Shaun Newman Podcast - #824 - Vesper

Episode Date: April 2, 2025

He lives in Quebec, is a brand designer and during the lockdowns started VesperDigital on X with the purpose of exposing the government and getting Justin Trudea out of office. We discuss Alberta Independence and the hurdles that are in place to ensure this doesn’t happen. Cornerstone 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. Happy Wednesday, everyone. Junk Silver. Let's start there.

I got a couple things to bring up on Cornerstone Forum. It is brought to you by the next two companies, Bull Valley Credit Union and the company. talking junk silver day, silver gold bull. Before we get to Cornerstone, let's talk junk silver for a second here, okay? There's been a lot of conversations around what, you know,

the next month is going to bring, what an election's going to bring, who's going to be there, and what the landscape of Canada looks like after that. So while you're sitting here preparing for that, junk silver has certainly been offered up. There's a deal right now at Silver Gold Bull. It's older

circulation coins like dimes, quarters, half dollars and dollars from back before our government debased our money by removing the silver from coinage. And, you know, a lot of people going, uh, do I really need that? Do I not need that? I don't know. That's up to you.

Uh, certainly I like being prepared for just about every situation. And as I check things off the old box, uh, old silver coins actually was on there at one point. And, uh, if you're wanting to find out more, text or email Graham for details about not only this feature, but any other questions you may have surrounding, uh, buying, selling, storing, or you can use your retirement accounts to invest in precious metals. Yep. Silvergoldbill.ca.com, depending on the side of the border you're on.

Anytime you're making any purchase, just reference SNP, the Sean Newman podcast. Helps them. It helps them. Can help you. Bull Valley Credit Union. Yeah, they're helping bring the Cornerstone Forum to Calgary, a ton of fun, and excited to have them teamed up with us on bringing it all there. Bull Valley Credit Union, of course, is your Alberta regulated, fully service. financial institution is proud to present not only the Cornerstone Forum but the first in canada

gold collateral lending now all of you can lend against your physical gold and silver for a favorable rates it's like a helock on your gold and silver don't have any physical gold and silver they can help you get a loan to purchase that as well if you're wanting to talk about bond markets and different things like that go back to an episode just a Tuesday's episode yesterday i had CEO of bow valley on brett oland and we talked about all about all about both that. So if you're interested in hearing more about Bow Valley, do yourself a favor. Rewind one episode and go listen to him talk. And after you're done that, shoot an email off to welcome at Bow ValleyCU.com. Don't wait. Contact Bow Valley. Say hello to Leanna. She'll get your BVCU membership

up and running. Caleb Taves, Renegade Acres, community spotlight, of course, with Renegade Acres. If you're looking for any concrete work done, I can give you two thumbs way up for Caleb Taves and his group. Fantastic of what they do. And he's given over his spot to the community spotlight, which we've been talking about the Cornerstone Forum heading to Calgary, of course, May 10th, and the fact you should be there. And I put out on Substack this week. You know, I had a few questions come through email about, you know, I don't know, should I come by myself? Like, kind of a little bit nervous. And so I just said, actually, you know, it's funny over the course of, I don't know how many events is it now, nine or ten, I've had lots of people come by themselves and I've never had anyone say it wasn't a great time.

Here's a couple of people who commented on the substack post. First, Dawn, Cornerstone testimony. I went by myself last year and it turned out to be a fabulous day. Met so many people from so many different life backgrounds. This year is a table of ten plus the two individual seats previously purchased and all seats are spoken for even the home. I don't have many friends and then they laughed and finally said do not decide to not attend. Many including myself will welcome you and you will never regret coming. Lee Hepner who has been to multiple events said we've been to two events sitting with wonderful

engaging people and Sean puts on a stellar event and yeah. Hey, there's a couple of testimonies for Amman Substack. Showed out to those fine folks, Don and Lee for sharing. their experiences. Down on the show notes, folks, is going to be where you can get tickets. If your business, the trade show, I can put you in contact with Shannon. She's been the one dealing with all the booths going to be in there. First time we go around for a trade show, I have no idea how it's going to go.

I'm testing something out. And hopefully it's a value add for everybody who comes, including the businesses who decide to put up booths. We've been talking a bit about the new studio coming in 2025. We're looking for skills, labor, materials, money. We've got a value for value wall, legacy wall going, and we want to put your name on it. So reach out to me and we'll see what we can do.

We'd love to have you a part of it. If you're listening or watching on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, Rumble, X, make sure to subscribe, make sure to leave a review. Make sure to share, folks. And mark your calendars. April 28th, the mashup is going to have live election coverage all day long, and we look forward to bringing that to you. And more details as we get covered.

closer. All right. Let's get on to that tale of the tape. He's a brand designer and during the lockdown started Vesper Digital on Twitter with the purpose of exposing the government and getting Justin Trudeau out of office. I'm talking about Vesper. So buckle up. Here we go. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Let's try this again. I'm here with Vesper. Vesper. Thanks for hopping on. Thank you for having me. Now, listen, folks, me and Vesper and chit-chatting, I mean, the audience. knows who you are you've been on a bunch of our live streams you're like one of the you're you're in i think the same company as alex zoltan where like normally if we do a bc live election coverage

we don't allow any other province to come into that election coverage because we want that and yet a quebecer's found his way in and zoltans found his way into multiple election coverages as well so you uh have uh things to uh say i respect your opinion i respect how you uh um push back on different guests and it's it's a it's interesting to watch guests come on a live stream and then get some pushback and then be like oh well i thought this was a friendly place and you're like well it is but we we want to have some discussion here so we've been talking an awful lot on the podcast about alberta independence separation 51st state Canada 51st state is where it started and we just been chit-chatting and the one that struck up this conversation we're having today was the the

the Keith Wilson conversation. And so I'm going to throw the floor over to you because you, you've wanted to, to, I don't know, chime in, have some of the things that you got researched up to throw out to the people today. So I think one of the things that let's just set the record straight. Keith Wilson is a patriot in my book.

Okay. Let's just keep it there. He's a patriot. No, no doubts about it. And a friend. He's a friendly, as they would say in the military. This is a friendly and will always be a friendly.

He stands his ground, a man of integrity. I can keep going on and on. The things that this man has done and fought for is what got me his respect. And he got my respect, like profoundly. And let's also set something else straight. I'm a Quebecer, but I don't care. And frankly, I don't like the way Alberta is being treated. Let's just, I'm being straight with you.

I don't care who it would be, all right? If Quebec was badly treated, I'd feel bad. I'm not for this whole idea that Alberta shouldn't leave. If they're being mistreated, they certainly should. I would want an abused woman to leave a relationship. So let's get that straight. Today, what I want to do is kind of let's remove all of our op-eds, all of our opinions. Sure.

And let people make up their minds based on what I told you I was going to be able to show you guys and your audience today is actually what was the problem with what happened that day with Keith. And it wasn't because Keith said anything wrong. It's that there's things that I felt like people needed to know. And while Keith did allude to it being a messy divorce and on and on and on, I think people just need to have, and especially for the people that are like me that are a little bit OCD and they need. to know what the laws and what is the process look like. Things from the Constitution's Act. Does it say anything in our Constitution about secession? Things about the, what is the Clarity Act? Why was it formed while it was formed because of the 1998 ruling on the 1995 failure of Quebec to secede from Canada? This was like ground shattering, right? There was it was there was no precedent for

this before and the ruling paved the way on all right let's clarify not the clarity act this is the supreme court what it's it going to take to be able to for a province to leave and what do we define as the steps necessary for a province leave now i will underscore this albertans and any Canadian, that the second any form of retaliatory violence comes into the conversation, you can literally forget everything I said, we're in the Wild West at this point. Let's not even talk about it anymore. But if we're talking about negotiating, doing laws, so for the record, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a constitutional lawyer. By any stretch of the imagination, I'm not an accredited historian. What I am is somebody that for 20 years,

has worked in PR, marketing, branding, consulting, crisis management. So I need to do a lot of research. And I've been doing this for, I'd say, about a month and a half, deep diving, or nothing else, and trolling people on X. But that's just to release some pressure, if you know what I mean, Sean. That's the pressure valve release. But what I do is I read. I'm an avid reader. And I love researching. And I trust no one. Maybe that's the problem. I trust only. Only Jesus Christ, that's it. It's a good one. I don't trust my mother.

I don't trust my mother. I don't trust my father. I don't trust my lawyer. I don't trust my account. You don't trust your mother or your father? I mean, not not to the ultimate extent, right? Like that I have to double check because here's the thing. People will spit out facts, Sean.

And I hear this sometimes from people on shows and so on and so forth. And they'll say it and everyone will just take it like at face value and then I'll go check it and it's completely full of shit and it's not even remotely close or you're leaving out contextually so as a Christian you you understand that people can pull things out of the Bible and make it say whatever it wants to say right that's the problem another problem is is that when then you go and you try to look up the context of what was being said you end up finding out wait a minute the context varies very very greatly from the actual meaning of what was being said there is a friend of that had a mug. And I'm using this illustration, I'll stop. On the mug, it had this verse from

the Bible, you know, those Bible mugs and stuff like that. And this verse said, and he will keep his angels over you to guard you so that you would not be hurt. And the citation was from the book of Matthew that said in Luke and Matthew. The problem is that verse from Matthew was when the devil was talking to Jesus. That's when he was tempting him to jump off. So context matters, folks. I'm sorry. You know,

you know how I always say facts don't care about your feelings? Well, it would be nice. I want Alberta to go. And I think there's a big possibility that it can happen. There is a way. There is. I hate people saying there's no way.

There is a way. But you need to know what that way is. And I agree. I agree. And knowing that way is. You know, if it's a new person to the show, you know, then you just got to do some digging on Vesper to, like everything you're saying. You keep talking the way you're talking. We're going to go down the road of Jesus and a bunch of things I've been reading on that side.

And I got a ton of time for that conversation right now, folks. Let me tell you, I was, I got this new book. See, now you can pull me all the way over there. Where you want to go today, what I think is you want to go the other way. You want to talk about Alberta independence? You want to walk us through. Listen, it's not that it's impossible, but everybody needs to get their facts straight. And this is what it looks like.

So if you're going to keep the Jesus talk coming, I'm all for it. I'm telling you, we're hanging a laugh. I can hear the people that are like, come on, Sean. Let them preach. Let them. I'm like, no, no, no, there's no preaching here. This is for Albertans. I know.

And for the rest of the Canada. I'm teasing. I'm teasing. Good. Good. Teasing. So, so without further ado, I mean, and by all means, stop. me. I have these all bookmarked. There's going to be some reading today, but I'm a good reader,

and I'm prolific in articulating what I need to say. But stop me at any point. There are really three documents that I think people need to be made aware of. The first document would be the ruling by the Supreme Court in the 1998, Quebec, because that's where the rules were set out in 1998 after the 1995, okay? The second document is the Clarity Act. Now, what is the Clarity Act? The Clarity Act was invoked in 2000, the year 2000, to double down and clarify on what the 1998 ruling was. Okay, essentially it's almost like a consolidation act of what the ruling was in 1998. And the final document is really our Constitution, the Constitutions Act between 1967 and 1982. Now, you're asking Vesper, or you can call me Eli, by the way, if you don't know me personally.

But Vesper, what does the Constitution say about the secession? Surprisingly, nothing. There's nothing in the Constitution that even remotely brings up the idea of secession. What it does do, and there's only one real section that people need to know on the Constitution is the amendment to the Constitution and how that works. Because in order for you to secede, you need to amend the Constitution of Canada. And well, then how does that work? And that's the only reason you'd be going to the Constitution's Act, basically, or our Constitution. Is that clear so far? Have I lost you on the show? I was just going to, I was just going to try them in. People are driving to work on a Wednesday morning. And I'm like, just grab your coffee.

Vesper is going to do a little light reading today. We're going to find out about a few different acts. And then we're going to have a little fun discussing it. So welcome to Wednesday, folks. I'm sitting here with my coffee as well. So let's jump into the Clarity Act. And why do I want to jump into the Clarity Act before we jump into the actual Quebec ruling act? Because it's long.

It's long as hell. Clarity Act is? No, the Quebec Supreme Court, you know, remember when they tried to to secede under a referendum. There are some things that I think is important to look at. And I'm sure if I asked you, you would read some of them. If you could see them. Let me know if you could see this, by the way.

The act. So this is the table provisions in the Clarity Act of 2000. An act to give effect to the requirement for clarity set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. So they weren't clear enough in the Supreme Court. They needed to make an act to make sure that it was really clear what they were trying to say. Okay.

Does that already kind of give you a hint that nobody wants anyone to leave? Correct. We're trying to be clear. Yes. Okay. Why? You weren't clear before? No, we were,

but we want to make it into an act. All right. It sounds like government, doesn't it? Yeah. We can't just reduce red tape. We need a red tape minister to go reduce that red tape. Yeah, we need to red tape the red tape that we just read tape.

Correct. Yes. This is, this is, yes. 100% understand what you mean. So what is the opinion? Well, there were three things.

House of Commons to consider the question. Two, House of Commons to consider whether there is a clear will to succeed. And number three, the constitutional amendments. We're going to get to that in a second. So I don't know if you can see this. Can you read these? Yeah, I can see it. Yep, absolutely.

So I want you to read at least the first preamble. And the second, the yellow. The yellow and the green. You want me to read it aloud? Yeah, because you have a buttery voice. Ooh, I got a buttery voice. All right. Now, I guess I'm not the only one drinking coffee this morning.

Enjoy, folks. Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is no right under international law or under the Constitution of Canada for the National Assembly, Legislature, or Government of Quebec to affect the succession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally. So let's all keep this in mind. This word unilateral is a no-no. non-starter. It's a no-bueno, apparently, in the laws. The idea of unilateral does not exist. Okay, that's in the law. Go. Whereas the government of any province of Canada is entitled to consult

its population by referendum or any issue and is entitled to formulate the wording of its referendum question. That's good. So there is this deference, right, to the province that you guys have your rights. Now, how do we balance the rights of the province versus the rights of the federal government? And the way that they did it, Sean, is that they didn't just bring in the federal government. They brought in the rest of Canada into this, right? So again, I will highlight, if we're talking about full-scale rebellion, forget everything I'm saying. But if we're going to stay within the jurisdiction of the law, this is what the law says. The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the result of a referendum on the secession of a province from Canada,

must be free of ambiguity. That's something I know Keith is going to absolutely, if he's involved, going to make sure that that's not going to be ambiguous, okay? Both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves if that result is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will that will give rise to an obligation to enter into negotiations that might lead to secession. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that democracy means more than simple, majority rule. Do you understand what that means, Sean? Just because you do a referendum and you get

50 percent, they're going to question things like, okay, 50 percent of what? How many people voted? They're going to look for every reason to disqualify this, for every reason, okay? And it's important that Albertans understand this in any province that ever wants to secede. You must have, of the population a majority. And so in some way, like we were saying off camera, I'm not here to throw water on this. I'm here to say, you want to know what it's going to take?

It's going to take a majority majority, not just a majority, because if three people vote and two people will say, yes, that's not even on the table. I'm being hyperbolic. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You need a majority. And what constitutes that majority?

Well, we'll continue. The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed, that in Canada, the secession of a province to be lawful would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, that such an amendment would per force require negotiations in relations to secession, involving at least the governments of all the provinces and the government of Canada. I don't know if you knew that, Sean. You need all the provinces and the federal government. That's cited in the Clarity Act.

Okay. and that those negotiations would be governed by the principle of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism, and the rule of law, and the protection of minorities. The area that I want to just jump to here, things to consider. Now, do you want to read these? This is important to read, okay? In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall consider whether the question result in a clear expression of the will of the population of a province

on whether the province should cease to be a part of Canada and become an independent state, where no clear expression of will, for the purpose of subsection 3, a clear expression of the will of the population of a province, that the province ceased to be a part of Canada could not result from. A, a referendum question that merely focuses on a mandate to negotiate without soliciting a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be a part of Canada, or a referendum question that, oh man, what is that word?

Envisages. What the heck does envisages me? Like shows, it demonstrates, it paints a picture. God, why do they have to use? Okay, anyways. Red tape, bro. A referendum question that envisages other possibilities in addition to the succession of the province from Canada, such as economic or political arrangements with Canada that obscure a direct expression

of the will of the population of the province on whether the province should, should cease to be a part of Canada. So let's clarify, guys. And Sean, expression means majority vote. That's it. Clear a question. That's easy. Clear expression is what is clearly the expressed views of this province?

And it's not in on X. It's not on YouTube. It's not on it. It is when they go to vote, how many vote and how many vote. and how many vote how. Now, this is where it's bizarre because there is no number set out. There have been people that have speculated

that are constitutional experts and lawyers, you know, like Peter Hoggs and all these people. But here's the thing. If you're dealing with the East now, guys, right? You're dealing with a government ruled by the Laurentians and they're not about to have their cash cow leave, period. okay why would i do that and okay fine you want to leave you better make it so that there is no denying that you have the complete will of alberta behind you and there is no act no sovereignty act

no nothing that that just protects you guys from legislation from the federal government but when it comes to secession it has already been ruled that there is a way to do this democratically and constitutionally, right? It's not that it's a no. It's that it has to be a hell yeah. It can't be a, yes, it can't be a, we're almost there. It can't be a, let's go. It's got to be hell yeah.

Like everybody is like wanting to get out. And by everybody, I mean, I'm shooting a broad number here. It's got to be at minimum, 60%. Okay. And I'm telling you like 60% not of half the population, 60% of of the population. Okay. Because they're going to look for every loophole, Sean, to make sure that you have not properly represented the will of every Albertan and minority. Does that make sense?

Yeah. Actually, what I'm finding interesting about your train of thought Vesper, if I may, is one of the things. And I want to keep reading. So forgive me for probably pulling. us off. No, no, no, go, dude. Come on. I'm enjoying this. Well, one of the things I've said to Albertans in my different conversations with different people who are inside the movement, around the movement, just in general, is it's like, you want to leave Canada? You really want to leave Canada? Okay. Did you see what they did to the people in, in Ottawa that went

and stood up to that government? Oh, wait, they're finding, like Tamara and Chris are still on trial while they're supposed to be finding out the results here this week. I'm like, and now you want to, now you want to go against that and take the cash cow, everything you just said. I'm like, if we don't have this conversation, what we're having right now, you're not going to understand how they're going to attack you. They're going to attack you in every loophole moronic thing, unless it goes on full scale like what we're talking about.

People pick up arms. That's not what we're saying. But if it went that way, that's an entirely different. different conversation. Completely different. Oh, yeah. We're not even in the purview of that conversation. We're talking about the ways of the law and how it works.

And when, and listen, and when Keith comes back on, he's going to give you from a lawyer's perspective, and he is a very seasoned lawyer and a very intellectual man. He is able to break down, you know, like in hockey,

right? Like there's the theory of hockey, but then there's like getting on the ice and playing hockey, right? That's key. Keith is on the ice. What my job here is to show you what Keith will be using and contending with. Yeah, what he'll be up again?

Right. And this is where I thought, this is where I disagreed with Keith. And I think Keith agreed with me too that he maybe he needs to shed light, not necessarily that it's impossible, but what are the hurdles before us? Now, I can respect Keith because I believe what he's stating is true that if the liberals win, this is devastating for Alberta this I think it's devastating for Canada no no no not so much as for Canada like look le quebecua like me there we are going to be okay because we control

everything in Ottawa but you Albertans you're going to get decimated in your the very thing you guys are known for energy is going to get yeah but but forgive me Vesper because I maybe I'm wrong on this and maybe you'll you'll be Like that's not the way it'll go down. But when I look at Kearney and what he represents the higher up the food chain you go, if he attacks Alberta in the way we think he can attack us or that he has written about, you know, getting rid of, you know, the energy and just different things.

Where does the cash cow come from? Well, it doesn't come from just good people. It doesn't come from sunshine and rainbows. It comes from what's underneath our feet And what we do as a group of human beings out west That's where the money comes from And so you attack that What eventually happens is you're attacking yourself

Because not really because we have hydro we have hydro quebec Put all the money that would I be wrong? I know but no here's the thing okay we already have that money We're just leveraging this very broken system dude I don't know if that makes sense. Like, I got a million in my pocket, but I want your million. Yes. This is where I'm like, we're going to keep doing this, but this is where I'm like, Ben Trudeau, who was on, what was that, three weeks ago, folks?

I can't remember. Forgive me. It's been, you know, on this side, a little hectic. But he's like, referendums aren't one on, on stats and that. He's one, it's one on motion. And what I see percolating. Now, me and you have talked lots about the fact that, you know, like when I look at this, I go like everywhere Pierre goes, he's beloved right now.

It's just like thousands upon thousands of people showing up to every event he does. Everywhere Cartney goes, it's the complete, it's, it's, it is there people showing up? By the way, all this stuff, all this 51st state annexation secession stuff, Pierre wins. It's all over. Yeah, I agree. Mark my words. Let's continue reading this because this is the point of this. I don't want to get off track on, on this.

No disrespect. I know it's your show, but it's so that we don't lose where this was supposed to go. And I want the viewers. This is why you can't bring me in a conversation. I'm going to sit my coffee. Let's go back to Margarine reading. No, no. I want to talk.

I want to do this after we're done because all this is us talking. I don't want us to have our views. I want to read folks. Margarine is going to talk. I'm going to go back. Margarine's going to talk. Carry on. So this one is called other views to be considered.

We're still in the Clarity Act. In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political parties represented in the legislative assembly of the province whose government is proposing the referendum on secession. Any formal statement or resolutions by the government or legislative assembly of any province or territory of Canada, any formal statements or resolutions by the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, especially those in provinces whose government is proposing. the referendum on secession and any other views it considers relevant. This is what is to be considered. Now watch this. You read the next part. No negotiations if question is not clear.

The government of Canada shall not enter in negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be a part of Canada if the host of Commons determines pursuant to this section that a referendum question is not clear and for the reasons would not result in a clear expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be a part of Canada. So no clear question. They're not letting you out. They're not even going to entertain it.

Not even. So let's make also something clear. Remember we said unilateral? The Supreme Court has ruled there is no unilateral. Essentially, and I'm sorry to say this, a referendum is essentially a glorified petition that represents and expresses the will. of the population, but it's really just a petition. Now, it's not just a regular petition.

It can't be ignored. There are laws that the Supreme Court has stated that you cannot deny this number. This is not just all we'll take it into consideration. This is a, if you give me 60 to 70% of Albertans want to leave. Yeah, that's not, that's when it stops being a petition. And that's when it's like, no, I'm sorry, the Supreme Court will side with Albertans. Do you understand? it's not skewed so that it's like, okay, we'll take it into consideration.

No, they're going to do audits. They're going to investigate. They're going to do all this stuff. But 70% of Albertans, like what's your population in Alberta right now? What do you have? Four million? No, it's closer to five. Actually, I think the last time I had Danielle on, which has been a while.

I think she said we're over five. So let's assume about three million or adults, right? Let's assume two million vote, yes. let's go right that's two-thirds 66 percent uh they're going to go okay how many mine let me show you an example what it would look like how many of those are aboriginal holy cow are we going to sit down now and count who are the aboriginal voters like okay let's say you guys are smart and said aboriginals vote like this way that's racist you can't make a different line for abro you see You see where this goes?

Yeah, I do. So then they do this, and you get a 66%. Say you get a 70%. This is where the Supreme Court goes. Hold on. I don't care if your mama, your papa, your uncle Theo,

I don't care who it is from any Aboriginal tribe. 70% of Alberta said we want out. All right, start negotiations. That's how it's going to work. It's not it's not they're just going to just make sure that the 70% is legit. I want you to keep reading because otherwise you're going to pull me back in us. It doesn't matter if you get 90%.

They're going to try and find a way to frame this like you didn't get. They can. Yes. They can. They're going to say like 10% wasn't Aboriginal. Go back to my conversation about Ottawa or my comment on Ottawa. You're going against the same machine. You're going against it.

No, I know. But we have to be a little bit. Let's pull back a little bit. The Supreme Court did rule that the Emergencies Act was illegal. We need to bring Canadians back to a place where, yes, there is a lot of capture. Let's not deny it. But there are some things that we got wins for. We got some wins.

And we can't be completely divorced from a win. Like the federal Supreme Court, sorry, the Supreme Court deemed that the Emergencies Act was illegal and they're appealing it. and they're not going to win it. Now, what consequences that are? I don't know. But the point is, there are wins. The Supreme Court is not against. The table is being set.

If you didn't have Quebec, do what it did in the 90s. You wouldn't have the Clarity Act. You wouldn't have these things that set out maybe, maybe how a province could succeed. Right. Well, this is now, look, so this is factors of the House. This is Section 2 now of the Clarity Act. Factors for House of Commons to take into account. So, guys, the way it works is once you have your referendum, it goes, these are the people that have, and this, it's found in the Constitution Act.

Because remember, you now want to secede, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada must occur. And the way that that occurs is that there are rules for that. And I'll just show to you real quick, okay? Here it is. This is the Constitutions Act, Section 41. Can you read this, Sean? Or do you want me to read it? Oh, scroll.

Hold on, hold on. Yeah, yeah, I'll scroll it just so you can see. Yeah, yeah, there you go. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made. Well, hold on. Read that, read the header so the people are listening understand what the title of this is. Sorry. Amendment by unanimous consent.

Unanimity. Unanimity. Unanimous. It is, it must be unanimous. Keep going. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation, by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only were authorized by resolutions of Senate and House of Commons and of the Legislative Assembly of each province.

Okay, so hold on. How many things did you just count? Governor General. Senate, House of Commons, and Legislative Assembly. Four. Of each province. So each province. That's four.

So there's four people, four actors here involved. Okay. Keep going. A, the Office of the Queen, the Governor General, and the Lieutenant Governor of a province, B, the right of the province to number of members in the House of Commons, not less than the number of senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time. This part comes in due force. C, subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language,

D, the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada, and E, an amendment to this part. So you have four actors. This is the guys, this is no longer the Clarity Act. This is the Constitution's Act of 1967 to 1982. In order to change the Constitution, should you win that majority overwhelmingly, these four actors will be the ones that will be reviewing your referendum numbers. The Supreme Court actually goes on and says things, and I'll show you in a minute where they actually extricate themselves from the whole process.

Now, there's going to be court battles, but the Supreme Court will not re-dive into the redefining of these. They actually will leave it to what they call the political actors. Okay, Sean, but let's just go back to the Clarity Act just to kind of sum this up, okay? Where no expression of will, for the purposes of subsection three, a clear expression of the will of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada could not result from. A, a referendum question that merely focuses on a mandate to negotiate without soliciting a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province

should cease to be part of Canada. B, a referendum question that in, well, we did this one, hold on a second. No, we did that one. We did that one. We did that one. Constitutional amendments. This is Section 3 of the Clarity Act. It is recognized that there is no right under Constitution of Canada to affect the secession of a province from Canada unilaterally and that therefore an amendment to the Constitution of Canada would be required for any province to secede from Canada, which in turn would require negotiations involving at least the governments of all the provinces and the government of Canada. So we've already done this, okay? limitations. No minister of the crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to affect the secession of a province from Canada unless the government of Canada has addressed in its negotiations at terms of secession. So so far it sounds like Vesper, you're making this sound like it's impossible. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm trying to show Albertans that you want to win this. Y'all better get up, mosey on down and get mobile because what's going to have to happen is we're not talking. about you guys are going to win because you just bitch about it on X like I do, but you're going to get up and you're going to get political on this,

you know what I mean? You better get up and really, if you really want this, you can have it. But it's going to take every single one of you to understand that your province is in jeopardy. Now, I don't know that from my cursory, look at your demographic, Sean, in Alberta. it seems that the youngens, the 18th to 34 year olds, seem to be the most vocal majority. At the moment, you guys are not remotely in majority territory in terms of this whole argument.

Can that happen? Yeah, should it happen? I think it should have happened yesterday. I think you guys should be already at 50%. Because, let's be frank. I mean, Quebec wants to secede because Quebec is corrupt as, I don't know, dead body, but Alberta is not trying to leave because they're corrupt.

Alberta is trying to leave because of the corruption that is coming to it. Right. So I've asked this question before Tuse was on the show. I said, if y'all are so adamant about like this whole Alberta, Albert, I'm like, why isn't it that you guys haven't formed a majority and gotten the hell out already? And no one can answer that question because frankly, it's a human problem. Everyone needs to get up and go. But let's not derail this.

I'm done with the Clarity Act, by the way. The limitations and all that stuff is done. I do want to show you one or two places. I don't want to make this a, what do you call it, an an audio podcast, whatever you want to call it. I want this to be something that is profoundly clear for people. And we have to go now to the Quebec ruling because there's some things in the Quebec ruling that I don't think people know and it's important that people know this. So in the Quebec ruling in 1998, they say some things that are explicitly clear about what the principles of federalism are and on and on and on and on and on. But it's important to start out with what is the task of the court, right? That was doing all this. The task of the court has been to

so this is the Quebec ruling in 1998 about Quebec wanting to secede from Canada and they lost, but the Supreme Court was forced on because they, they were, Quebec, you know, tried to get like, hey, we got a almost majority. Come on. And they were like, no, no, no, we need to clarify this. What is it that we need to clarify? That we have to make it clear. clear and then they made the clarity act, but they did make it clear in the ruling. They just needed to simplify it in the clarity act and make it an act. Red tape over red tape. The task of the court has been to clarify the legal framework within which political decisions are to be taken under the constitution, not to usurp the prerogatives of the political forces that operate

within that framework. The obligations we have identified, these are the Supreme Court judges, are binding obligations under the constitutions of Canada. However, it will be. be for the political actors. Remember I told you about this, Sean? It will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes a clear majority on a clear question. So it's not the judges. Guess what happens if you take it to court? They will tell you it's not up to us. It's up to the politicians and it's up to the people. We're not getting involved. Now, can we debate some things in court? Of course, but they will not be the deciding factor here. Look at how they threw it back, basically, to the actors, okay, to determine

what constitutes a clear majority on a clear question in the circumstances under which a future referendum vote may be taken. Equally, in the event of a demonstrated majority, support for Quebec or Alberta secession in this case would be, the content and process of the negotiations will be for the political actors to settle the reconciliation of the various legitimate constitutional interests is necessarily committed to the political rather than the judicial realm, precisely because that reconciliation can only be achieved to the give and take of the political negotiations. To the extent issues addressed in the course of the negotiations are political, the courts

appreciating their proper role in the constitutional scheme would have what? No supervisory role. So here's another kind of thing that you all need to know. If y'all get a 65% majority, I think that's enough. But let's say the Laurentian elite government goes, yeah, no. And you guys come back with, what do you mean? No, we're going to take this to court. Okay, you can't take it to court.

No problem. And you will demonstrate, you know, that we have the will of them people and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and that the court and the federal government is being basically unfair, and they stand to, there's a massive complex, they stand to profit heavily off of Alberta and on and on and on and on, and then they ask the judges to rule on this. The judges are not going to rule on the legitimacy of your referendum. What they're going to rule on is if whether or not the lawyers coming against, let's say, the federal government are making a good case, but they will not rule, oh, this is a majority.

You guys effed up. Sorry, Canada. Alberta gets to leave. I hope this is clear. I've been talking a lot. I don't mean to do that. I think it's just important so that people understand the Supreme Court has already stated

that it is not up to them to be the deciding factors. It is up to the political actors that are going to be involved to determine this. All they can do is whether or not, they're like refs, right? they're not going to side with one guy or the other they're there to just uphold the rules

so to speak quote unquote hopefully right unbiasedly right no no no nothing no chicanery happening but they're there to just here are the boundaries of the game these are the rules don't ask us to tell you who wins it's the two teams that are going to decide who wins

now if if using i don't know if want to use a hockey or basketball metaphor if high sticking goes up we'll chime in if somebody i don't know give me another example on hockey well yeah if you get into a fight or right well there's a penalty yeah right we'll chime in but don't ask us to say uh yeah uh the flames beat uh the oilers they're never going to do that Yeah, it's laid out right there that they're going to push it back to the political actors. It's funny they even say political actors. Right.

Now, the other thing that's really important here is look at how they define this. In another section, and this is, I can tell you what section this is. By the way, I could reference this. This is 57. The underlying principle of federalism then has exercised the role of considerable importance in the interpretation of the written provisions of our Constitution. In the Patriation reference, Supra, we confirm that the principle of federalism runs through the political and legal systems of Canada. Indeed, they cite people like Bartlett, dissenting in the patrician, blah, blah, blah, considered federalism to be the dominant principle of Canadian constitutional law with the enactment of the charter.

That preposition may have less force than it once did, but there can be little doubt that the principle of federalism, remains a central organizational theme of our Constitution. Less obviously perhaps, but certainly of equal importance, federalism is a political and legal response to underlying social and political realities. The principle of federalism recognizes the diversity of the component parts of the Confederation and the autonomy of provincial governments

to develop their societies within their respective spheres of jurisdiction. The federal structure of our country also, facilitates democratic participation by distributing power to the government thought to be most suited to achieving that particular society. And then if you read here, look what it says, not to weld the provinces into one, nor to subordinate provincial governments to a central authority, but to establish a central government in which these provinces should be represented, entrusted with exclusive authority only in affairs in which they had common interests. Subject to this province, subject to this, each province was to retain its independence and autonomy and directly under the crown as its head.

This is where your sovereignty act falls in. Does that make sense? They are not saying that you guys cannot rule Alberta, but it needs to fall within a greater framework of federalism and constitutionalism. Does that make sense? Yeah, it does. I guess where my brain is at. And forgive me, Vesper, if I'm jumping things.

I go, I think what I'm learning from you today, right, is, A, it's reinforcing. You need a clear question with a clear majority to get a referendum or to have a successful referendum. forgive me but let's say you get 70%, 66%, whatever the percentage is, right, two-thirds. It's not going to be the courts that come down and go, okay, you can just leave. It's going to be pushed back to the political actors, which means you're going to have to deal with Ottawa and all the other provinces on how that even remotely goes from there. Let's take it back to your favorite subject hockey The Flames Blah the Hab 7-2

Any debate? No I mean in hockey there will be debate In politics there will be debate No no no what I mean is with a 7-2 Is anyone going to debate the score? If it was 10-0, nobody debates the score Now can someone play

Now this is this is the what two is called The Frank Castle in me that comes up the punisher sure who who reads the snakes uh okay um have you ever watched the longest yard with adam sandler sure do you remember when the when like he was just playing his first game with his thugs from prison and the ref was paid off to like completely help the guards they he could tell in the first two like huts like this guy is literally been paid off to help the other team so he's giving us all the bad calls and giving them all the good calls.

And you remember he took that football and threw it square into his nuts. And then he did it again. And he says, are you going to start calling the game fairly now? Yeah, all right, good. And then he gave him a wet, Willie. The whole point is the refs on the ice with a 7-2 win. The question will no longer be, did they win? Other doubts will then arise.

Well, what if the game was rigged? We can go down this road ad nauseum. and I don't want to because God knows that it's going to take forever to untangle this. But please understand fellow Canadians, Albertans. Even though I'm a Quebecer, I really have said before I set this country above any province. There is a like, look at Sean, man. He's on the other side of the world. I'm on the opposite side.

We're not even sharing the same time zone. And honestly, Sean would be like a brother to me. Tews would be like a brother to me. It was never and even the convoy showed that. We got Quebecers coming, meeting with Westerners. They broke down that lie. And that's what upset the establishment. This lie that the West is against the East,

well, you saw it in the convoy that we were unified. Well, they can't have that, can they? So the issue is never East and West. It's Eastern governments and the elite that are usurping the people, of the West and utilizing all the loopholes they can. This is a problem or a story of time. I mean, this has been going on in different stories or different examples for all of time. This isn't people, I agree 100% with you.

And when I look at this, I go, what I, what I've been saying over and over again is like, I think it's important we understand how they will attack us. Because if you go down this road, right, you play out this theory that Carney gets elected, and then everybody can see it. Like, I mean, you can just, you can just see it. As it gets closer and people start to worry about it. Like, is this a sciopathy? He isn't really going to win.

If he wins or they put him in place or whatever word you want to attack onto it, the thing that will happen on April 28th and for sure the following week, well, there will be this wave of anger and you can just, you can just see it. Well, listen, this is the last thing we're going to read. There's so much more. But I think I've galvanized people to look. into the clarity act, the ruling of 1998 for themselves. I'm not telling people what to believe. I'm telling people this is where you find the information. This is section 96 of that Supreme Court

ruling of Quebec, which by the way is a precedent now for Alberta. I want you to read this because it demonstrates the mindset of the Supreme Court. And I'm going to read one other thing about it that came years later by an invitee to the Supreme Court that shared her thoughts in retrospect. But this is very important for you to read, Sean, if you don't mind reading this. Can you just slide it a little bit? Yeah, I will. I will.

I will. It says no one can predict the course that such negotiations might take. The possibility that they might not lead to an agreement amongst the parties must be recognized. Negotiations following a referendum vote in favor of seeking secession would. Dumb, no, Redmond vote in favor of seeking the succession would inevitably address a wide range of issues, many of great important. Now watch this.

This is the point that I felt like, whoa, why are you putting this in here? After 131 years of Confederation, there exists inevitably a high level integration in economic, political, and social institutions across Canada. The vision of those who brought about Confederation was to create an unified country, not a loose alliance of autonomous provinces. Accordingly, while there are regional economic interests which sometimes coincide with provincial boundaries, there are also nationwide interests and enterprises, both public and private, that would face potential dismemberment. Keep going. Keep going.

There is a national economy and national debt. Arguments were raised before us regarding boundary issues. There are linguistic and cultural minorities, including Aboriginal peoples, unevenly distributed across the country, who look to the Constitution of Canada for the protection of their rights. Of course, secession would give rise to many issues of great complexity and difficulty. These would have to be resolved within the overall framework of the rule of law, thereby assuring Canadians resident in Quebec and elsewhere a measure of stability in what would likely be a period of considerable upheaval and uncertainty. Nobody seriously suggests that our national existence, seamless in so many aspects, could be effortlessly

separated along what are now the provincial boundaries of Quebec, as the Attorney General of Saskatchewan put it in his oral submission. A nation is built when the communities that comprise it make commitments to it, when they forego choices and opportunities on behalf of a nation, when the communities that comprise it make compromises, when they offer each other guarantees, when they make transfers and perhaps most pointedly, when they receive from others the benefits of national solidarity. The threads of a thousand acts of accommodation are the fabric of a nation. I'll stop there and I'll go back to my beautiful face. So what are we dealing with here, Sean? What do you think we're ultimately dealing with? Well,

A, one, my wife said it to me the other day while laying in bed. She's like, they're not going to let you leave. They're just not going to let you leave. And I'm not saying that. Well, I think Albertans better get on, on, better understand that. Like, come on, Vesper. I know you're not saying that, but let's all be real here. Oh, you go out and you have a nice vote.

Oh, wait, we did that. 67% wanted to get rid of, you go, payments. Anybody talking about that? Is anybody talking about that? No, they're not. Why? Because it wouldn't help Pierre Pollyov get elected. And then we'd have Kearney.

I mean, fuck me. Pardon the French. It's like David Parker. David Parker has said this lots. And I know there's a divergence on the name David Parker. But politics is not a spectator sport. You need people to be involved. And if you're going to

separate from a country. You best believe people need to be involved. And if you're going to be involved, then the next thing you better get ready for is the machine coming after you. That is proof in the pudding, convoy, you can just see it. Coots, you can see it. They're going to search out any which way they can do to undo it because they don't want it. And we have just read off for the first, you know, on and off an hour. The different ways in which they've caused confusion into a relative simply simple thing. You'd think if you got a clear majority with a clear question, we want out, just let us out. But that isn't going to be what happens. By the way, so this is, this is the last thing I told you I was going to read that was in retrospect. And if I may,

and if I may, Vesper, sorry, now I'm going to, I'll put it to you in a sports analogy that people in Lloyd specifically can fully understand. Because you said it's a human problem. I'm one point. Why haven't we left? I'm on a baseball board. I was saying this before we started. Okay. Lloyd is Alberta and Saskatchewan, half and half. So if you live onto the Saskatchewan side just out of town and you want to play AAA baseball, AAA hockey, it is really confusing, because the closest Saskatchewan place is an hour and a half away. Meanwhile, you're five minutes from it. And you'd think grown adults would be able to be like, no, why would we make somebody drive an hour and a half. That's not, that's not okay. You would think. That's not okay. Let's be

grown adults here. Let's sign a piece of paper and let them go play five minutes. And for love of God, be maybe considered of the parents there. But human beings have made a mess of this. And I'm probably making it more simple than it needs to be. But like, no, you're actually not. You're actually not. If a kid wants to go play. The lowest common denominator is that. So we, we wonder why this is, you better buckle up for the insanity that will ensue if you vote 80% to leave in Canada doesn't want you to go. Well, we've already seen in the last five years what's going to happen. In my my my my my my career in sports and now as a parent starting to see it, we already understand this. We all do. I mean, did you see how in the Supreme Court ruling of

Quebec, why would you need to invoke the historicity of Canada? What are you trying to imply under a hundred and thirty one years of Confederacy? It was never the intention of Canada to to be a loose set of provinces. We were supposed to be a nation like the Saskatchewan Premier said. Everyone's got to make sacrifices for the greater good. Dude, do you know what that sounds like? That sounds like a guy that got married. And so I'll take Keith's analogy.

It's a messy divorce. Dude, it's not a messy divorce. It's a lopsided messy divorce. Let's say you're the woman. Okay. Alberta's the wife. She wants to leave the abusive husband. Well, the abusive husband has everything under his name.

And the abusive husband is going to bring in dirty lawyers. And the abusive husband can rewrite all the papers he wants. He can do everything he can. The only thing the wife can do is demonstrate through the will of the people of Alberta. And I know I'm not supposed to say this as a Christian. Two fingers with a. with a majority that leaves no doubt. And that majority does not need to be a figure like you think,

like a 62.3. The idea is that if you have a population of 3 million, we said, adults that can vote 3.5 million, if 2.5 million vote, and they're going to try to like slow this down. By the way, remember Brexit? Yes. So Brexit, with not 130,

31 years of Confederacy, right? Like what, 20 years in the euro? Wanted to get out, want to vote. Brussels flipped out. Brussels stalled them for a year and a half and said, by the way, it was completely legit. Do you remember Cameron, the prime minister? He stepped down and said, if they win, if it say yes, I stepped down.

Like he was betting on it, like an idiot. And then like Nigel Farage basically said, there's the door, bro. Out. But what happened? You would have thought that negotiations would have taken place and it would have taken them maybe a year for the UK to get out of the euro. No. What happened was it took a year of all the technocrats out in the euro, all the corrupt

war mongers and all these people, which encompassed people like the W-EF, the Who, and all these oligarchs. globalists and asset management, banking, invest, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They stalled them for a year and made them do something that I could not believe. Do you remember what they did? They made them do a second vote. That is abusive. Oh, well, you know, we're not so sure that the vote truly captured the will of the UK public

just to make sure, let's make a second vote. No, that's not written in any article of the United Nations. You just breached your own articles. Because the UK, we can't have you leave. Well, we're going to leave. So they actually did it. My God, it's almost like the UK went, all right, mofos, you won a second vote?

Even though it's not legal, no problem. They gave them a second vote and they won the second vote. Yay, we're out. No, you're not. Three years stalled in negotiations. and then they're out. And that's for a country that only was in the euro for something like two decades, maybe more. You could fact check me.

I don't care of it. But it wasn't 131 years in a confederacy. I mean, what is the euro? It's a confederacy. I don't care what you call it. It's a confederacy of nations. Okay. So why did it take England after two referendum votes victories to it took them, what, five years collectively to get out?

Why? You would think that it would have been simple. We won the majority. Now, F off. Nope. It's going to take a lot of paperwork. There's a lot of interests, the economic impact on the rest of the euro, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You abandoning your euro going back to the dollar and the pound and blah, blah, blah, blah. If that is one country trying to leave one Confederacy that was there for less than 20 years, and all the chicanery that the euro was pulling on the UK, what do you think is going to happen in Canada?

The Senate, the Senate, the House of Commons are to rule on this. The provinces, do you think in a million years, my province is going to say, let them go? They want to go, let them go. No, they will not say let them go. Ontario will say don't let them go Nova Scotia will say don't let them go No one's going to say let them go

You know who's going to be your only partner in this in this one The referee You need to show the ref beyond a shadow of a doubt They're going to pull out you know the cameras When they want to check if there was any kind of in the goal Right they want to see if the puck actually sit in legally They want to make sure there was no high sticking They're going to look for everything

And what's going to end up happening is at the end of the day the supreme court is not going to be able to deny its eyes and the argument that you have a majority alberta if you want out all of you get off your butts and go and support this because it's not going to happen with a minority of people voting and that being a majority you can't have a million albertans 70% of a million It doesn't work that way. The way it works is all of Alberta is going to be taken into consideration. And then they're going to say, is that the will of the province?

That's what was my initial contention with Keith. But it's been resolved. He and I have talked. I love Keith. And I just wanted to light a fire under everybody that if you want this, go get it. I'm a Quebecer. I stand to win. I should be saying, ha ha, losers.

sucks for you stay where you are give me all my money do you understand but i'm not saying that i'm saying you want to win you must galvanize everybody and their mother vespers uh you mind making your screen full again i i'm looking at you like a little tiny corner out of this headline um oh there you are my apologies i listen all i'm saying to you is this that's it no i listen we're on the same page on this i know i look at this and i go So you want out, you need to galvanize the population. You were talking about the abused woman. It's like, well, the only option she has is to appeal to the people.

And what I see happening is I see this table being set. You go back to the Clarity Act, the clear question happened in the 90s. And it was set up for Quebec. Now, maybe back then people were like, oh, man, if we ever get the, just the right things happening, Alberta will be right in line. I'm sure there are Albertans that have been waiting for this moment for a long freaking time. But it isn't because of the 10%, the 2%, the 30%, whatever that percentage is that have been waiting for this. It's because of the common person. The common person is starting to talk about this. And they're starting to talk about this every single day now. And the table is

being set with a whole bunch of things. COVID was just one piece that had to have been played in order to get us to where we're at. It's actually, you know, we look at COVID for all the negatives that came of it because there was a lot. Well, one of the positives it did is it's put in play the fact that we're sitting here

less than a month away for an election and if Carney gets hand selected to be the next prime minister of Canada, it's going to galvanize a population. It is. Now, is it going to be enough? I don't know. I can't sit here and say.

I've been wrong lots on this show. But if there ever was a time, it seems like all the things are being set at the table to make it happen. Now, it's kind of the argument I have against PPCers. I'm like, if you want it, there's supposedly close to a million of you who voted last time.

Go and take it. Like, what are we waiting for? I don't get it. But now when it comes... But do you understand what the purpose of this meeting and that why I wanted to get on the show was not because of what you're saying is wrong?

It's I feel like Albertans don't understand. The chips are stacked against you constitutionally. In the Supreme Court, they made it very, they made it very difficult, not impossible. You definitely need not a majority of people that are in an echo chamber that want to go. You need to get all Albertans together to get out. Because if you don't get Albertans, all of them to get out, you know, in fact, I would almost say, whatever parties you have in Alberta in an ideal situation, they would drop their allegiances and just be Albertans.

Yeah, well, now you're talking to human condition, man. No, no, but hold on. Think about that. If the NDP dropped it and made it Alberta first, let's say you had a party called Alberta first, and the NDP people backed out, the conservative people backed out, the whatever,

is left. Who's living in a fantasy right now? I'm showing you something. Do you understand? It may sound like a fantasy. It does. But you tell me in what world

will you get 60% of the population, adult voting population, and that's a minimum. That's a minimum to get out. Short of, and you and

are both on the same page of violence is never an answer. But you know what? Sometimes, even in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, sometimes it is incumbent upon the citizens to take up arms against the usurpation of governments. It happens, man. It's a reality. I come from Lebanon, dude. It's a war zone till now, right? The Middle East is a freaking active war zone. It's a ticking time bomb constantly. Canada's just been very safe and nobody's ever ruffled any feathers and just like hockey and Adam Sandler. and Jim Carrey and all that BS. But the point is, the Albertans are existentially in an economic threat.

They've been in a threat. And now they're going to get into a worse threat. I actually pulled numbers. I don't know if you want to hear this. I pulled some numbers on the likelihoods of how bad it'll get if the liberals get in. You mind me sharing this? No, give her. So I went through like beyond like, you know, like the AI models and the whatever.

I actually pulled up the charts and did a mean average. Based on the likelihood and approximation, get this. And it's in the table. I need to send you this table. So likelihood and outcome and approximations for what would happen to Alberta. Oil and gas regulations increase. The likelihood of it being very bad is between 75 to 90, negative for traditional energy. So it's high.

So there's very high, moderate, low. equalization will remain unchanged likelihood very high 90%. Alberta Ottawa tensions rise. It's at high. It's at 80%. Wexit movement gains traction, moderate. 40 to 50%. See, that's what I'm shocked at. This should be high. That's going to scare Ottawa. That will probably help you with the equalization stuff. Do you understand what I'm saying? Like if that was high, I mean, you now have a, you have a, you have, you have the leverage. Cost of living increases due to carbon tax high, 70 to 85%. New social programs introduced. That is set to moderate. It's between 50 to 60. It will all depend on a conclusionary, uh, uh, uh, tax basically on whether or not they're going to include more programs.

If the liberals win, basically Alberta will likely experience a greater economic and political tensions with Ottawa, especially concerning energy and taxation. However, increased federal spending on social programs could provide some relief. The probability of secession remains very low, but dissatisfaction with federal policies could increase. And this is where I'm trying to say. And this is where I what I had with Keith was I need you to, I want. wanted you to make more clarity and he's acknowledged that while we've talked that maybe he could be a little bit more clear on the hurdles. There's nothing he said that was wrong. It was in my estimation, it just needed this side that we talked about this morning. All these rules and what you guys are

up against, like we were up against in Quebec, that set the precedent with the Supreme Court to clarify. And the problem is, and Keith was right when we were talking, he said, what is that number? It's ambiguous. Why was it left ambiguous? Why do you think, Sean? Simple. They don't want you to go. So if they give you a clear number and you hit it, they have to let you go. If you don't give a clear number, then they can always use that as a way to be like, well, you didn't hit. That isn't really a clear. You can hear the, you know, you go back to the hockey analogy. Seven to win. Is it a decisive victory? You say yes. And I can tell you a story where I say it isn't. I could, I could, I could, I could see. Really? I could sing you as a song.

Really? Oh, yeah. Give me an example. I'm eager to hear this. Oh, refs called two penalties off the start that were blatant, no calls, right? Or were blatant calls that were weak. They gave them the power plays. Then they missed an off sides.

That was goal number three. You kidding me? We scored two, made it three, two. Then we scored again to tied up. They called it off, said it was goalie interference, and on and on. And you can just hear how. how the the pundance of a story can make a seven to feel like it was actually a four two game man that was close and so when i look i i get when you look at this when i when i look at this i i've

been saying this to albertans i i guess i just don't need to hear it i but that doesn't mean the audience doesn't right that is you're trying to go okay we sit on what is it the third largest oil reserve on the planet roughly i think that's the number number I keep hearing. Arguably, arguably, if not higher. I don't know. That's not to go with all the other industry. Yeah, we're not talking coal, LNG. Are we so naive to think they're just going to let us go. Folks, wake up. I think we're, I think we're on this on this show. I hope. Well, what do you think today was? What do you think today was? It was to show you not my opinion, not nobody's opinion. This is what the law is said. Right. Now contend with the law. If you want to win this,

You better show the referees that you have a majority. And you could argue in court and you could do whatever you want. At the end of the day, the House of Commons. I agree with you. The governor general, the Senate. All I'm pointing out, and I think, you know, when I go back to where the conversation, to where it is today, when I started out, it was a Canada 51st state. Had a bunch of different people on. We just talked about it.

And by the end of it, Toos was trying to argue with me. And I'm like, Toos, you're wrong. and he'll probably call me after me saying this on air again. But like Canada 51st state is a terrible idea. Canada as a whole going as a 51st state is a terrible idea. I don't care who you are unless you're maybe one of the elites that makes zero sense for us out in the West. Make zero sense for probably Vesper, although he is out east. And there's a whole bunch of other people that would, it just doesn't make sense.

I'll be honest. I have no opinion. I have no opinion. I'm just sharing what are the likelihoods and what you're facing. As the story conversation continues to grow, I think there is, what I'm noticing is the table is being set. Now, if Carney gets in, for the last month, all the conversations, you could just throw them in the can and wait for the next opportunity. That's all I'm going to say is there'll be an opportunity somewhere down the road. Again, short of a complete civil war.

Correct. Or an invasion by the United States. Sure. Give me a scenario where the governor general, the Senate, the House of Commons, by the way, guys, and the people, Vesper, and the people. And the province and the provinces. I'm telling you right now, the Alberta population, if Pierre gets in, a whole bunch is just like, we got here. Things are going to get better. And it's not going to fix the equalization payments.

And it's not going to stay disgruntled. So you look at the table. going to get attacked on and we're building it off of i'm building it off of right the way my brain looks at this is i go everything my eyes tell me is pierre poliev is going to win minus you take out the polls and all the just i'm just like the videos and everything the way people talk it's just like pierre is the popular choice he has been now for what a year longer than that enter carney and you go okay Carney is a part of the elite world. Now, we've rattled off the weft and all these different things, the banking side of this, on and on and on.

He represents a ton of humanity that I'm not very fond of. You get him selected. Selected. Yes, use the word as the liberal candidate and the prime minister of Canada. And now he's going to run. He can't, I don't know, you're French speaking. Like, tell me, is he fluent, this fluent? I don't know.

Maybe I'm wrong on this. Is he a gifted orator in French? No, but that's not really the issue. I want to encourage you. Can I encourage you? Because I usually am not known for encouraging people, but let me encourage. I know I'm supposed to be a Christian encouraging people, but let me encourage you something. So I don't say this lightly.

I pulled in a lot of favors in the last year. And you know that I've had a hand in helping a lot of influencers build their brands and blah, blah, blah, and things like that. But before that, my career, I did a lot of favors for a lot of people. And some of those people are analysts. I have in the last three months pulled, I'd say roughly 16 analysts. One of them is more of a statistician. A few of them are in the States.

Some of them are in Europe, not Russia. Some of them are, they've campaigned together helping upper echelon brands. Sure. And I gave them all these numbers. and the media and the perception of the media and this, they found $160 million being pumped into liberal advertising apparatus in the last three months. These are guys that are way more equipped in terms of analysis than me, okay?

It's very, very important that you understand that there is a lot of smoke and all the people that I have relied on for the last 20 years are telling me you guys are still in majority. based on consensus. So then what are we even talking about? Because at the end of the day... Well, this is the great show, right? The great show is this whole Kamala Harris effect of...

I think what's happened is that people are so terrified. I mean, I had an uncle, 57 years old, very successful out in New Jersey. Call me with panic in his voice the day before the election about what are we going to do? do if Kamala wins. Like, how many times was the American media and the people that pundits for the right wing, Trump, MAGA, saying things like if the Democrats win, America as we know it is over. There is a catastrophization that is occurring in Canada. And rightfully so,

to some degree, but we have to recall that everyone was afraid Kamala Harris who jumped it out of nowhere was going to win was going to win and so kamala has had her chuckling laughing thing that was making her sound stupid she sounded like a robot but we have a carny who can't speak french is condescending is all these he's not ready he's just not ready right give him a couple more years he might be ready let him lead the the opposition party if they even make it to the opposition party maybe then i'd say he'd be ready to properly verbal fencing. But the fact of the matter is these analysts that have all of them, over 30, some of them between 20 to 30 years of experience in analyzing this, I pulled in all my

strings that I don't share who they are. And what ends up happening is that they all come back and they say to me, yeah, this is not going to happen. This is just not going to happen. It still looks like a conservative majority. Vesberg question for you. What is your thoughts on the 2019 election in the states Trump versus Biden I was stolen okay can you

all these analysts you talk to excuse me they all saw all the missing votes okay no no but all these analysts that you're talking to that are saying you're in a clear majority you guys are going to win can they account for if it's stolen

no but see here's the thing So there's a distinction in our federal governments, and I don't know if you've had people that already explained this, so I apologize if I'm explaining it. Federal elections are counted by hand. There's no machines. Okay? The distinction between America and Canada is that we count our ballots by hand. Can that be rigged?

Anything can be rigged. You know me. From the people that I spoke to, now I didn't pull on this network of people that I worked with for the American elections, but the word trend is people look at charts and talk trends, but there are social cues that people need to keep in mind. One of the things that people don't understand, and I'll call this out, so people like Patrick Bed David on PBD, right, people like Maxin Bernier, people like all these people, okay? People forget that different geographic terrains for warfare are different circumstances of

engagement and the rules of engagement change. If PBD thinks that Pierre, for example, going out and doing what Trump did is going to get him votes, he's mistaken. Why? The landscape is different. The trends are different. The language is different. The mindset is different. You don't war in Canada like you wore in America. You just don't. There's a reason why, If Maxim is the small Trump, then why isn't all of Canada behind them? PBD. Precisely because Canada has been primed with a trend mindset towards a socialistic, democratic way of thinking. Trump is a Democrat, but he promoted republicanism.

People forget this amount of America. They are not a democracy. No matter how much the Democrats want to call out Democratic Republic. You are not a Democratic Republic. You are just a republic, right? And that's the problem. When you then wore in a republic, it is a very different mindset with people that are very patriotic. Americans by nature are very anti-conformist. They rebelled against the crown.

They will fight anyone. They will antagonize and take any side on. on any issue that benefits them, which is a good thing. I don't mind that. I mean, you've all watched Armageddon Independence Day. There's an American flag fighting everything. The mindset of Americans is not the mindset of the nice Canadian peacekeeping people, right? When you look at the elections, for example, in America, 2019, Trump should have won.

it was it was clear people did not want the mainstream media the democrats the pelosi's all that stuff but how could you know well easy you look at the social cues and the trends and the things that go on not just with the lawsuits the Pelosi's going uh an insider trading all the all the garbage that happened. But at the same time, you then come back to Canada, right? So people forget this. It's actually fascinating. Trudeau was prime minister in the two terms of Trump. He literally saw three presidents in his in his time in office, which is fascinating. People forget that. We've had basically a monkey running this country while America had three presidential elections, right? the rigging is not happening on the ballots themselves.

The rigging in Canada will happen through mental manipulation and perception. What China is trying to do in Canada, before I go back to America, is trying to discourage and give this boogeyman illusion. It's like those movies, you know, where the guy does a shadow puppet of a big, scary monster, but it's just your fingers. They're trying to do this based on what my analysts are saying that there is a ton of money being funneled. They don't know where. They can't say who, but they're seeing a lot of an influx of money that is suddenly propagating all over, not just X'd, but YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok. And they're looking at this,

like, why is this money suddenly being pumped in? They see the conservatives pumping money in, but not at the rate that the liberal apparatus seems to be. And they made a correlation that there is a marketing campaign to skew perception. Does that make sense so far? In America, what made it so that Trump even lost? Was it the election? I would say that it was a lot of things. You had the FBI against you.

you had the CIA against you you had a house right the house was against you i think he had the senate but even the senate was trying to distance themselves from him and after four years of biden come on man eating chocolate ice cream and this is like mr i sleepy joe and them deeming Christians as domestic terrorists for speaking up at schools and the whole transgender agenda and the dismemberment of children and a bunch of things. It was, this is the social cues we're talking about that you got to watch. This is what I was telling my family. Like, are you not seeing this?

Are you not seeing the foaming discontent that's going to lead people's feet to a voting booth and vote? Like, it could have been Mussolini. They didn't care. Get these guys out. Like, I've said this to you before and I've joked a twos. I'll take the Cozumostra any day over any government in Canada because I know that they'll only tax me about 30%. Max, they'll always just ask me for give me 30% of whatever it is that you want.

Sure, no problem, Mr. Don Giovanni. Here you go. Here's your money. Don't take half my money. So I think America, and again, based on just, just looking at it. We've agreed me and some of those people that I work with that we knew that Trump was going to win, but it's understandable why people were afraid of Harris because let's face it, what's

happening to these people in America is now happening to Albertans. Let me tell you something that you probably don't know. Nobody in Quebec is panicking. Explain that. Nobody in Quebec is panicking over this? Nope. Nobody. I don't know.

I would say different mindset. I don't know if that's a, if that's a fair. Because it doesn't affect us. Sure. And didn't, forgive me. I mean, it does affect,

it does affect us. It doesn't affect us. The premier who you guys had in place for COVID, you guys voted him back in a place. Yes? No, we, we didn't vote him back in the place.

He bribed everyone for $500 across Quebec. You call it whatever you want to call it. That's how he got the vote. Listen to me. You call it whatever you want to call it. You voted him back in, right? Yeah.

And he's the guy who locked you down. Oh, yeah. Tell me how that makes any sense. Tell me how it makes any sense. It makes sense within the context that Quebec is corrupt and a construction. But we're talking to the human condition and everything else. So I look at the two provinces and I go, so why is Alberta so different? We, I mean.

Because different is not different Canada, because Alberta is not corrupt. Alberta is being. There's a lot of Albertans who would say differently. No, no, no. We're not saying that level of corruption. Of course, there's corruption. everywhere. That's not what I mean. What I'm saying is Quebec is foundationally corrupt. But but the question, okay, but the question is why is no Quebec are upset about where things are

going right now? You already said, well, you know, it's not going to affect us one way or another, but it is like it is. Not to make light of it. It's because the equalization payments make life easier here for us than it does for you. And so because we're more comfortable than you, we're not as pissed off as you. I can get an apartment for $1,000 here. How much of the apartments in Alberta? Not that cheap. I can get groceries that are cheaper here.

There's so many things in Quebec that we've always been the cheapest place for housing and renting and on and on. The point is, is this, so that we don't completely disloose. whatever it is that we were saying. No, no, part of the reason, part of the reason like, I'm staring at this election and you go, well, it's different, it's different terrain on how to win it compared to or how to take it compared to the United States. Fair. Right. And so, and so we look at 2019 and we go, did they take it or did they not? Right. And all the people I respect all say the same

thing. Because I, I'm like, I don't know, did they take it or didn't they? And they did. Arizona was one of the places that people big time dropped, what, 200,000 votes? And so everything they said against Donald Trump, right? They really painted them. They're against the FBI. You're against the CIA. They're against everything. The first year he won, he had 62, almost 63 million votes.

The next year in 2020, he had 74 million votes, which means he had a stronger group of Americans come out for him than the first time around. And then, too big to rig in 2024, he had 77 votes. million come out what i'm what i'm saying here is although the landscape and the rules are different if all the people i respect say 2019 they took it okay they lost in 2024 do they does this group of human beings yeah but but you go no but you're making i'm sorry all those people that said that i hope some of them did mention that they were using electronic means for voting Canada does not do that.

And there's a difference. It's not where. I'm not saying, I'm not saying that they're going to come in and use the same means by electronic. I just mean the intent is still going to be the same. They want Canada. Well, they're already doing it. They're already doing it with hand-dong.

If a Quebecers can be won over in your estimation by a $500 here, the guy literally just locked you up, curfews, on and on and on. Hold on. But $500 is going to change it. They just gave you before he went on his run. Yeah, yeah. I know. He's going to give you a whole bunch of money.

And if that's the simplicity of the east side of Canada, they're already doing it. No, here's where you got to remember. I don't know if you recently looked up this thing. But can you look things up while we're having a conversation like show the people? Sure. Look up Premier Lego. Look up Pierre Pauliev immigration. So Lego is pro-Pualiev.

You know why? Because Poliyev told him, I will take my hands off of forcing you and you can decide your own immigration. The federal government of Pierre Pauliev will not involve. What is Legault want? Legault does not, he wants, he does not want the federal government

to decide the immigration levels. Look it up, you'll see. So yeah, he's a piece of, you know, meat. Let's call him that. But let's also acknowledge that there's a reason why Eve Blanchette and Premier Legault are favoring the conservatives because Pierre and people that know Anida, his wife, it was from Montreal and Quebec. And this person has family here still.

They just want their own, they want the federal government to get its hands off of immigration. And just on that alone, they're going to back the, they're going to back here. Here's what X says. Premier Francis Lago wouldn't tell Quebecers explicitly who to vote for, but praised Pierre Pollyette for promising Quebec would have almost full control over its own immigration. This is a win for Quebec. That is... Yeah, but what is that also a win for?

Well, Canada. But will Pierre fix equalization? My argument is, no. Will it come to the table? Perhaps. This is where Keith gave me optimism when he... said there is a greater likelihood under pierre that we can have that discussion much better because what is pierre really about i mean forget his morale and blah blah blah pierre wants to open up the west

and there are there's a ton of red tape like you said so rightfully before where my beef if i could just end on on this whole thing my beef has never been on the politics of things it's that are like you said the red tape over the red tape over the red tape act upon act upon act upon act nothing is clear everything is hurtled i'm not saying it should be simple look law is complicated precision is required but things like vagueness on what constitutes a majority like this is dumb set a number set a number why wouldn't you do that well you know because you know Oh, no, that's... Some people might not be represented.

The furries might not be represented. The banana people might not be represented. The purple people might not be represented. And then, you know, it matters. We have to take all these into consideration. How long is I going to take? Oh, it's going to take a while. Like, what's a while a year?

Did you write how long it'd take? No, we didn't write how long it would take. We just wrote that it would be not an easy negotiation. My problem is the fact that we are dealing with a very antiquated, system of law, the Constitution of Canada is built well, but is no longer with the times. It is presupposing that everybody is acting in good faith. Our constitution needs to become more of a, like a today contract. Like, you know what I mean?

NDA style. Like, like, if this, if that, if this, if the million. a subsection that if you breach this, if you breach that, but then you ask yourself, Sean, and I'm asking you a question and every viewer. If you are in power and writing a contract, how would you write that contract? I mean, I know you all know the answer. You're not writing a contract to benefit the other party. You're going to write a contract.

Now, you may be a Christian and you'd say, let's make it 50-50, but something tells me that it's not the case. People that want to be in power are going to write social contracts to make sure. Like, why would you need a clarity act? We already have the ruling of the Supreme Court. Why would you need to make another act? Then there's the United Canada Act.

Then there's the Constitution's Act. Then there's this act and that act that's contingent on that act. Why are you making all these hurdles? For years, we've been. We've all just been enjoying our freaking Tim Horton's double, doubles, eating our donuts, watching hockey. And these guys in the background have just been making act after act, amending act, after act, preparing everything.

So now that Alberta wants to leave, gets 2 million people out of, let's say, the 3 million, that's a majority. No, no, we have to weigh if it's the will of people. No, you don't. It's a majority. Well, it's a majority if it doesn't infringe on the purple people. Which it will. Wait a minute.

Where does it say that in the Constitution or the act or it doesn't? It just left it open that the House and the Senate decide. I don't know. Did Keith bring that up in the conversation? I can't remember right now. But did he mention that it's the House that has preeminence in this? Then the Senate and then the Governor General. And then it falls to the provinces.

I'm three if you don't remember it's okay I I don't know if it didn't but I want to remind everyone I can't remember so I'm sorry if it sounds gloomy I think you can do it Alberta I don't I don't I don't think it sounds gloomy I like to me uh I've been arguing this back and forth maybe with you but certainly with others for a long time it's like yeah it's it's not this easy thing you get 10 people and out we go like and you get into the political realm and you're you realize there's bad faith actors that are going to come in and try and dismember it so it can't get off the ground and it's going to be on and on and on freedom community can talk lengthy about all the different people who come in and try and stir up crap to just destroy what is it

unity you talked about it early on in this i guess i just look i just look at the world vespers and maybe i'm completely wrong and you give me that face give me that face what is that face no you're not wrong look man usually i could come on and we talk and I'm always like, yeah, he's completely wrong and blah, blah, blah, blah. But that's not what I'm doing here. I'm not saying anyone is particularly wrong here. This whole show, and thank you for having me on again, was to inform everybody of where you can go, what you can read, and ignore what I say.

Don't trust the thing I say. Don't trust what anyone tells you. Do your own reading, research. And it's not hard, guys. I agree with you. I agree with you, but I think where a ton of people are getting to. And this is both very like, whoa, that's a little bit unnerving. And yet, then you look at the world and you go, am I going insane?

If Carney gets in, this whole thing revolves around Carney getting in because we can both agree. Pulliev gets in tomorrow. This is a whole conversation. But I'm going to make an argument. I'm going to make an argument. Even if Carney gets in, if this galvanizes Albertans and you get 2.5 million Alberta What does it mean if Carney gets in Vesper? It means that you guys are going to have a fire lit under all of you and you're going to make sure

that every Albertan is going to be on board with this referendum. This is where the Sovereignty Act helps you. And you then get Daniel Smith to lead the charge and get a 65 to 70% majority of our burdens we want out and the Supreme Court will not stand in your way will they try to throttle you in negotiations will they try to like create it very hard monetarily for you to get out that's that's fine but you can get out problem I just want people to know there is always a way out you said something I think yesterday with with uh you guys there is yeah there is always hope there is always hope

God is on our side and God will never give us a situation where there is no way out. There's always a way out. And Alberta has a way out, but it has to be overwhelming. So are you in the driver's seat, as Keith said on your show? You are. My job is today was to, and I'm sure Keith, I'm hoping is going to reinforce this, is to map out what the terrain looks like as you're driving. driving. This is a rally car. This is not a NASCAR ride. This is going through terrains of ups and downs and

weather and things on like that. You can do it. If dude, if anybody could do it, it's Albertans. Tough as nails, salt of the earth people. You just need to get on board and unify. It's that simple. Vesper, appreciate you coming on today and doing this. It was my pleasure. I hope I would of some benefit to some of your viewers. Every time. Absolutely every time.