeah, exactly. So if you want to oppose that and you don't want to be caught up and your life being totally controlled again by a supposed pandemic that could be declared by an individual who's not even a physician, the person who's the head of the UN, or the World Health Organization, excuse me, then we have to have control of our own affairs. We have to be, we have to have the ability to say to Ottawa, no, we're not going to do that, okay? No, that's, that encroaches on our freedom.

What's a good thing now that's happening? Okay, so bad thing is what I've just said, the squelching of the control of our affairs and our speech by globalist transnationalist organizations. Okay, so what's a good thing that's happening? Good thing that's happening, and I happen to participate, partly in it, was the creation of the Alberta Bill of Rights, Freedoms, and Responsibilities.

and that's going forward, as you know, at the end of this month. And I hope it's passed in a way in which there are no significant changes to it. What I would like to see is that the Alberta Bill of Rights, Freedoms, and Responsibilities is supreme, is really important, is supreme to the Canadian Bill of Rights and Freedoms. Okay, I'd like to see it's supreme to that. How do we get there? Well, remember that the Canadian Constitution, as a component of the Canadian Constitution,

is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Similarly, an Alberta Constitution, which currently is being worked on, And Alberta Constitution has the potential clout to ensure that the Alberta Bill of Rights, freedoms, and responsibilities is supreme, and that the Alberta Constitution is supreme to the Canadian Constitution. Now, what will that lead to? That will lead to litigation between Ottawa and Alberta with respect to who has supremacy.

I think this is a very important point that I'm going to make right now is the principle of subsidiarity. Do you understand what that means? Okay. It means that when you start breaking down a structure, the very foundation is what's the most important component because everything falls apart if the foundation falls apart. So the principle of subsidiarity. in the arena of politics is the family.

The family unit needs to have control of its wealth and affairs, its education, etc. And you build from there. That's subsidiarity. Another example of subsidiarity is when the provincial government cites some control to the municipalities. That's subsidiarity. So, subsidiarity in terms of the country means that Alberta has control, not Ottawa. Alberta has control. Saskatchewan has control, not Ottawa, of its wealth and affairs.

The principle of subsidiarity is very strong. It falls apart when you start tearing down the foundation, which is the foundation of the family. and that's really important to maintain. The other thing is, I know that we live in a secular society, but what's foundational to society? If you look at the Declaration of Independence, you know, in the U.S., it's a great document to read, but, you know, how many people don't believe in a higher power versus those who do.

It's maybe 60, 40 right now who believe and who don't believe. And I think this is important as well to understand, is that if you believe in a higher power, and I see the Pope came out recently, he said, well, there is only one God, but there's a bunch of religions that keep clashing over the centuries and how many wars have been fought because of religious differences.

Any case, my point is that I believe, and I think many people do believe, who are believers, that we are created equal in the eyes of our creator, endowed by natural law with certain inalienable rights such as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. So that applies to everybody. That applies to everybody. And so when you think of property, just in that context, think of gun rights. Okay. Responsible firearms ownerships.

That's property. Danielle is talking about property. It's in the Alberta Bill of Rights, the right to own and bear arms legally. If the federal government, think about what the federal government wants to do, They want to take away people's firearms. That's property. That's something that you own. If they can take away your firearms, they can take away anything.

When David Lamedy was the Federal Minister of Justice, you remember what he said? He said, Canadians do not have the right to own property. That's what he said. What's the most basic property that we have? It's your own body. We saw through COVID that we didn't even have bodily autonomy. So this is a federal government that has really disrupted society. But it's not just this federal government.

It's Western governments around the world that have disrupted society that have said to people, you don't have the right to control your body. You know, you don't have the right to avoid a vaccine. If we say you have to have it, you have to have it. So I won't get into all of the things I'm through. Roger did a brilliant job of tearing apart that whole argument. But there are... He's talking Roger Hodkinson folks.

Roger Hodkinson, yeah, Roger, my friend, he's a wonderful man. But, yeah, I mean, I could go on and on in different areas. But I think that in a very real way, we are facing some enormous challenges. And if we don't get it right, if we don't stand up for our values and our principles, then I think we're going to be in big trouble. I'll go back to the original, well, a couple things.

One, you said we don't have a, Daniel Smith needs to be the premier because we don't even have an option after. I guess I just rewind the clock and I go, When Jason Kenney was the premier, did everybody know the option back then? Where is there a clear, if we get rid of Jason Kenny, then what?

Was there an option in the background everybody knew about? Was Daniel Smith that? Yeah, that's a really good question. Of course there's an option to replace Daniel Smith, but is there an option to replace Daniel Smith by someone who understands what that firewall document that Harper and Ted Morton

and others drafted. Is there another individual who will stand up for Alberta's rights and freedoms like she has been doing, and I think she will do a lot more? Is there somebody else? Yeah, there's somebody else. You're looking at them,

but that's not my cup of tea, and I'm getting too old. But there are other people like me, okay, who have the intellectual capacity who have the background knowledge that could do it, who do make decisions based on values and principles. And I think Danielle,

given the circumstances of what she came into with a huge opposition in government, I think she's handled herself pretty well. Perfect, no, but pretty well. Your question? Yes, there's somebody else Who is that? I don't know right now. You know, I've met Travis Taves, you know, during that leadership.

He came second, right? Yes. And Travis Taves didn't want to play second fiddle to Daniel Smith. And so he didn't carry on. But he was not someone who was Alberta First, Canada Second. He was clearly Canada First, Alberta second. And I know that because in so many words, that's what he told me. And I'd be happy to debate him on that if he would like to have this discussion with me,

because I've had this discussion with him in the past. So who else could do it? I don't know yet. Fair does. To me, when everybody goes to, well, if you remove Daniel Smith, right? Because it's a leadership review, so that is a possible outcome. It's like, why do we do that? We've got nobody else.

I'm like, we got nobody else in all of Alberta? I have a hard time believing that. And saying that, I'm not suggesting that. I'm just saying that it's coming up here in less than a month. And it's a real, I mean... It's an issue. It's an issue. It's going to come up.

And so you go, one of the talking points is, well, we have nobody else. You can't do that. And we just have to plow on through it. And I go, well, removing Jason Kenney, nobody could see... For most people, they couldn't see around the issue other than he needs to be gone. We can't have this go on in Alberta, what's gone on and on and on and on and on. So I bring it up. The second thing, okay, is the pace of government.

Too slow. Well, I don't know. I look at you, once again, Dennis, you've been looking at this for 40 years. You've been in and amongst all these great leaders of the conservative movement, and you go the pension plan. And I just sit here, and I'm probably not the right Alberta to ask, but I go, listen, if we're pulling away things from Ottawa, I'm all for it. I'm like, I'm all for it. And where does it sit? And why is it, why is it,

feel like it might even be worse than dragging our feet? I could be wrong because you, you can set me right on this. Maybe I'm wrong. It feels like it's worse than dragging our feet. It feels like it's almost mismanagement of talking to the Alberta population about it. I do a podcast here. My first thought,

if I was trying to get the information out to Albertans of like, listen, we need this. I would have looked down the roll of decks of a bunch of media that are going to give me the opportunity to just explain it all. And I would have went and approached them. Maybe that happened. I don't know.

My phone never rang. I'm not trying to sit here and say that I'm the biggest thing in Alberta. I'm not. Yeah, yeah. But at the same time, I'm like, where is the conversation going? Why do people not understand the things that I think I have begun to understand? And so I just go back to the pace of, are we trying to do things or are we not trying to do things?

Yeah, I think in most governments, caucus is a problem. And MLAs, many MLAs and members of parliament don't have much of a spine, and they don't have a grounding such that they've formulated really strong values and principles in which they can then articulate the rationale very well for doing something and the rationale for not doing something. Okay. So what we have to a very large extent is when new information comes up,

people don't want to hear it. They have cognitive dissonance. They don't want to hear new information because it has the potential to trouble their mind such that they might even change their mind. Okay? So people are comfortable with not having to change. their mind with not having to change their mind don't try and convince me sort of thing so so we

have we have this this dilemma that that is occurring and we need people in positions of authority truly who can make decisions because they have the internet intellectual capacity the communication skills to explain clearly every point about why something should be done or why something should not be done. And then you move on from there, okay? But if we want our society to move forward rapidly, because you touched on something that is a real irritant, it's the pace of Canadian political change is ridiculously slow, you know. It's like lifetimes before things change, you know, which is... Well, I look at your lifetime.

Well, that's what I'm seeing an articulate man who is decorated out the wazoo of the things you've accomplished in your life. And you've been in and around some of the most prolific leaders of Alberta's history. And I go, and it hasn't got done. No. And there will be times where the winds of change are in the air. There will be other times where all of a sudden the NDP are leading. You're like, well, we've got four years.

We've got to wait. Right? There's not much we can do. We can work on different things, I'm sure, in the background. But there had to have been times where the winds were blowing just perfectly. And you just think all we've got to do is just push it over. And it's over. It's running down a hill almost.

And it's still, four decades. That's a long, well, I don't know. It's not, you know, in the history of the world, it's not that long. But in Alberta's history, it's a pretty significant. amount of time. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. It is.

You know, you reminded me of something, and I should just touch on this for your benefit and for your listeners' benefit. Do you remember when Churchill once said democracy is the worst form of governance except for everything else? Yes. Okay. Do you know why? Because, I mean, you need 50%?

No, no. It's because what happened with, I'm going to give a clue, this kind of, I'm not going to tell you the answer right yet, I'll see if you can figure it out here. Here's a clue. What the federal government did to Canadians with respect to COVID-19? What did they breach? What did the government breach with Canadians? They basically tore up every lawn and just walked all over us. Okay. So let me, because we're in Lloyd Minster, we have Ray Nelson Street. Ray Nelson was a friend of mine. Ray Nelson was the oldest person in the world who ever had a heart transplant, which I did. and he once said to me this is really important

if you look after individual rights you will look after societal rights but the reverse does not occur can you say that one more time if you look after individual rights you will look after societal rights but if you look after societal rights ahead of individual rights

Yeah, they disappear. Then you've squashed individual rights. Okay. The essence of the Bill of Rights and Freedoms is to reestablish individual rights. Democracy fails when you squash individual libertarian thinking and activities. Okay. So you can improve democracy by protecting individual rights. So if you take the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the very first

paragraph and you alter it so that you disallow the federal government from trampling individual rights, you've solved a major problem in terms of democracy. So, yes. Do you understand that? Yes. I get that. Here's, I just had a guy on. He was a military advisor for the United States, a military analyst, sorry.

And I just want to pull up here. Give me one moment because I'm going to forget, because he talks about democracy. And I'm just going to, everyone's going to have to bear with me here for a few moments. It was on my, okay, right here, okay? I want Dennis to hear this. Make sure I get it to the right spot. to be violent against that population you have everybody in America

talking about the democracy the same democracy the United States is not it's not a democracy never was a democracy it's a republic democracies are unstable events that know sound culture wants so why is there an active measure

all over the West to use the word democracy sorry that's just one clip that was from Stephen Coglin from earlier this earlier this week on Monday and he took talks about I now when I hear democracy that's what I hear now I obviously he's talking about the United States and and so forth and so on I just forgive me I'm I'm like my brain is over here listening

you say democracy democracy democracy and if you're wondering where my brain is yeah you're going I'm thinking of Stephen Coglin's thoughts on a democracy being like there's an active thing talking about democracy and how no society wants a democracy just your thoughts on that yeah um Sorry, and for the listener who's wondering why we're taking this left turn, I literally just talked with his man. Yeah. And I got another brilliant man sitting across me. I'm like, I wonder what the conversation would be like if he was sitting here. Yeah.

So there's a Scottish scholar. His name will come to me in a second from a couple hundred years ago. and he made the comment about democracy cannot survive in its current form because once the public understands that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, they will always vote for the party that will provide them the greatest reward. Okay, so. And he's, it was, Alexander Taitler was the name.

Alexander Taitler, T-Y-T-L-E-R, you can look it up. Scottish nobleman, brilliant writer, academic, etc. That's what he said. So I think about democracy in those terms as well. And what do you see governments do? Governments tax you, and then they say, we're going to give you this back to you, right?

Well, it's the same thing Ottawa was doing now, Alberta. It's exactly the same thing. In the United States, the gentleman that you referred to, yeah, they are a republic, okay. But you could argue they're a democratic republic, okay, in the context of democracy, meaning that you vote and majority vote carries the day, okay? majority vote carries the day on an issue, right? So whatever that issue might be. Could be an election or could be a by-election or it could be, you know, something else. But you're voting on it. And democracy requires a majority. But it's like I said, democracy fails when you abrogate individual rights. Sure. Okay. And democracy, a Democratic Republic, which is what the U.S. really is, wins if you look after individual rights.

So look at, take the abortion law that Roe versus Wade in the United States, the Supreme Court recently overruled. Yes, and pushed it back down to the states. And pushed it back down to the states. That's the principle of subsidiarity as well. It's providing. authority to a lower level to make to make those decisions. And then it's up to the voters in each of those states to decide what they want, what they want. Okay, that's democracy. Now, the individual who might live in that state, let's say a woman or a teenage girl, does get pregnant. but that state doesn't allow abortion in, say, the second trimester, just as an example. So what is that young girl going to do?

Well, again, the principle of subsidiarity, she wants choice, and she may make the choice to keep the child or go to another state to have an abortion. Okay. So I'm not saying what's right or what's wrong here. I'm just making the point that democracy, as Ray Nelson, it was a very smart guy, when he told me that comment that when you look after individual rights, you protect societal rights.

But the reverse doesn't occur. When you protect societal rights, you're not protecting individual rights. And that's a problem. And that's the problem that we have right now. Well, that's the problem that COVID imposed on us. Imposed on us. Government said there's one thing, fix all, and if you didn't get in line,

you're going against the common good. Well, Trudeau even said we are going to abridge individual rights to do what we're going to do here, and we're not going to let people travel. We're not going to let them get out of their house. I mean, crazy stuff, absolutely crazy stuff. But anyhow, that's what happened. How do you fix it? you insure and enshrine individual rights.

In the Alberta Bill of Rights. In a bill of rights. And in a Constitution, an Alberta Constitution. That's how you fix democracy. So when you sit and look at Daniel Smith, we'll come back to Alberta, right, and look at it, the things that are giving you hope of like we have the right leader is the things going on behind the scenes

that most people probably can't see. And what frustrates a lot of people is the pace at which it's occurring because they say all it takes time. And yet we saw with the Freedom Convoy how quickly things can really be pulled away, how quickly governments can move on and on and on. And people want things to move faster than they are because they see the things coming down like Bill C-293 or Bill C-63 or Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, there's a ton of these different. C-11, C-18, censorship bills.

These all these things that are attacking all of our individual rights and fast. And they go, we need to take this seriously. We need to move fast. And so the things that you're talking about, is Alberta Bill Rights, which we're going to get to see here in, you know, I don't know, three weeks time or a little less, a little more, whatever it's at.

It's close, folks. We're going to get to see what's in there. You've had firsthand knowledge of most of it, I would assume. Yeah, I was one of the co-authors. So you're very excited about it then. Well, I am. I mean, when I said co-author, I mean, I reviewed it a few times and I made some suggestions to it.

So when I say I'm a co-author, I'm only a co-author in that context. Okay, so, and I have the latest copy. What do you say to people then, Dennis, say it's just another piece of paper. And the piece of paper that I'm talking about specifically is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, right? It didn't hold up that well under a global pandemic where they went to calm and good outweighs your individual right for freedom of choice and freedom of this and freedom to kill grandma and everything else, right?

They went, what do you say to that? Because, I mean, obviously, you being a co-author, staring at this, reading through it, giving suggestions. When you hear that, what do you think about this piece, paper? Well, I have two responses to that. Number one, once it's passed, there will be issues that come up that would be opposed by current law, likely. Okay? So that will lead to litigation, and then there will be new law formed as a result. the problem with that is that takes time, but nevertheless, that is a process to provide teeth to the Bill of Rights, freedoms, and responsibilities.

The second way in which things could dramatically accelerate, and if people are frustrated with pace, then if you really want to accelerate pace, then get on board with getting, 600,000 people signing, registering their intent with their contact information that would support a petition to empower the Premier to negotiate with Ottawa from a position of strength. And that is that you would support a referendum on Alberta Sovereignty,

which aligns perfectly with Bill 1, the Alberta Sovereignty Act, the Alberta Sovereignty with the United Canada Act. That's the way to dramatically accelerate things. But the Bill of Rights, the Alberta Bill of Rights, freedoms and responsibilities, for certain will be challenged. And the tenets in it will be proven through litigation, assuming successful litigation. Certain Albertans would argue that they put their finger on the scale when they elected Daniel Smith and empowered her with a whole bunch of things of like, we want you to do this, we want you to do that, we want you to do this.

Now we're saying to those same Albertans, go get 600,000 more signatures and make sure that's, like, it's the next step. I don't know. I guess what would you say to? Because I just literally talk to one of these folks, and I was like, oh, okay, well, I mean, I don't know what to say about that, right? Like, their thought is, the way to accelerate it is to go vote Daniel Smith out. your thought is go give her the literal teeth if you would to follow through on some of the things that have been put forth

give her the hammer that she needs you know she's she's stuck between a rock and a hard place right now I'll tell you what that is is and I've touched on it but I'll be more explicit there are MLAs a number of them I won't say how many but I know and I know their names who don't support her Okay, think about that. There are individuals in her caucus that don't support her. Either they don't support her or they don't support her or they don't support some of the things that she wants to do. And why is that?

Is because they're federalists in their thinking. They're Canada first, Alberta, second. And they may say, I make no apology for that, but that's who they are. So you take people who are very independent-minded that base their decisions on values and principles. And Jennifer is one of those people, right? Jennifer Johnson. She's one of those people.

She makes decisions based on values and principles. She calls a spade a spade, you know, not a spade an arrow, you know. So, um, not a spade of heart. Yeah. And, and, and similarly, um, Eric Bouchard is another one, you know, I mean, you know, he was instrumental with respect to the injection of truth, which you hosted. Yeah. Um, and there are other MLAs that, uh, Todd Lohan, for example, a very strong, principled guy,

Brian Jean is another one. Why, why question for you? And I don't need you to say names. That's not why I ask his question. But why are we so willing to say the people who get ostracized? Jennifer Johnson, Todd Lowen, Eric Bouchard standing out, but we hide in secrecy the people who won't support what Daniel's doing. And I don't mean that it's more of a philosophical question,

not meant to put you on the spot to say names. But like, I think a lot of people are wondering when Daniel says, and this came up with Nadine Wellwood, she said something along the lines of my wings have been clipped. And one of the things that people think with them, that is when you say wings are clipped, you think internal strife. Or, you know, a couple people think higher power like, nope, you're not going to do that. Others think, well, internal fighting and trying to work within a group that at times is working against her. That's what we're talking about.

That's right. Why are we so willing to protect the names that won't support her or are working against her within the conservative party? We're so willing to be like Eric Bouchard, great human being, because he had the injection of truth. People who are following, know who Eric Bouchard is. People who don't know MLAX who won't show up to anything, won't say anything, is fighting Daniel on the inside.

A lot of conservatives want to know those names. And I actually, like, once again, Dennis, I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm like, how the heck can, you know, it's almost like, what is a guy got to do? Go interview every single MLA in Alberta and just put them on the spot on several 10 issues. It's not whether you support Daniel.

else like what do you think about X, X, X, X, X, X, X, X, and hear their thoughts so people can start to understand where these MLAs are standing on individual issues, I guess. To me, I'm sure a bunch of my audience knows exactly who you're talking about, but there's going to be a whole bunch of people that are like, why can't we name names? Why can't we understand who the people working against the province of Alberta are? I think there's a couple of things I can say about this. You know, some of the MLAs may, for personal reasons, not support Danielle. Others may not support her because their constituency is constantly lamb-baseded by negative advertising, phone calls, et cetera, from the opposition. And they're inundated. And then they get to a point

where they're brainwashed, if you will, to think, well, gee, maybe we're doing the wrong thing here. And, gee, maybe for me to preserve my position in the next election, I better vote against this or not support this particular idea. There are, like I said, some of them are clearly federalists and don't want to get into a contest with the federal. government, feeling as though negotiation is the only way that we're going to be able to solve our problems. Well, how has that worked out? Yeah, not very good. It hasn't worked out very well. So there is another solution, though, but this would be a bit controversial. Oh, wow. Do you want to hear about it? Why not? Sure. All right. So,

fundamentally, the question that you're asking is, how do you make a lot? You know, the MLA's accountable to the wishes of the conservative element in this province. Fundamentally, that's the question that you're asking. Why is it that MLAs will not support a very clear conservative ideology on advocating for being less governed, less taxed, and less regulated, okay, just as three-servative? simple concepts. How would we make those people accountable? Well, think about this, and here's how it triggered in my mind, what could be done. So at the AGM last year, I was sitting and listening to various MLA speak, including the Premier, and reference was made.

to we're a grassroots party. And I thought to myself, really, are we really a grassroots party? Why did I think that? Well, because when Getty was the premier, when Klein was the premier, and when Stelmaq was the premier, I attended all of the AGMs and all of the policy consequences. conferences as well, where governance and policy resolutions were discussed and voted on by the members. What happened to those policies that were supported by the members? They went into a manual entitled member-approved policy and governance, and then it sat on a shelf. There was no obligation

of the MLAs or the Premier to do anything with it, and they didn't. So how is it that the members who are responsible for voting for them are ignored. Well, got me thinking, how do we fix this? So I've informed MLAs, and I've informed the Premier as well, look, if you appease the left, you will lose the right, okay? And this is one of the things that's been happening. When I told you that story about what Ed Stelmack did, he appeased the left and what happened.

Lost the rights. Yeah. Yeah. So taking this a step further now, how do we fix this? How do we make MLAs and the Premier accountable to member-approved resolutions on policy and governance? well, this is what could be done.

And I'm just going to back up one step and tell you why this is really important. Because, and you touched on this earlier, conservatives tend to fight amongst themselves, right? The socialists, not so much. They get on that socialist bandwagon and what's good for one is good for all kind of thing. In that last election, 62% of eligible voters voted. I touched on that earlier. But who were the 38% of eligible voters that didn't vote? The majority of those people were conservatives or agnostics, political agnostic.

Why do we know that? Because the socialists, the NDP, do a better job of getting the vote out. All right? So how do we re-engage those conservatives that didn't vote? and not lose the ones that did vote. Well, we implement policy resolutions and governance policies that are conservative in mind and thought.

And we pass into legislation those policies that the members approved. The members who were responsible for voting the premier and the MLAs into power, How do we make them? Here's the real deal. This could happen, and I drafted it, but I didn't submit it. This is the way you would do it.

If this could be passed, and we'll see what happens at this AGM. I worked on this with Leighton Gray and with the VP of Policy and Governance, of the UCP Board of Directors. And I called it the accountability resolution. Okay. After an AGM and after a policy conference in which governance and policy resolutions are approved by the members,

each MLA has to publicly relate their position on each of those policies approved by the members. So that way all the members will know which MLA supported a policy and which did not. Right? Now, that should be pretty straightforward. The members should easily demand that. Do you support this or do you not support this?

Okay. Now, take it to the next step. Now the members know which MLAs support the majority of resolutions that their constituency association supports and their CA Board of Directors supports. Next step. So that's the main resolution, is divulging...

Transparency on voting. Transparency on voting, right. There are two companion resolutions. The first companion resolution is for an MLA that doesn't support resolution, that their CA Board of Directors and their members support, that member has to explain to the Constituency Association Board of Directors who were responsible for getting that person elected in the first place,

why they didn't support the resolution. And if in the judgment of the Board of Directors that the member, the MLA, breached their fiduciary responsibility to the constituency association. Then the constituency association has the opportunity to recall them. Okay. Then the second companion resolution is the mechanism of recall. Now, if you want a grassroots organization, if you want a grassroots party, whether you like the term grassroots or not.

Let's state it differently. If you want your elected officials to represent you, they have to represent at least the majority of the conservative policies that you would like to see implemented. There is no other way to do it. And this is part of the failure of our government because our MLAs are not transparent, on how they vote.

How they vote on various issues. The recall legislation is weak at best. Yes, but this is different. This is a different recall. This is not the recall that is a general recall that is already in legislation. This would be new. Yeah, this would hold your representative,

your MLA to the account of the people. Because if they weren't, then you could recall them and get them up. Right. And so that could either force a by-election or if the person decided to choose to be an independent, well, that person would be an independent only up until the next election. And this is the way that you can change the people representing you to people that actually will represent you, honestly and transparently.

And so this idea has never come to the forum before, but it is drastically. I didn't submit it this year because I felt that with the Alberta Bill of Rights and so many things that were approved at last year's AGM are reflected in the Alberta Bill of Rights freedoms and responsibilities. So I didn't feel as though the timing was necessary. But we'll see what happens in the coming months. And in next year's AGM, we may, it may actually hit the floor, we'll see. You know, but you see that my mind does think of not only the problems, but how do we get around them in a fair and transparent way? I'm shocked that I've taken this long to get you in, to be honest,

because I've heard lots of great things, Dennis, and it's just funny, schedules, I don't know. I can't even, I want to even give myself a pass on it. Because I sit here and I listen to you and I go, all I want to do now is put a round table forum in where I got Dennis sitting there and I got a couple other Alberton sitting in here because one of the things is in Alberta now

and grew up in Saskatchewan now in Alberta and you know as I'm like I just want transparency I want to understand things so then I can go vote on it or I can push on it or is now a podcast host so I can better explain it and bring people in to talk about these things because I look at the pace of government and I go when you focus on an issue You can get, I think you can get people engaged in it if it's done right and have the right ideas talked about.

And honestly, the population, the audience is going to tell us what's pissing them off. Yeah. I mean, literally they will. And then if you get the right mind sitting in the studio, we can do it where there's no, you know, there's no agenda hidden on how I clip out things. It's a live, not alive, it's an unedited conversation. And then they get to hear it. And then they'll give us feedback on it. And they'll give us real time feedback on it.

some of which you're not, and then you address the concerns and you go back and forth. It's, it's, it comes back to the pension plan. It comes back to these different ideas, which I think a lot of people have listened to, heard lots about, they like them, and they don't understand where it is. And one of the things that, uh, you provide is, is a little bit of insight into the, how the Alberta government functions where it's at. And, um, I don't know. I've really enjoyed having you in studio and, and talking about these things.

I don't think it'll be the last time. I could be wrong. Could hear maybe the Alberta population, maybe the, podcast population says never have Dennis N ever again. I don't think that's the case. But you never know. Either way, I've really enjoyed you opening up some of your insights, even sharing a story about Mr. Nelson here in town. I think that's, I knew that.

Somebody had told me that. Maybe you told me that at one point. But that's a cool piece of, you know, Whiteminster history. Well, I think with respect to Ray, you know, he was a very wise man. And, you know, you don't need to have a university degree to be a wise individual, and he didn't, but he was a very successful businessman. But he was just smart in so many other ways. But when he made that comment about protecting individual rights, you'll protect societal rights, but the reverse doesn't occur, that had a profound influence on me. And it made me understand why democracy doesn't work.

when you eliminate choice, you know, individual's choice, and how they run their affairs, you know. I think of Tanner Nadei, who I think, you know, he sat up on stage. This is probably one of my first instances of hearing him talk. And he's obviously to the listener, but in the studio lots. And he told me the, you know, the big laws give you freedom, the little laws take it away. And I think of how many little laws we have today

and how many of those are being pushed. It's a different way of talking about some of the things we've talked about today. Yeah. And I appreciate you coming in doing this. I look forward to hearing what the audience thinks of this, and I appreciate you giving me some of your time. And, you know, I keep doing this one second. By now the audience, this is kind of standard, hasn't it, folks?

One of the things we do in studio, before I let you out of here, that is for you, good sir. So one of the things, silver gold bull is a major sponsor. And one of the things we do in studios, anyone who comes here, they get a silver one ounce coin. And Silver Gold Bull, an Alberta company, started at a Rocky Mountain House. I don't know if you're a collector of precious metals, but there, there's something to put in your hand, put in your pocket. Well, this is very nice. Didn't expect this, but thank you for your generosity and thank you to the,

company's generosity as well. Yeah, and Sean, yeah, it has been some time since we first met, but I'm not disappointed that you didn't invite me earlier. I'm probably a little smarter now than I was then anyhow. So maybe I've had some things that will resonate with some of your some of your listeners. And I'm happy to come back any time. I'm talking about health care, taxation, any of the things that are going on in government, the World Economic Forum. I mean, there's so many things to talk about that I'm sure in your position, it must be kind of fun to have so many different people with so many different perspectives on things come in and give you their and give you their opinion.

But you touched on before we end this, one of the most important things is that in decision-making, people need information to make the best decisions for themselves and their families. And although we mentioned the term censorship, there's so much more to it

because when the media doesn't permit different perspectives to be discussed, then the person who hears only one perspective. Yeah, data point. We'll make decisions that may or may not be in their best interest. And I just think it's so maddening that we have, that we are facing, not just in Canada, but internationally, censorship of different opinion about things, different ways of doing things. And so if you were to ask me, am I a fan of Elon Musk? Absolutely. And maybe I can end it that way.

Thanks for coming in, Dennis. The next time, maybe we'll just have a roundtable on censorship. We can certainly do that. Either way, appreciate you coming in and doing this. And while we'll talk after about, to, I don't know, a round table of something. Sure. Folks, I'm sure they'd enjoy that. You get a wealth of information sitting between those ears, and I'd love nothing more than to try and pull some more of it out. Thanks again for making time and making the drive here. Excellent.

Thanks for inviting me. Okay.