Shaun Newman Podcast - #804 - Hnidey - Parker - Wagner

Episode Date: February 27, 2025

We discuss the idea of Alberta leaving Canada.Tanner Hnidey is an economist, speaker, author, and Christian commentator. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from the University of Calgary and is known for his views on politics, religion, economics, and current events. He has authored books True Christianity and Kingdom of Cain, and frequently speaks at events across Alberta, including for the Alberta Prosperity Project, where he served as Vice President of Economics.David Parker is the founder of Take Back Alberta (TBA), a conservative activist group in Alberta, Canada, established in 2021. A longtime political operative with roots in conservative politics, Parker initially gained traction by opposing COVID-19 restrictions and vaccine mandates, channeling the frustration of rural Albertans into a grassroots movement. He played a pivotal role in ousting former Alberta Premier Jason Kenny and supporting Danielle Smith’s rise to leadership of the United Conservative Party (UCP) in 2022. Michael Wagner is an independent researcher, writer, and political commentator based in Edmonton, Alberta. He holds a PhD in political science from the University of Alberta and is recognized as a leading expert on the Alberta separatism movement. Wagner has authored several books, including Alberta: Separatism Then and Now and True Right: Genuine Conservative Leaders of Western Canada, focusing on Alberta’s political history and its push for independence. He serves as the Senior Alberta Columnist for the Western Standard and Alberta Report, where he frequently writes about the province’s political and economic challenges within Canada, advocating for Alberta’s self-determinationCornerstone Forum ‘25https://www.showpass.com/cornerstone25/Get your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcastSilver Gold Bull Links:Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/Email: [e-mail] Grahame: [phone]Bow Valley Credit UnionWebsite: www.BowValleycu.comEmail: [e-mail] Use the code “SNP” on all ordersProphet River Links:Website: store.prophetriver.com/Email: [e-mail]

This is Viva Fry. I'm Dr. Peter McCullough. This is Tom Lomago. This is Chuck Pradnik. This is Alex Krenner. Hey, this is Brad Wall. This is J.P. Sears. Hi, this is Frank Paredi.

This is Tammy Peterson. This is Danielle Smith. This is James Lindsay. Hey, this is Brett Kessel and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Hey, hold on a sec. March 3rd is right around the corner. And did you know that you can hold physical gold and silver in your registered accounts?

Yes, I'm talking about Silver Gold Bowl. They can help you unlock your potential. of your RRSP, TFSA, RRIF, or Kids, RESP by adding physical gold and silver to your accounts. The reason why I bring it up is, I don't know if you've been paying attention to precious metals, but like silver and gold are at all-time highs. Just throwing that out there. And this year's RRSP deadline for making contributions is March 3rd. But once your contribution is made, you can invest it into physical precious metals at any time.

So text or email, Graham, for details around this. Of course, I'm recommending Silver Gold Bowl. they're a partner of the podcast and they can help you with their in-house solutions whether buying selling or storing precious metals. And down in the show notes is Graham's contact info. You can shoot them an email, shoot them a text and find out all about this. You can also find out any feature silver deals exclusively for you, the SMP listener. Anytime you're on silver, gold bowl.ca.com, whichever, make sure to reference S&P that you heard about them from here. It can help you and it certainly can help me.

And while they track it all. So appreciate it when you make a purchase that you let them know that I steered them here. Steered you that way. You know, here in February, not today, not today, but like four days ago when it went from like, it's like plus six, but like four days ago was like minus 36. Yeah, there's two things you can normally count on in February. And that is freezing cold weather, like circa four days ago, and guardian plumbing and heating. These guys have been keeping homes, farms, and businesses running smoothly since 2010.

And one of the things that really sets them apart is how they make life easy for all their customers. They've got technicians on shift from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. every single day, including weekends, and they don't charge you anything extra for evening or weekend service. That means you can get the help you need on your schedule and without worrying about surprised costs. Farmers, this one's just for you. Guardian's efficient grain dryers and Guardian power stations aren't just available here. They're available all across Canada. The power station is an absolute game changer giving you a two-for-one utilities, heat and electricity together on the same reliable system.

It's an innovative way to keep your operation running efficiently and to save on costs. All you got to do is go to Guardian. Plumbing.ca. Oh, man. I've been battling a cold. And right there, it just got me. Hello Thursday. That's where we're at.

In Iq distribution out of Wainwright, Alberta, they have their filters. sale on once per year and i tell you what march first is right around the freaking corner okay it's what is that like three days away i think it's three days away you can save on 50% or more when you buy filters through them this one time of year okay the only way to it they can do this is uh at prices is during this event the manufacturer wicks filters will subsidize their losses by rebating them back the way it works they need to place all orders by march first and then they place a giant filter order directly with the manufacturer. Filters arrive mid-April, so they're in time for farmers to get in the field.

And, yeah, you can literally get insane details up to like 60-some percent off all these filters. It costs, you know, from hundreds of dollars down to shaving it in half from 100 bucks down to like 50. It's pretty crazy. You've got to give Shane Stafford a call, either shoot him a tax or get him a call. 780842-3433. that's 780842 3433 or just text me and I can steer you in the right direction. Substack, free to subscribe to. It's going to get you caught up on every bloody week because I know there's a lot going on

and we certainly put through a ton of content on the old SNP and the substack is free for you. It's a way to get caught up on everything going on in the podcast. You can also become a paid member, see some behind the scenes footage and some cool stuff going on. And it's a pretty low fee for the month, I think. I think it's like eight bucks. It's pretty cheap. And it's one of the ways to support the podcast. I don't know if you knew this or not,

but I'm not government funded. Don't think they're going to fund me anytime soon. We got the Cornerstone Forum coming up May 10th, 2025. If you're interested, hit me up. I can send all the details to you. I would love to see you there. It's going to be a ton of fun. You can also go down the show notes and click on the link there

and get all the details. If you're listening or watching on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, Brumble, X, make sure to subscribe, make sure to leave a review. Make sure to retweet it, share it with a friend, all the things, because as we know, the shadow ban world is real, and at times I'm like, man, I thought that would have done better. And it's just, it relies so much on you these days. Sometimes the old, what can I say? Sometimes the old algorithms don't like us that much because we're unfiltered here.

That's basically what it is. So if you can help out, we'd appreciate it. All right, let's get on to that tale of the tape. First is an economist, author, and political commentator, the second, the founder of Take Back Alberta, and the third and independent researcher, writer, and political commentator. I'm talking about Tanner Today, David Parker, and Michael Wagner. So buckle up, here we go.

Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Today I'm joined by David Parker, Tanner Today, and Michael Wagner. All three you gentlemen have been on the podcast before. I'd really push the audience if you want to find out, you know, each individual guy, their thoughts on a bunch of different matters and maybe their origin story, if you would. You go look up the respective individual episodes. For this one, gents, thanks for hopping on. I guess I should start and say.

I appreciate you giving me some time today. But I really want to understand. I call it the nuts and bolts, but like how on earth we could ever get too much. maybe having a referendum or if that is the right thing if it is a referendum on alberta strengthening our relationship in canada like i just feel like you know at times we're the ugly stepchild and at times they use us as the shield when when they need us right it's a very weird you can just see it playing out anyways i look at you three thanks for hopping on here first um appreciate you guys giving me some time today now michael thanks for having to start yeah i'm gonna

start with you, Michael. You've written books on it. Is a referendum the right way to go? And if it is the right way to go, is there certain things you have to do in order to get to that? I assume you can't, maybe the Premier could just be like, hey, we're having a referendum. Or maybe there's more to it than that. No, actually, like in Alberta Premier, if she had her caucus on side, she could go ahead and schedule a referendum if she wanted right now. Like the power is there. The power for a referendum or the constitutional law for it is based on a Supreme Court decision from 9th. This is a session reference case for Quebec. In 1995, Quebec had held a referendum on independence and it almost passed.

And so the federal government sent a reference case to the Supreme Court. That means asking the Supreme Court of Canada a question about constitutional law. And they asked the federal government of John Crutchin asked the Supreme Court of Canada, could Quebec unilaterally declare independence from Canada? The Supreme Court said, no, Quebec could not unilaterally declare independence from Canada. However, if Quebec held a referendum on independence with a clear question and a clear majority people voted in favor, then the federal government would be obligated to negotiate over Quebec independence with Quebec. So they put the clear question in there because, you know, Quebec has held two referendums on independence

and both the questions were kind of convoluted. Like they were understood by most people as being for independence, but if you read the question, it's not clear. So it was very wise on the Supreme Court's part to say it has to be a clear question and also a clear majority as a very good idea. You need more than 50% plus one to create a new country. So that created the constitutional law. Then in 2000, the federal government passed a law called the Clarity Act, which was to flesh out some of the details of the Secession reference case, so it's actually in law.

So the Clarity Act recognizes the authority of provinces to hold referendums on independence and to get a process going toward provincial independence. So some of the details of the Clarity Act is like the House of Commons would have to agree that the question being asked is a clear question. The House of Commons would have to decide what a clear majority would mean in terms of the referendum result, those kinds of things. But the details are there in the Clarity Act. So Canada already has constitutional law background and legislation in place for a province to hold a referendum on independence. So that power is there right now.

And every provincial government has the power to hold a referendum on independence if they would like to. I mean, of course, most of them don't because most of them aren't interested in being independent. And right now, of course, we have, you know, Daniel Smith is a federalist and has not moved towards independence in any way. But it's all there. The legal background is there. We can do it. Like Alberta can do it if there's enough support. That's kind of the legal and constitutional background for it.

A clear question. You said two things there. One, a clear question and a clear majority. Is a clear majority 51%? And what constitutes a clear question? Well, for me, 51%. Actually, I don't think that would pass the constitutional threshold. It's common in democracies, maybe outside of all.

outside of Canada anyway, like in the United States, have what's called a super majority when you're making a huge decision. Like a super majority might be two-thirds. Like I don't want to, I'm not going to be the one setting the clear majority. But the thing is, you know, 50% plus one is a good majority when you're deciding the rates of taxes or where a bridge should be built and things like that. You know, for common day-to-day things, 50% plus one is fine. But when you're creating a new country, you need a very significant buy-in from the population.

Like people will be switching their citizenship from one country to another. So you need a very substantial majority of people in favor. And like two thirds might be one threshold or 60% or something like that. But it has to be more than 50% plus one because with 50% plus one, someone could change their mind the next day and suddenly the whole thing falls apart. So that's okay, like I say, with common day-to-day policies of the government. But when you're starting a new country, you need a real significant buy-in from the population. So it'll have to be above 51% for sure.

You know, like again, you know, could be 60% or something around there. But I mean, it's important to remember too. People might say, well, if it's up to the House of Commons, to decide what the clear majority is, maybe they put it at 85%, which would never be reached, obviously. But in the Supreme Court decision themselves, the Supreme Court recognized itself that the federal government cannot use the details of the process to thwart the democratic will of the province. So let's say, Alberta voted 65% in favor and that was a clear majority. The federal government can't use the process of the Clarity Act to block that. You know, they have to go through the

process properly, as a Supreme Court mentioned, if a province is following the law and the federal government is not, international community will see, see what's going on, and we'd be likely to get a recognition as an independent country from some of the democratic countries that recognized we followed our democratic processes, and it was being blocked by, you know, a different level of government. I hope that makes sense. Does that make the, does it make it clear? I think so. I'm curious Tanner and David's thoughts, actually, on, on what you, You've said, because when I look at Tanner, before we start, I said, like, you've been around the province talking to every little community and then some. And David, you've rallied every little community and then some to help put in the current premier.

So with what Michael's talking about, does that all make sense to you two? Well, maybe I'll start quick. It makes perfect sense. So Michael's been talking about a referendum and, you know, the legal requirements that have to be. passed in order to successfully hold that referendum. And one of the things that Michael mentioned was the need to, you know, have a substantial majority, right? An overwhelming majority vote in favor of, in this case, independence.

And so while scholars like Michael and others are working on the legal aspect of independence and how to have it, other individuals, you know, myself and so on, are working on obtaining that majority, right? we have to convince Albertans, in this case Alberta, that independence is a good thing, that independence is something which would benefit the province. And I would argue the nation at large, but nevertheless would benefit the province rather than harm it. And so we've been traveling all around, as you mentioned, talking about these very issues

and trying to discuss and discover just how right now Alberta is being hampered by the federal government and has been really since its inception and how if we were in a different relationship with the federal government, the current position of Alberta, and again, by and large the West, would look so much different than what it does right now. And so I think it takes, you know, it takes so many sides of this particular argument to make it feasible and to convince Albertans and others of the legitimacy of it. It's been a wonderful exercise of intellect. It's been a wonderful exercise of meeting so many different Albertans. And, you know, I think Michael and David will agree. When we hold these talks, when we have these discussions, we find the response is exceedingly

positive. You know, it's not as though it's just a few individuals who see a problem with the relationship between Alberta and Ottawa right now. No, it's completely opposite, right? More and more people are understanding that this is not a relationship, which is mutually beneficial, right? It's the West works hard for Ottawa and Ottawa works for itself. And I think rightfully so, people are sick and tired of it. And so we travel around to these communities and say, this is what's happening. You understand what's happening. And here's what would happen if we changed our fortunes and moved in a different direction than what we have right now.

David? I would echo what Tanner's saying. I think there's various different roles that need to be played into this. There is the legal. and we need to understand that. But I think, as Mike pointed out, we just need a premier that will say, let's have the referendum.

The hard part is not getting the referendum to happen. The really hard part is winning the referendum. And not just winning it, but winning it so convincingly that Canada can't just say, ah, well, you know, we're not going to let those 45 or 49% of Albertans suffer under a new Alberta regime,

so we just won't let them separate. I mean, probably the most contemporary example of this is actually Catalonia and Spain. They actually do want to separate. I believe, I don't have the exact number, so Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, but they did vote to leave and Spain said no. Right. So the problem is actually multifaceted. It's not just, oh, we want to have a referendum.

And a lot of people like, let's just have the referendum, let's just leave. Okay. What happens when we have the referendum and we lose with like 58%? of the, or 38% of the vote, right? What happens then? What do we do at that point? I think it's very dangerous to hold a referendum, but without having that base that Tanner and Mitch and others and APP

and a lot of people are working to develop, because if you don't have that base of people who've got the arguments who are ready to go, who are ready to make, to convince Albert and said this is a good idea, and you lose, well, then we're really in trouble because then all Ottawa has to say is, well, Albertans don't even want to leave. Who cares about these little discontents running around causing problems? And like I said, Spain literally had a successful separatist movement within their borders, and they just ignored it.

So this is not a simple problem. There's a lot of simple-minded people on all sides, but especially, unfortunately, on the separatist side who were just like, well, let's just leave. Okay, what are you going to do to help us leave? Tanner's running around the province, you know? Mike's doing hours and hours of research. I'm running around the province. What are you doing?

And usually the answer is, well, I just don't like, you know, Tanner's personality, or actually it's more often that they don't like my personality. But like, they have some excuse for their laziness and ineffectiveness and complete lack of agency in the world. And this is the problem that we face isn't that it's not possible. It's so much more than possible. It's almost laughable, right? It's literally we just need a premier that we'll say we'll have a referendum and then we need to win it.

From a complexity standpoint, it's a very simple process. But from a work put in from a what needs to be built standpoint, it is an almost impossible task. And I want everybody here's thoughts on that. I could lay out how I think it should be done, how I've been working in my own part to try to give it a chance. but I think what's what's very interesting and I really like Mike's thoughts on what happened in Spain but is even if we have the referendum and we win it doesn't mean we win. Sure. I'll just jump in on the Spain issue then.

That was Catalonia, you know, held the referendum on independence and and it passed substantially. I don't know the exact figures. And then the separatist leaders were essentially arrested, you know, it was prohibited. So like this is one reason why I do like Canada's constitutional system because he, in some, In Spain, the Constitution does not allow a jurisdiction to hold a referendum on independence. It's prohibited by the Spanish Constitution. So Catalonia did technically what was against the Constitution, and that's why they were prohibited from, even though there was a vast majority in favor of leaving, the Constitution didn't allow it. In Canada, we do allow it.

So this is something that's good about Canada, is we give provinces this opportunity. So we shouldn't have to face the same kind of problem that they faced because our constitutional law and legislation allow for. for what Spain does not allow. So our Constitution is better than Spain's in that sense. And actually, if I can just throw in something, something that David talked about last year that was really, really significant. And I think it's an important part of this whole referendum thing.

David talked about the importance of leadership. And he put it in a way that really rung my bell because it was better than I'd heard it before, that people don't rally around something, they rally around someone. So even though we have great people speaking and advocating for independence, I think one of the factors

would make it most successful as we had some kind of a leader who could really embody the cause and kind of bring people together, like the way that Reni Leveque did in Quebec. In Quebec, you know, early on the separatist movement there was even divided among different groups, but Renéleavec had been a cabinet minister in a provincial liberal government. He was very well liked and very prominent in the province. And so when he decided to lead the independence movement in Quebec, that brought everybody together behind one organization and brought it forward. And so Alberta needs someone like that. You know, we have lots of good work going on, lots of good people doing stuff. But until we have that particular prominent person who's widely respected, when that person steps forward,

I think that would be kind of the turning point, the catalyst would really, really make it work. Because until we have someone like that, it's going to be hard to get the majority that we need. You know, and I'll just throw something else in here since this is kind of a train of thought answer. One of the things that Preston Manning pointed out years ago was that in Prairie politics, we get these ways. of support for reform. Like we had the Progressive Party dominating prairie politics in the 1920s, and social credit came on really big in the 1930s in Alberta, and even the Reform Party itself in the 1980s. We get these waves of support. So it's called the wave theory. And it's going to take something like that too for the independence movement, I think, to move forward. Because what we've seen with the independence movement, it gets really strong when the federal government is attacking Alberta.

I mean, the quintessential example of that is a national energy program in 1980. That's what actually got the movement off the ground to begin with. And then, you know, as a smaller example, in 2019, when Justin Trudeau won re-election, we had the wexit movement, like we had these big meetings and stuff. So we get, when something happens at the federal level, we get like a wave of support. And so something that could do that again this year, like let's say Mark Carney becomes liberal leader and actually wins an election, I think that would create the kind of wave of support we need. And maybe that wave would bring forth a leader, you know, that could really take the movement forward. But the problem is, of of course, some of these things are out of our hands. So in the meantime, we're just doing the groundwork,

creating the arguments, talking to people. But what's going to really happen is there's going to have to be a trigger event with a leader that's going to move it forward. Anyway, that's what I think would have to happen. Well, Mike, if I may, that's what I told you almost a year ago. And I thought, and I, you know, up until, um, rewinding it to reaching out to you last week, that I thought we were a decade away from that trigger event. In my brain, I went, Pierre Poliyev is going to win the next election, and everything's going to die down and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Enter Mark Carney.

And I've been watching things and I'm like, I can't figure out of any of it's legit or if Pierre is going to, you know, if Pierre's going to win a super majority and things are going to roll on. Or if the thing's playing out out east or what I see them playing out, and I'm like, oh, mother. Like, to me, if Carney gets in, this conversation, what we're talking about goes super Sonic in Alberta. People are already from COVID, from Justin Trudeau, from everything that's been going on. They're already teed up. I mean, the Wexit never disappeared. It disappeared

because some of the meetings just didn't go the way that people that showed up to them thought they should go, right? And I told you, like, what you're doing in the background is you're kind of building, and I don't know if this is the right terminology to use, so I apologize in advance, but the arc, right? You're kind of building the framework for when the storm hits, you hop in the boat and away we go. And right now, I look at what's possibly coming this year because obviously I don't have a, I can't tell the future.

But I look at Carney and everything he's talking about. And I'm like, if that, if they vote that guy in, I think every Albertan minus what is the number, is it 5%, 10%, are going to go, what is going on? Like, we cannot have the liberals back in power for another four years. Now, in saying all that, I just wanted to bring up the Spain and Catalonia. So for the audience, they can hear it. The Catalonia independence referendum took place October 1, 2017.

Total votes cast were 2.2 million out of approximately 5.3 million eligible voters. For independents, they had 90.1% say, yes and what ended up happening was so a couple of things they said here where does it say the catalonian government claimed an additional 770,000 votes were lost due to police raids on polling stations so that number probably would have even been higher on turnout so low turnout they said 43% of turnout was notably lower than typical elections and in the aftermath uh October 27th 2017 the The Catalan parliament declared independence based on these results with 70 out of 130 MPs voting in favor, 10 against 53 absent protest.

However, Spain invoked Article 155 of its constitution dissolving the government, imposing direct rule and calling snap elections. And the declaration had no practical effect as it wasn't recognized internationally. And key figures like the president, Carl's, whatever his name is, faced legal consequences, are exile. So when you get talking about the fact that Ottawa is going to have their say in this, not one of us is going to sit here and go, oh, they're going to be like, oh, see you later, Alberta. Like, this is going to trigger a whole bunch of things that are, yeah, like, if I, if I sat here today, oh, yeah, Ottawa is going to even have a rational conversation at 90%? Like, you know, we're talking about 60% of Albertans saying it. They had 90%.

And they said, no. You're muted, Dave. Can't hear you. David Parker is trying to say something, folks, and we can't hear him right now. He's opt out for a second. Mike Tanner, this is what I told David before. I'm like, we should have just done this in person, right? I feel like the next one has to be in person. But your thoughts on the current state, because I agree with you, Michael, on the wave theory. But I think the wave could be right now.

Like, in a few months, while less than a month, we're going to have Mark Carni. I think as the next prime minister of Canada, just for starters. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, that would certainly, like I mentioned, that would get the wave going and we'd have to organize very quickly. But if I can just address something you were mentioning with David, like you're talking about the referendum would set off a number of different things. And the thing that was required was the federal government to negotiate the province's independence.

But I'm certain that the federal government will come back with a counteroffer. Like it's not that the result of the referendum, guarantees the independence of the province. It guarantees that there's negotiations towards that. And so for sure, the federal government will come back with counteroffer. You know, the federal government come back to say, oh, Alberta's not happy within Confederation. Oh, we didn't know that.

You know, like, here's some things that, here's some things that we could do. Maybe they'd be interested in a Tripoli senator or something like that. So, like I'm, so I'm not, you know, it's impossible to say if Alberta would actually become independent from a referendum, but that would be the process for doing it. Let me just throw in something that Dr. Dennis Modry always would make this argument, that even for those who don't want Alberta to become independent, if you want Alberta to have a better position within Canada, you should support the independence referendum because that would give Alberta leverage

to negotiate what we needed within Canada. And that's a legitimate argument. If you want Canada to be changed to benefit Alberta, we'd have to have a successful referendum result for that. Like for me personally, I want the referendum result to lead to Alberta's independence. but for someone who didn't want that, they just wanted the country to be reformed. They should still support the referendum

as a way of getting leverage for Alberta and negotiating with federal government. Yeah, well, I think that's important, just before David hops in. I think it's important even for myself. When I started looking into it, I'm like, even if we got 90%, let's go pie in the sky, we get 90%.

It doesn't mean you walk away the next day. It means exactly what Michael just said. It's not binding. They're going to try and sweeten the deal. Oh, we'll give you a little more voting power. Would that be enough to make you stay? Like, just this is a bargaining table you're at right now. And right now, we're not forcing their hand to give us anything back.

So if you are sitting there going, I want to be a part of Canada forever, fine. You should still vote yes if this ever got to the point of a referendum, because you should look at what's going on with Alberta and go, something needs to change, doesn't it? David, yes. Do you hear me? Okay, perfect. I just want to, I don't want to say too much on this point, but the point that I want to make is now is the time. Like right now, what leverage do we have? Well, Spain could say to Catalonia, sorry, we're dissolving your government.

We're putting someone new in. We have America sitting there right now saying that, you know, they welcome a 51st state. Now, I'm not saying that Alberta should become a 51st state or not. What I'm saying is if we held a referendum and we had a majority while Trump is in the White House, And we wouldn't have the same problems that Catalonia did because we would have the world's biggest military sitting there saying, hey, they want to leave. They can come join us or whatever, right? Like there's a lot of animosity or maybe not even animosity, just disdain in America for the Canadian elite right now and for the Canadian economy and for how we're handling our immigration and a lot of different things. and that is actually an opportunity for Alberta to have more negotiating power. And I really think we need to take that very seriously because I don't think we have much time.

And I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts on that. But I really don't think we have a lot of time left before the idea of Alberta separation will die because it will be so diluted by Canadians moving here. Like the truth of the matter is like 5% of our population the last two years moved here from outside of Alberta. That's in two years. When I was growing up here, I think we had a little bit less than two million people.

Now we have almost five million. The Alberta identity is being diluted. And I don't have anything against people immigrating to Alberta. Like my parents came from Ontario. I don't have anything against immigrants. I have something against so many people coming that the identity of a place is washed away. Now, someday, some new form of identity. identity will form, but it won't be Alberta. It won't be the thing that the four of us love.

It'll be something else. And that's, you know, that is the nature of reality. But if you love something, and I think all four of us love this idea called Alberta, if you love something, then you should fight for it. And you shouldn't just let it die from neglect. And that's what's happening right now is that the people who claim to love this place are letting it die. And it's dying, I would say, quite rapidly. And I don't think we have 10 years anymore. Maybe we had 10 years a year ago when you were talking about it. I don't think we have 10 years.

I think our shot is either in the next four years or probably not going to happen. Or there's also the flip side where Canada could just fall apart from economic ruin if these tariffs get bad enough. And then, of course, it becomes easier. So there are other paths. I'm just saying that from a perspective of getting the votes and a perspective of getting people on board, it is a lot harder to create a whole new identity and get people behind it and to take the one that exists and say this matters. I think David's exactly right.

You know, I was just about to mention that point with Spain, right? Sean, you mentioned how with the Spanish or with the Spain example, there was no international recognition of the legitimacy of the. intent to separate. Whereas here, as David mentioned, of course, we can't, you know, you can't say for certain, but I would be supremely confident that if Alberta held a successful referendum that demonstrated an overwhelming majority in favor of independence from Canada, our American counterparts would heartily endorse that, right? The administration that's in power right now in America would almost certainly say, yeah, we recognize that to be legit. And so that would

alleviate that problem that was faced with the example with Spain, like very quickly. And as for David's comment, that, you know, we have to do it quickly because the Alberta identity is being diluted. Again, I heartily agree, right? When you love something, you love it truly because it's yours, right? This is an old Chesterton idea. It's famous in his book, Orthodoxy, where he talks about patriotism, and he calls it, you know, we have to fight for the flag of the world, he says. And he goes, listen, The reason something becomes better is because you love it transcendently. You love it because it's yours. It might not be the prettiest thing in the world.

It might not be the most beautiful or excellent thing in the world. But you love it because it's yours. And because you love it simply because it's yours, you work as hard as you can to make that thing better, to make it beautiful. And that's exactly what we're trying to do here with Alberta. We have this province, which is our own. And we love it because it's our own. And we love all of those idiosyncrasies that make Alberta.

what it is. You know, I love going for coffee in the morning with all of these guys who have worked in the trades all their life, you know. I love playing hockey. I love, I mean, of course, all of Canada does, but I love the, I love the geography of Alberta. I love the Rockies, you know, I love going down south to see the desert by Madison Hat. I love going up north to see the forest, you know, up by, by Peace River or Grand Prairie, wherever it might be. I love all of those things, simply because Alberta's my own and Alberta is yours and it's David's and it's Michael's. And so we have to work as hard as we can to use that identity to make it more beautiful, to make the province better than what it was yesterday.

But the longer we wait for this, as David mentioned, the greater the risk is that those who don't necessarily have that same understanding of Alberta being their own will enter and will dilute that identity so that it no longer exists. And Alberta, as we know it, is replaced with something Eastern. Well, multiple things, right? When I go back to the conversation I had with Michael a year ago, you could see Trudeau was losing and you could see every conservative going Pierre Poliav is going to win a super majority.

And then you could just surmise that, you know, even if you could successfully get a referendum, most of Bertans would be like, listen, we got a conservative prime minister, We got a conservative outspoken premier. Life is great. But in, you know, a couple of things happen. One is Donald Trump did win, right? When you talk David about having four-year window,

not only you get Donald Trump, you get Elon Musk. And you can love or hate everything about those two men. But what cannot be argued against is their impact on the world right now. It is insane. Elon Musk holds the keys to X, which is a giant, you know, If you ever get down the road where you actually have a referendum, is any mainstream media going to be like, oh, this is a great idea? No, the answer is exceptionally not. They're going to be demonized.

You're going to be demonized for even bringing this up. One of the things you will have, you'll have Elon Musk, just blowing up every person who talks about it in a positive way. I would think, because you go back to if you're going to have a referendum, they're already talking about it positively in a way of 51st state idea. So the things that I, you know, as a younger guy a year ago, just didn't even think about is all the things that are adding up right now. So I guess my question is, we have a prime premier, sorry, as Michael pointed out, it is a federalist who doesn't look at this and go, maybe she, maybe in some back room she's thinking about it. But regardless, the population hasn't said, Danielle, we want a referendum. So my question is, if she isn't going to be the one to lead, how do you push on her to force it to be like, no, this needs to happen?

Is there a way in our province that you can push on any Premier to have a referendum on this? Well, I think Tanner's been working quite hard on that. So I'll let him speak to that. And then I'll say my thoughts. Well, that's a good question. You know, back a couple years ago when we had these events with APP, Dr. Mojee would often talk about, you know, an old Klein quote in which Klein said you, as a politician, I'm paraphrasing, but he goes, as a good politician,

basically you find a parade and you get in front of it. You know, that's, that was his statement about how to be successful in this particular enterprise. But of course, when you look at Klein, like, you know, he broke a lot of trail. I have to be entirely honest, the more that I'm involved in this project, the more that I, you know, that we're, that I strive for this and the rest of us striving for this, the more I become increasingly convinced that along with public support, the leader has to believe in the cause for him or herself as well, right? Like it's not as though I don't believe it's possible for this movement to be successful. If at the helm of it is a leader who's only there because public support, is pushing him or her in that direction because they don't really believe it. And so the passion and the desire for this particular goal

wouldn't be inherent to the leader. It wouldn't exist in the very base of their soul. And people can tell that, right? People have an astute ability to sniff out when people are disingenuous, when they don't really believe what they're talking about. You and I can tell

when a person's just blowing smoke, you know where, to try and garner support. And in those cases, I think those movements are very unsuccessful. On the contrary, though, if we have a leader who really believes in the face of their spirit that this is something which Alberta desperately needs and which would increase the quality of life for Albertans, then we can move forward as properly done so. So all that to say then, you have something, you know, you have this problem before yourself, which is either whatever leader is in power right now has to be utterly persuaded of the legitimacy. and the need for independence, or you have a new leader who comes in, who already believes in the legitimacy and the need for independence.

And then you start generating, or you do it simultaneously, that public support, which is required to demonstrate the support itself of the movement to the federal government and others. And so, of course, you know, the way that we try and we try and alter a politician's mind on the matter is to present. the facts, present the proofs, show them the history of Alberta's relationship with Ottawa, show them the support that is brewing for this particular movement, and so on and so on.

But all that to say, I'm just, the longer I'm here, the more I'm convinced, the leader has to believe in the movement himself. Like you go back to scripture, like every movement, I'm just thinking of the Old Testament, right? Just look at the Old Testament. Every movement is facilitated by Almighty God first, of course, but by an individual who is was doing his will. So like Joseph, yeah, okay, leads the movement. Moses, Joshua, David, right? You keep going. Ezra, Nehemiah, all of these individuals are acting as a proxy for the rest of the nation and moving them in this particular direction, but only because those leaders believe in what

they're doing first, and then it falls, it flows from there. Do you mind if I jump in on that idea? I want to riff on a little bit because I think it's very good. And actually, Michael, I want to thank you for bringing up my own words to remind me of something that maybe even I have forgotten. But I've been very troubled, even up until this conversation, to be honest, by how much people don't want to be leaders. I've been running around. My message was a little bit different. It was, you need to become leaders. And I pushed people for it.

And I said, come on. Like, let's go. Let's you rise up. You start leading your communities. You start doing something. And, you know, tens of thousands of people did. And a whole bunch of people showed up at the AGM. And what's happened?

It would become a cult of personality. Human beings love leaders. I'm sorry. I don't like it. I don't like being told what to do. I don't like following people. I am not like other people in that category. I had Grock, the AI, do a whole bunch of, like, personality assessments of me and walk back and forth.

And one of my defining characteristics is defiance. I like to defy. I like to oppose things, right? I'm not, I am not a fan of being told what to do. And it's a problem in a scriptural and biblical sense, because obviously we need to be submitting ourselves to various forms of authority, particularly gods. And so that's my own spiritual struggle, but that is a defining feature of me. That is not a defining feature of most people. And I've seen this with myself.

So they want me, the people of Take Back Alberta wanted me to be their leader. And I didn't want to be their leader. And so they started treating me like a leader. And that does bad things to you. It's really good leaders, like Tanner's pointing out, they have to be super connected to God because being a leader will destroy you. because power corrupts and being a leader is inherently a form of power. So if you're trying to take it on and be the leader or anybody is,

this goes for Danielle, Pierre, me, anybody, anybody who does this. And this is actually what my book that I've written, I just spent the last three months writing a book about power, which is my own personal story, but a reflection on power. And it just corrupts. It always corrupts every time. Now, leadership isn't necessarily power. Those are two different things.

You can lead as a servant, and we see that represented in most detail and perfection, obviously, in the life of Jesus Christ himself. What does he do? He lays down his life. But let's take that out of the Christian context for a moment and just talk about the human context. Leaders, from Napoleon to Julius Caesar, they go out in front and they take the blows so that people have the courage to follow them. That's the reality. But we don't have, as of right now, that leader in Alberta. It doesn't exist.

And unfortunately, and I'd love to hear thoughts on who could that kind of person be. Do they need to be developed? Maybe God needs to call them out of the threshing floor. I don't know. But the truth of the matter is that in this province right now, there is not a leader that could accomplish this task that I'm aware of. And I've literally been to every corner. I've talked to tens of thousands of people in person, and I have not seen.

And I know it's not me. I'll tell you that much. People don't like me, and I don't like people. Honestly, I often feel like Moses, right? Like Moses literally yells at God and he says, why did you give me these stubborn, foolish, stupid people? That's how I feel about the freedom movement right now. Well, their most recent attempt was to go lead a convoy back to Ottawa.

It's like it's not going to work again, guys. They're ready for it. And not only that, it's like that was served a time and a place. Right? It's not there anymore. We need to do something else. But people don't want to do the work. You know what they want?

Someone else to do it. That's why they want a leader. So actually, it's so funny that this is what we've ended up talking about. But I've been reflecting a lot on the life of Samuel, who was the prophet who initially anointed Saul, the first king over Israel. So, you know, the people of Israel, they come to Samuel, who's the judge. He's the, let's call him the prime minister of Israel at the time, right? And they come to him and they say, hey, you're old and you're going to die. And we don't want to not have a leader, so you need to give us a king. And Samuel loses his mind because this whole time he's been

teaching and saying to the people of Israel, no, God's your king. God is your king. You are ruled by and you don't need a king. Don't be like the other nations around you. That's been Samuel's whole idea that he's been trying to push out. And then what happens? They come in to demand a king. So he goes to God and he says, what's wrong with these stupid people that you have me leading?

They're just demanding a king. And he says, they're not rejecting you, Samuel. They're rejecting me. And I will say, I know what that feels like. Because I went around this province for over 270 speeches. and I said, it's not about the leader. Don't trust the leader. Don't make it about the leader.

You need to rise up. You need to get engaged. Our democracy is dying from atrophy. It's dying from apathy. Our sin is apathy. This was my message. Anybody who's been to my meetings knows that. And yet, what did they take from it?

Well, first it was, David, you need to be our leader. And so what does the other side do? They attack. They destroy in every way possible, right? My name has been slandered, dragged through the mud. There's been constant, you know, internal fighting. That's how it works, right? That's how they discredit people.

But the problem was, I never wanted to lead anybody. And so what do they immediately do? They put all their hope and Danielle. They make her into their queen. They make her into the one that's going to save them. And now we're in exactly where the people of Israel are. You're going to get your king, Alberta, or queen or whoever. And you're going to hate what happens.

And that's what's happening right now. they said oh good Danielle will put her in there and she'll fix our problems right and I don't want to claim like the mantle of a profit I'm not doing this this is an analogy but I'm saying it sure feels

a lot like nobody's listening to me and I've had to go to God and say what was all that about because it's worse than it's ever been and they gave her 91% they don't even give people who write great papers 91% in university and she wasn't doing a 90%

percent job, right? She wasn't. And yet they did it. Why? Because they want a queen or a king. And they're going to get it. And I just have to sit there and understand that that's how people are. People are sheep. They want to follow. And instead of going around and having this idealistic version of all these people rising up and becoming leaders in their own community, I think I need to agree with Michael and Tanner and say, we need a leader that's going to lead the movement of Alberta going out or it's never going to happen because the people of Alberta, they don't want to do the work themselves. They want a leader. I'm curious. I'm sure somebody wants to interject here. I'm curious. Because Tanner brought it up with, you know, you need somebody to believe it in their soul.

And when I watch Daniel Smith, I think we have to the outside, world, one of the most gifted politicians that's ever struck Canada. That's what I see and hear from the rest of Canada, from people in different countries. You saw her go down to Donald Trump and we can all have her thoughts on how she did it, how effective it was, et cetera, et cetera. But to the outside world, we have an elite politician. We have a Connor McDavid of politics, if you would. So I wonder, actually, if you had a referendum. you had enough public support if Daniel Smith couldn't be your leader. Because if power corrupts absolutely, then nobody in their right mind wants to go there,

except it's already there. We have our Connor McDavid. And she wants to get in front of a parade. She's shown that if immigration falls under bad light, she's like, oh, okay, well, we'll change our thoughts on that. I mean, if the population demands something, Daniel Smith has been outspoken about Ottawa. She has looked at the thing, we got to talk to Donald Trump. He goes down and talks to him. I don't, like, I've sat and had plenty of conversations with Daniel on here that people have been able to listen to.

And I just, I guess my, my naive thought once upon a time was we needed exactly what you're talking about. Except anyone who enters politics gets in there and the machine starts pushing and pulling and on and on it goes. And I wonder if I actually would say, we don't. need that i think that might be impossible to have somebody rise up and be the leader and not be corrupted so why not keep it decentralized have all these different factions or people or or or leaders in their community do exactly what they did and push and push on daniel and push on daniel get a referendum what do we need in order to force their hand to have a referendum and then you got to to educate the population of Alberta.

This guy right here, because I'm literally a small fraction of Alberta. I once again, I'm not. I just like a year ago, I wouldn't even brought this conversation on. But here I am bringing it on. Because I'm like, wait a second. There is way too many things happening right now that need to be talked about. And we need to wrestle with. Like three months ago, guys, I was arguing for Canada first.

I was like, no, no, we're not. That is a terrible idea. I do still think Canada as a whole, becoming the 51st state is a terrible idea. I want to put that out there. But it has brought up, like, somewhere deep in my soul, this moral conundrum of like, am I Canada first or am I Alberta first? Right? That's it.

That's it. Like, I'm sure there's a bunch of people listening going, I hadn't really thought about it. Right. Like, I never can imagine this country being different. And yet, as much as I look at Elon Musk and Donald Trump being a part of this perfect storm, I look at Daniel Smith as being the perfect storm. I think she will go to war with Ottawa. and knowing that if you get a referendum, a successful one, 90% say they want to separate or independence or the wording is very important.

I'm sure Michael can agree with that. All of you can agree with that. It doesn't trigger it like we become a country. Actually, it triggers a negotiation. And if you want to have somebody sitting at the table negotiating, I think we need possibly the best politician in that realm of negotiating and talking and arguing and being charismatic to our. where 90% of Albertans go, that's our leader. Why fight that? Why not just empower them to be at the front of your parade to go and argue for it?

Maybe I'm wrong, and that's why I bring you on. Michael, you're laughing at me. Maybe I'm a moron. No, no. No, like, there's two points I want to make just off of your discussion there. I hope I got them right here. But like, I think Danielle might be willing to hold a referendum. if we get that wave, like if, let's say Carney wins a majority government for the liberals this year,

there would be such a wave of support in Alberta for an independence referendum, and Danielle Smith would hear that. And she might be the kind of person that would be willing to put that forward saying, like, I'm being pushed. There's so many people, you know, I've just got to go ahead with it. So theoretically, she might be the kind of person who would be able to put forth an independence referendum if we got that wave of support. It was so overwhelming that she couldn't resist it. So that's one possibility.

Just one other point I want to address is you talk about Canada first or Alberta first. And, you know, there are so many people I've met in the independence movement who are who were patriotic Canadians. You know what I mean? They feel rejected by their country. They loved Canada and they feel they're being rejected. And the thing is Canada was a great country. This is my interpretation of Canadian history. For our first hundred years, we were a great country and our federal system worked reasonably good.

Like, I mean, there's no perfect system. There's no perfect, you know, politician. So every country is going to have problems. Canada had really good for about 100 years. And then a man came along called Pierre Trudeau. And in my mind, Pierre Trudeau changed everything for this country. He unleashed the federal government against Alberta in a way

that no federal government had ever been unleashed against the province in Canadian history before or since. Like he created a template of attacking Alberta. That was Pierre Trudeau. And he fundamentally changed our constitution in a way that made it worse. It gave more power to the government over individuals. Those are just two things. But I think Trudeau did a lot of bad things.

But I think Pierre Trudeau fundamentally changed his country. And I think that's a turning point in Canadian history. So I can look back and love Canada. Like we did at Vimy Ridge, you know, our achievements in the military in World War II. That's amazing. Like Canada, like there's people in other parts of the world who talk about how good Canadian forces were, you know, with the wars and stuff like that. But our country has changed. And it changed because of the vision of a particular man.

And, you know, I give credit. Well, it's blaming Pierrottoe, but it's also giving him credit. There's very few people with the leadership qualities that could damage a country the way Pierrotredo did to Canada. Like he fundamentally changed the country. And from that point forward, we're not the same country, and I can't love that country to the degree that I did before him. And so, like, I really believe in Alberta, and I think Alberta should strike out on its own.

But it's not because I look at Canada and I hate Canada. I think it was a wonderful country and it was ruined by a particular man. Tanner, David. Oh, I'm more interested to hear what David has to say, to be honest, regarding the leader. Just because, you know, I've, you know, it's been, I don't have much connection with any leader in the province, to be entirely honest, as you know, the speeches that actually, you know, all of us have been talking at are composed of everyday Albertans, which I think is wonderful, you know, I might add. I think that's excellent. You know, you do have to be active in the political process. And I think it's wonderful when you have everyday common Albertans, you know, who are the foundation of the province and who keep the province running and who are just wanting to live their lives as they want to live, as they've been commanded to live it.

that attend these events. But as for insider political info, I think there's a, there's probably an expert on the panel. And I don't think they don't want to do the work themselves. They want a leader. Oh, Sean, I, I thought you were right. That's why I worked so hard, right? I had, uh, you know, it's an interesting thing being a public figure, because I was never a public figure. I just worked for them, right? But now, now I got people that like to chirp on my ex and everyone has an opinion on David Parker and that annoys me half the time but the other half it's like whatever but one of the things that I've noticed is a lot of people are saying David you need to take responsibility for what you did and uh and I'm going to take responsibility

and say I believed in Danielle Smith for the very purpose that you're describing in fact I have hundreds of hours of conversations with her over the phone and in person where that was what was conveyed to me, that she might not be a separatist herself, but she understood that Alberta, how Alberta was being treated and what was happening to Alberta. And she was going to work towards changing that. And the ways in which she was going to work towards changing that were things like an Alberta pension plan, Alberta police force, collecting our own taxes. separated, the Sovereignty Act was supposed to be the first piece in that puzzle, right? It wasn't supposed to be an end point. It was supposed to be, okay, it's true. We can at least have as

many rights as Quebec. That shouldn't be that hard to do. It isn't that hard to do. It's actually very easy for a Premier to do. The problem is that you're right. She is a masterful politician and politicians are liars. That's just the truth. They'll tell you what you want to hear and make you feel good. But let's take away what she says and the PR and the charisma and look at the results. Children are still getting the COVID vaccine, even though whole states are now outlawing it for the effect that it has.

So what's happened on COVID really? Who's been held accountable? no one. Nobody's been held accountable for what happened over COVID. She talked a really good game on COVID. What's happened? Our wait times are worse. Our medical system is worse.

And now it's being revealed that her friends are stealing money from the taxpayers and doing nothing for them. Her friends who take her on safaris in the Middle East, who pay for her to be able to watch Stanley Cup hockey. games in their box. We're talking a million dollars worth of Stanley Cup tickets that were given to her and her staff. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. See, I believed exactly what you believed, Sean. I believed in Daniel Smith so much that I gave a year of my life to trying to help her to get that spot. I'm not the reason. There's no one, everything's multivariate. Everybody

played a role. I played my role. And I believed truly deep. in my heart. I invited her to my wedding. That's how much I believed in her. And now I can tell you with absolute certainty that I deeply regret that decision of inviting her to my wedding. There are people I wish that had been there that weren't. I deeply regret that I thought she would be a leader for the people instead of a leader that fills her friends' pockets. But the deepest regret of all that I have is that again, I got deceived into the idea that a politician could be a good person. They can't Because if you're a politician, you are immediately going to be attracted to power. You're immediately going to want power and the things that come with power.

A leader of this movement cannot be a politician in my mind. They may end up getting elected to political power, but they cannot be a politician. Just like Donald Trump is not a politician. Yes, he's been president, blah, blah, blah. But the essence of Donald Trump is not politician. politicians and I had a good friend who was a very high level PMO staffer back in the day and he told me every single one of them has a chip on their shoulder every single one they got something to prove every career politician that you meet has some

empty void inside themselves they're trying to stuff attention and power and to fill all of them right and I don't care if you you could bring up the one you like the most it's true for them too right and if this This movement is going to get off the ground. It can't be by a person that's motivated by that. It has to be a person like Tanner and Michael described who truly believe in this province and love it. And I thought that person was Danielle Smith. I've spent my whole life in politics.

I've believed in some politicians. I believe in Jason Kenney. And I think the people online that are saying, David, you need to take responsibility for what you've done is that they feel tricked because my belief seeped into them. But the problem is when I was like, wait a second, guys, and I always verbally said and still believed

that the leader doesn't matter, we need an active party with people that can get things done. And I believe that 100% on a political level. The way that democracy functions is that the power has to be in the hands of the people, not in the hands of the leaders.

But when we're thinking about a separatist movement and whether Danielle Smith or should lead it or not, I'm sorry to say, And this is someone who invited her. I invited her to my wedding. I had hundreds of hours of conversation with her. I truly believed in her. I was deceived.

I was deceived by someone who's probably, like you said, one of the best Connor McDavid level politics. Because what is a lot of politics? It's deception. Michael, you haven't said, would you agree with their, what they're summarizing is that, you know, if you had a referendum in the next year, let's say, Let's give it a little bit of space.

Would you need somebody to rise up on the referendum side of that to challenge a leader? Like I guess that's, am I hearing this correct? This is something I didn't see walking into this conversation. Okay. But I mean, I don't know. I did not see this left hook coming. Like I'll just say like Daniel Smith could be a person who's willing to hold a referendum without being the leader.

The fact that she's holding referendum doesn't make her the leader of the movement. We would still need the leader to rally the people. Like the people would still have to believe in someone. So like I don't see her as the leader that we need for the movement, but she might be willing if she had enough pressure. If there was like I say, if there's that way, if Mark Carney gets elected, I think we talked about that as prime minister of Canada. There's going to be so much anger in Alberta.

How could she, she'd either have to go ahead with the referendum or suppress, you know, the, the wave. And I don't think she could suppress the wave. It would be like pressure in a bottle. It's just got to come out. You know what I mean? So she'd have to be out of the, she'd have to leave herself, you know.

So I think the pressure could be there for her to hold the referendum, but we still need that leader, that person like Tanner said, who really believes in it, uh, but somebody who embodies, you know, the idea and people can get behind.

I don't know if I got anything to add to this. I didn't see this leader thing come. I was like, I wanted to bring you guys on and be like, listen, this is what it takes to get a referendum and this is what happens after a referendum. And these are the things that could happen. Instead, you've like, I don't know, you walk.

What does Mike Tyson say? Everybody's got to plan it until you get punched the face. You guys have really put me back on my back foot here. I'm like, I didn't see this part. You know, I guess this is why you do the conversations, folks. Is you have the conversation, now I got to go sit and stew on something else. Can I just throw something in here about Alberta history and leadership? See, this is why when David talked about leadership this last year, that's why it like rung a bell in my mind, like so clearly.

Because when you look at Alberta history, the social credit movement was built by William Abraham Aberhardt. He was a radio preacher and he got upset. The depression got him involved in politics because he saw people being hurt. Without William Averhart, there would never have been a social credit movement in Alberta. He did it. He was popular. He was prominent. When he embraced that idea and promoted, that became, you know, he built the social credit movement. He became premier. And that social credit movement dominated Alberta politics until 1971. For four decades. And I would like to point out what I learned about William is I went around asking everybody in the middle of if an upstart political party had ever won a majority government. And no political nerd, Michael, could give me that answer. So I went searching and I found William Aberhart in Alberta. And then I told that story over and over and over again because whose father took over that party at one point in time? Oh, wait, a manning.

And you're like, how did people not realize this? And how is it a not political junkie figures that out? It just floored me. Carry on with your thought process. Okay. Well, then, of course, the Social Credit Party was replaced by Progressive Conservative Party, which was led by Peter Laheed. Now, Peter Laheed took over the Progressive Conservative Party in the mid-1960s

when it had zero MLAs. Like, it was just a fringe party. But Peter Laheed, again, was one of these special leaders. And I think in 1967, they won a number of MLAs as an opposition to the Social Credit. And then in 1971, they won the government. But seeing the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta take over the government and last for several decades, that's unthinkable without Peter Lahit. I mean, the party had leaders all along, but it was like a fringe movement until Peter Lahit got in.

There was something about Peter Lahit, his leadership style that people could see, and he was able to dominate politics in Alberta for several years. And even like on a smaller scale, well, actually, think about Ralph Klein. If you go back and read political literature in the early 90s under when Don Getty's final years, people are writing about the Progressive Conservative Party in Alberta is over. It's going to be like Lawrence DeCore was leader of the Liberals. He was way ahead in the polls, Lawrence DeCore. And people were saying, well, the liberals are going to take over.

This is the end of the PC dynasty in the early 90s. Ralph Klein came in and he created what's called the miracle on the prairies. Again, like a special individual with these leadership qualities that somehow, you know, dominates politics for a certain period of time. And when even like on a smaller scale, I would say, the NDP victory in 2015 is really unthinkable without Rachel Notley. When you look at their leaders that the NDP had before her, I mean, I'm not, you know, dissing them personally or whatever, but they didn't have those qualities. Rachel Notley had that leadership quality.

And I think she inherited it from her dad because even though her dad was like a very only had like one or two seats in the legislature, I've never heard anything bad about Grant Notley. Like whenever I've heard people talk about him who knew him, everybody talked well about Grant Laudley. Of course, he tragically was killed in an airplane crass in 1984. But Rachel, you know, had a lot of those personal qualities too, apparently. because she took the NDP to a level that no other NDP leader could possibly have done. The point is generally is that you need a leader of a particular kind of quality to build political movements. You know, the movements can exist without the leader. The ideas are there, people who support the idea.

But if you really want it to succeed, you need a particular leader who embodies that idea. And that's something I learned that phraseology from David Parker. So I just want to give him that to point out how important that was when David Parker titled those ideas together for me in that talk. It was really wonderful. There's something about people. People look to leaders more than they look to platforms or ideas or perspectives. They look to people that embody those ideas.

And they want to follow leaders. They don't want to follow ideas per se. Well, it's something that was said to me recently because I'm working with some influencers down the States to launch something cool. in the next couple of months here. But one of those people who's got a million followers herself said to me that I thought was really interesting. I'm not a people person. That might sound strange.

I'm an ideas person like you, Michael. Like I love, and you probably too, Tanner. And I imagine to it at large extent, you Sean, we like to talk about ideas. We like to think about ideas. We like to, you know, we like to play with ideas. That's not most people. Most people are people, people, people. and they want to feel like they're part of a community or they're part of a network or they're

part of a team or they're part of a movement or whatever you want to call it most people are people people and they admire leaders because what they admire is someone who's the top of a of a social hierarchy which is what a leader is right there they're the ones that people are looking to they're the ones that are getting people's attention right there's a lot of people who want attention very badly and they see the attention that a leader is getting and they envy that. So that would be one thing I would say. Just a quick note, are we still going to be able to get my audio because it keeps dropping off?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think so. I think you'll be all right. Worst case scenario, we release the raw audio that is automatically being recorded, David, and now people are getting way too much because I won't edit this part out either. Because I want you to realize that I'm not screwing. around with anything. Yes, we should be fine. Okay, so one thing I want to ask

you, Sean, because you have, you've interviewed a ton of people, you've seen a lot of things now, you've, you were just saying a little bit earlier that you were like, pretty Canada first, you were in Ottawa, you were on the convoy, like the flag, people were pretty passionately patriotic for Canada itself, not necessarily Alberta at that moment. So I can totally understand where that comes from. But now that you've seen this transition in yourself, what do you think it would take for

people to have that realization? Well, they're having it every day. Yeah. I have been, I will self-admittedly say I have been wrong every step of the way. I've been wrong every way. I might be wrong right now, folks. You might be listening to me and go, Sean is wrong once again. And I'll point to a few. Donald Trump, well before I ever was on this podcast, I thought Hillary Clinton was going to win. And I said I would have voted for Hillary Clinton. That's where I was. Okay. I thought Donald Trump was a pompous ass. And at times I still think that. Fast forward to 2020. I didn't think COVID was, you know, I was the guy racing home thinking this was a horrific thing. I was the guy, you know, dragging my feet for a lot of different things on and on and on.

And I was wrong about that. Daniel Smith, we could, we can argue if I, but go back and listen. I still think she's like, man, when it comes to the world of politics, I listen to David and I go, I don't know what David. She is fantastic of what she does. Now, I could be wrong all over again. I'm going to sell, like listen, I am wrong all the time. So this is why I love my audience because they're smarter than me and they point to things all the time. But on this one, I sit and I go, how are people coming to this? Three months ago, I would argue against myself.

And now I'm like, holy crap. And at times I'm just like, am I being lit? I'm like, how do I get so that I can have the 10,000 foot view and start to see all the pieces colliding? Because I listen to this conversation. I'm like, I'm annoyed because as a host, I'm like, I had this idea in my head. I thought I was going to play out perfectly. And then you three came in, took my idea, threw it against the wall, kicked it around. And I'm like, what the hell just happened?

Right. Now, that's wonderful. That's a wonderful thing. I just, how are people coming to this? They're going to have no different than COVID when I looked around and I had this deep down in my soul, moral argument of like, it can't be that bad. Like, it can't be that bad. So I've gone through that. So when I started to argue with myself about Canada, it was the same thing, but it was way faster because I'd already gone through it with COVID.

And I'm like, no, Sean, it looks like it's that bad. And then I go, I hear all the people going, oh, we can fix Canada, go to the community level, and we can fix it. I'm like, people have been saying that since COVID. And look at the fight that's been going on. And you get some wins, yes, you get a lot of losses. You realize that part of the humanity just doesn't see the things the same way you do. So I look at Alberta and I go, hmm, could there be a referendum that's non-binding? Folks, this doesn't mean that you leave Canada, day one it happens.

And you go, yeah, actually it might be even more frustrating that it's non-binding. And actually what happens in politics is then they come to the bargaining table and half of us might be swayed by a lesser equalization payment. We're actually going to save some money. The economics of it might be like, oh, that's great. So I sit here and I go, there's going to be a ton of people that need to stare at Canada, figure out what that actually means. There has been a ton of people, a ton of people talking to me about this.

I have been in so many freaking arguments about it, and they're probably all laughing at me right now. And I can be completely wrong. So I sit here, and one of the things I do on this show, David, is I bring up things that are going on in my life, that I'm uncomfortable talking about, that I do not have all the answers. That's why I bring you three Yahoo's on. You mess with my train of thought, and I hope that it does something for the population that they start messing around with in their own lives. because I look at this and I see a ton of positives if you were trying get a referendum going for once, and I'm going to give a shout out to Mitch Sylvester

because Mitch Sylvester came and talked to me about this like eight months ago, and I probably looked like a guy I'm not doing that. I'm not even bringing that up. No Mitch. And now, where am I at? I texted Mitch this morning. And Mitch, if you're listening, text me back because I'm like, I can't believe I've come full circle on this idea. that's where I'm at and I think that's where a lot of Albertans are at. Can I just add a little comment here on the phrase non-binding?

Like that's not really a good way to describe it because the results are binding. It's just that it doesn't necessarily lead to independence. So like the results of a referendum under the Clarity Act, like they're binding on the federal government to negotiate with that province over that province's independence. It might not lead to independence. It might lead to, say, reformed Canada, but it is binding. in the sense that it's a legal obligation. The federal government cannot ignore it the way they ignore the equalization referendum.

Because you mentioned the equalization referendum, the equalization referendum was based on a false interpretation of the secession reference case. It was actually, I think, some good people who made that mistake. But the secession reference case, like I mentioned, it compels the federal government to negotiate the independence of a province after referendum. And some people interpreted that to mean that any referendum on a constitutional question would compel the federal government. But the secession reference case did not say that whatsoever.

And it was kind of a misinterpretation that referendum was based on. So the federal government had every right to ignore the results of the equalization referendum. It had no legal basis. And it was just based on a misinterpretation of a... All I mean to point out to all the people with non-binding is exactly what you just did there with this goobily goop. If we sat down, the four of us had a decision to make and we said, hey, we're going to be democracy. Do you want to go to Emmington or don't? And three of us voted yes.

The next hour we're going to Amiton. or whatever the question is. With this, what's going to trigger is that goobly goop that just got talked about by Michael and Mike, I'm not trying to, you're doing an excellent job. I'm just saying this is exactly what's going to happen. The political realm's going to go, well, was the question worded right? And they're going to spend two years thinking about it. And then they're going to go, was it a clear majority?

They had 73%. Is that enough? What do we think about the people that didn't vote? And on and on, I want to take my fist and punch myself in the face because that's what's going to happen. Well, that's what I'm saying. That's what would have happened. But now we have Trump. True. And I agree with that. I just mean to say that the political forces that be in this country, politics doesn't operate the way we think it. Like I'm talking myself in the audience, I hope, thinks it operates, where you get a clear answer. A clear answer would be in any democracy,

51%. Right. I mean, if you vote on something, if you have a majority, a clear majority, I don't care is, you know, you don't get the president of the United States on 67%. You get it on 51%. Actually get it on 50 point whatever percent. They give him the presidency. That's a vote. On this, we're saying, well, it's got to be clear. So when I talk about it, I'm sure I'm not saying the right terms.

But what I have to, like myself, I'm talking as much to myself as the audience right now is like what we're doing is we're pushing on the Canadian government to have to open up on a conversation. You're pushing on Canada as a whole to have to come to terms with something they don't even talk about. And I've had to come to terms with even bringing it on my show because I'm like, I don't know if I want to talk about this. Because they're going to say, Sean, are you a separatist? I'm like, I don't know. I want to, I just want to, I just want to be treated like an adult in a conversation on Canada. And we're not.

They use this in one sense. And then they use another. and I'm all frustrated. All three of you got me fired up today. I think what I find to be most difficult about this conversation is that people don't want change, but change is coming, right? Like when we really think about it, if Mark Carney is elected and does beat Pierre Polyev, what do Albertans have left to be a part of this country for?

Right. we can't get our products to market our way of life is being destroyed we have literally a globalist banker who says that he wants Canada to be more woke and 38 right now as of today according to Ipsis Reed

38% of Canadians including a large number of British Colombians want that they want what he is describing and when you you really think about that, it isn't so much that we don't want to be a part of Canada. I think separatist is even maybe a wrong word, right?

Is that we want to preserve what's left of our way of life before it's completely destroyed. And mark my words, it is being destroyed right before your very eyes. That's not a hyperbole. It's not me trying to scare people. I'm making my plans for exit if things get bad enough. If we had a referendum, asked Alberta, and they said they don't want to leave, I'm gone. I'm like, bye-bye. Like, I'm not going to wait for the economic ruin that's coming.

And it's coming. Like, you can't turn it around. And if Carney wins, it's, uh... David, you've said exactly, if we got to the point where we had a referendum and 10% voted for yes and 90% said they don't want it. I think there is a huge chunk of this audience. He goes, okay, that's what you want. I'm out.

It's already been a huge chunk leave. They're already, like, we act like it isn't happening. Oh, Alberta's growing like exceptionally. That's great. All the people who have my values are leaving because they see it being eroded, right in front of their eyes. Yep. And I think it's worse than people think, to be honest. I think what's going to happen over the coming months and years is going to shake people to their core.

Like, people in Alberta at least can still own homes. Well, what, like, and even that's getting harder and harder. But if you're from Ontario, you don't even dream of owning a home anymore if you're R.A., like Tanner and I's age. And a regular person, they dream about being able to be able to. to pay rent and buy food and have a vehicle. Like that is the country that we not the country you and I grew up in, Sean, but that's the country you live in, right? That's not that's not my values. My values are not. Bring as many people in here so that nobody my age or my, like my son's going to be fine.

I'm going to be fine. I'm not a regular person and people hate it when I say that. Oh, David, you're so arrogant. Like yeah, yeah, you're right. I know that I'm exceptional compared to the vast majority of people. I have come to that realization. And that's not because of me. That was made this way. I don't know why, but I'm not like regular people and I'm not worried about whether or not I'm going to keep my job. I don't have a job. I make jobs. Right. Like that's how I live. That's how Albertans that I grew up with live. They didn't think about my brother has never been unemployed for more than a few months, even during the worst. And he's a trades person. What did he do when, uh, when things got bad?

He built his own house. That's the Alberta I grew up in. Right? That's not the Alberta that we live in anymore. And the people that have jobs and are relying on those and the economy and are afraid and they're watching their life savings be destroyed. I think they're to blame because they're just watching it happen. They're just sitting there letting it happen to them. And I don't know.

I think that they're not nearly worried enough. Like the fact that oil is continuing to go down and will continue to go down over the next couple of years as the world's economy begins to shrink. So China lost $18 trillion in real estate value over the last two years. To put that in context, that is the Canadian economy for nine years. They just lost that. It's gone. And it's not going to get better. You could house the entire population of Brazil in China in empty homes that they have. That's the world economy.

That's what it's built on. A Ponzi scheme, a fake world of empty buildings. That's the global economy. And when it comes crashing down, what is the government's choice going to be? Inflation, because they have too much debt to ever recover. So your wages are going to buy less. The savings you have in your bank account are going to be worth less. I mean, Tanner's an economist.

He can talk about this even better than I can probably. But this is not some dire prediction. This is an inevitable math. This is going to happen because math, you can feel any way you want about things, but the laws of reality will always win. And while we're having these discussions, we're still talking as if the world is not collapsing around us. But the world is literally collapsing around us. They're not going to have time to have these discussions in Ottawa about the wording and all this.

That's the world we grew up in. The world that's coming, and this is Trump understands this, why is Trump pushing to make Canada the 51st state? Why does he want a gigantic Democrat state added so that America is always going to be, left wing. He doesn't. But he knows that the world we're about to enter is not a world of liberal democracies. It's a world of violent superpowers fighting each other for control. And having a weak nation on your northern border that is literally struggling with traders, 13 or 14 of them sitting in our parliament bought by foreign powers, is not the kind of country. that you want us a neighbor.

Might as well dissolve it. His thinking is far beyond just Republican and Democrat. It's America. What's going to happen to America if we've got a gigantic cancerous sore on our northern border that's leaking into us? Tanner. You're the economist. No.

You just read Willing Slaves of the Welfare State, right? Yeah. Lewis. Right? And what a, what a, I think that that's also prophetic, right? Like Lewis in essence says in that essay that when things collapse, here comes government with a handout, a big handout. And so I think David's exactly right about the lie that is the economy. Spend, spend, spend, everything's fine.

Everything's good. Look at how much you're spending. It's wonderful. Meanwhile, buildings are empty. People know it too. They're really beginning to understand just how dire the economic situation is. and when everything collapses, what will government do except say, come to us for salvation here, you know, kneel at the steps of Parliament Hill and we'll give you a loaf of bread and a little

hand out and we'll increase our power. We'll turn into a superpower. I'm so convinced that's what the ultimate play is. And as for the world changing, I think again, David's right. Yeah, it's changing drastically. Absolutely. No doubt about it, right? This isn't, it isn't 1920. It's not 1960. And of course, It's almost a banal thing to say. Like, of course, it's not the recent decades. But the shift that we're seeing globally, economically, it's, it's almost, you almost can't describe how significant it's going to be. And so.

Let's add another point that I would love your thoughts on Tanner. AI. I go on AI and I can do literally a month's worth of research for political campaigning research. Like, you know, the things that I need to know about numbers and, demographics and all this. I used to have to go and spend hours putting together reports that I would then, you know, go over strategically and say, okay, now it does all that for me and all I have to do is ask questions. Months of my life I've got back. I'm making business plans. I'm, I'm having an analyze spreadsheets for me. Those were things I paid people to do up until three weeks ago.

Yeah. Oh, exactly. You have a few technological revolutions in history that completely transformed the world, right? The wheel and so on. This is one of them. You're right. Think of the time that people save now employing AI instead of, like you mentioned, for example, doing research for months and months. Like the world is so, the difference is so, it's almost unimaginable. It's incredible to watch. And so as the conversation here is steered, if you're not getting in front of it, good luck. Like, you know, Chesterton has this great quote where he's like, Tyranny's not present until it's omnipresent. I think that's so right.

He's like, the best way to resist it is to resist it before it exists. And so I think if we're reacting, we're in trouble. We're in big trouble. Now, it's much more strategic and rational to get ahead of the curve before it hits you

so that when it inevitably does come to hit, you're ready, you're prepared. And go back to Joseph. You have a storage of grain for a long famine. I think that's the way to act, right? It's not as though, you know, Joseph gets a dream.

seven good years of great crops and then it's going to be seven bad years so buckle up right now get your house in order and start storing up so too here like we know what's coming right you can't keep spending and spending and spending and you can't keep as david mentioned trying to push this lie that is the you know the the global economy forever it won't work reality will win out and so we have then an obligation to ensure that when reality wins out we're prepared for it we have a storage of a surplus of grain, a surplus of what we need to not only survive, but thrive in that new world. And Alberta has everything it needs to do that. It does. Everything. Yeah. Alberta, above Canada, above a lot of other places, we could be a refuge in a storm.

Now, the problem with being a refuge in a storm is a lot of people are going to want to come here to be saved and we're not going to let them. Like, that's just the truth. We can't or we won't be saved will be watched away but but we have the opportunity to build something here that can survive this storm we have everything we need here to do that um except that honestly one thing and that's children uh we don't have enough children and uh and that's why we have this immigration problem and i don't know i don't know what's going to happen but i here's what i do know all the stories that i loved reading growing up all of the books that defined me psychologically, we're about people against long odds fighting crazy battles for very unlikely

victories. And I would say my own life has mirrored those stories in many ways. And I believe that if there's a way to go down, there's an old Roman poem that I like quite a lot that says, how can men die better than facing fearful odds for the ashes of their fathers and the temples of their gods? And if we're going to be the last men of the West, That is a real possibility. The West could fall. Humanity won't fall. God's church won't fall, but Western civilization could fall. And if it does fall, and we're the last ones, do we want our epitaph to be not with a bang, but a whimper? Or do we want to fight? Like, are we going to fight or not? That's what I'm asking people. That's why I ran around asking, are you going to fight? Not are you going to fight for David Parker? Come on, I'm not worth fighting for. I don't even fight for. I don't even fight. for me, right? Are you going to fight for you? That's what that's what saddens me. People aren't even willing to sacrifice and fight and they just want to be comfortable until it's too late and it's almost too late. It's almost too late. Not just for Alberta, but for the West. And I saw that

down in the States. They decided to fight and they're fighting now. That doesn't mean they're necessarily going to win. Like the Democrats could get in in a few years and wipe it off. It could be but at least they're trying. We're not trying. That's the truth. Any final thoughts, gentlemen? I'm going to take that as a no. Well, it's been an interesting chat.

I'm going to be interested to hear what the phone line does. That's going to be interesting. I'm interested to see what Albertan say. Honestly, maybe Canadians, you know, because like one of the things I think about, you know, on this set is like, do I really want to? to talk about this. And anytime I enter into this realm of Alberta and bringing up difficult conversations, although at times for some, this is going to be not far enough or not fast enough. For a lot of people, it's like coming to terms with something you don't want to come to terms with, you know? And I just

appreciate you three coming on. I can say for myself, you know, into the audience, like in my brain, I'm lining up more Albertans to come on and talk about this because I want to hear their thoughts. I really want to get the conversation started, I guess is all I'm trying to do. I'm just trying to light a fire on it that I look at you three and I go, the conversation's already well under way, Sean. Don't act like it's not there. But for a lot of people who've never even wrestled 10 seconds with it, they're sitting here listening going, oh, man, I know where Sean's leaning now. now I'm going to have to sit and listen.

You know, at one point, it was all hockey players on here. And then I started talking COVID. And they're like, what are you going back to hockey? I'm like, I don't know, never. Like, I mean, you know, I would love to talk to Don Cherry again. But, you know, I haven't been back there for 600 plus episodes. So, you know, and then I started talking about, you know, faith. People didn't like that.

I can already feel that people aren't going to like this. And it's like, buckle up, folks, because we're going to start talking about some things again and again. and again and again because I'm wrestling with it as much as I assume they are as well so either way thanks gentlemen for for hopping on and doing this and well we'll see where it leads