The Ben Mulroney Show - Our political panel digs into Alberta separatism and Guilbealt's scorched earth campaign

Episode Date: December 8, 2025

Guest: Max Fawcett, Lead Columnist for Canada's National Observer - Guest: Dimitri  Soudas, Former Director of Communications for Prime Minister Stephen Harper If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://link.chtbl.com/bms⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Also, on youtube -- ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@BenMulroneyShow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Insta: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ Executive Producer:  Mike Drolet Reach out to Mike with story ideas or tips at [e-mail] Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This podcast is brought to you by the National Payroll Institute, the leader for the payroll profession in Canada, setting the standard of professional excellence, delivering critical expertise, and providing resources that over 45,000 payroll professionals rely on. back to the Ben Mulroney show. It's Monday. It's near the end of the show. We like to supercharge it with two of our favorite guests, Max Fawcett and Dimitri Sudas. They are always here on Mondays for this weekend politics, the Monday edition. To the both of you, I hope you had great weekends, great respective weekends, and I hope Monday is shaping up to be great as well. Let's jump right in. And, Dmitra, I want to start with you. Explain to me this Alberta judge blocking a referendum on separation in Alberta, claiming that it doesn't.

respect first nation's treaty rights and then do quebec for me and then the rest of the country in case we become the 51st state which we won't so good luck to a judge on trying to block a referendum on anything quite frankly a referendum is a public consultation in this case it would be a referendum on Alberta separation so there is a technical difference between a referendum to separate Alberta from Canada versus a referendum to separate Quebec from Canada, because Alberta became a province by federal statute in the early 1900s, and there wasn't a negotiated agreement or a plebiscite, unlike Quebec, which joined Confederation in 1867 through negotiated terms. So because Alberta was created by federal law, the Canadian Parliament actually has the

constitutional authority to modify or abolish it. under Section 45. Now, there's a difference at this point between what's going on in Alberta and in Quebec. Why do I say that? Well, you have a premier that says she's a federalist. She wants to keep Alberta within Canada. At the same time, the sovereignist movement or the separatist movement, as Anglophones like to call it, in the last by-election, which took place in Alberta and Pierre Paulyev got elected, they got less than, I think, one or two percent of the vote. On the other hand, in Quebec, you currently have the Parti-Chebecois party that was founded in the 1970s that is leading in the polls and promising a referendum in the first

mandate. The big difference is that the first two referenda, 1980 and 1995, were held prior to the Clarity Act. If the PQ wins, and if there is a referendum in Quebec in 2000, between 2006 and 2030, if the PQ wins, it would have to be under the rules of the Clarity Act as well. Wow, geez, I mean, you just laid it out chapter and verse for us. let's go to somebody who is in the heart of it as well max you're in alberta what do you what do you make of this at this ruling and um you know what do you look the whether whether or not you agree max with the alberta's separatist movement whether or not you agree with with any of that what does it say that yet again there's another judge bringing uh it seems like the litmus test

for almost everything these days is first nations rights. And I'm finding it all, because I don't remember it being this way in the past. Now, I'm not making a value judgment on whether it's right or wrong. I'm simply saying I'm hearing more about it from the bench than I ever have before. Sure. So, I mean, I think we need to take the judge's ruling at face value. He was very clear that this does not actually block a referendum on separatism. He was very clear about that. I see, you know, folks in the fever swamps of the internet trying to claim that the judge is restricting the liberties of Albertans. Nothing could be further from the truth. And his decision actually calls on a decision

that was made in 1997 with respect to Quebec. So the idea that there's a double standard here is just demonstrably untrue. All you need to do is read the judge's ruling to see that he's building on a decision that stemmed from the 1995 referendum in Quebec. Both governments in Quebec and the government in Alberta has a constitutional responsibility to respect uh indigenous title and indigenous treaties and as you know demetri pointed out that the treaties uh that that were signed in alberta there's a number of number treaties were signed between the crown and indigenous nations they were not signed by alberta so alberta cannot on its own violate those treaties um i know this this upset some people but but indigenous people have rights too in this country yeah uh

and they get to exercise them through our courts. Rest assured, the separatists in Alberta will get their referendum. The Alberta government of Daniel Smith is doing everything in her power to ensure that they get to have their referendum. The judge's ruling was in part a response to legislation tabled by the government of Alberta that prevented courts from ruling against referendum questions posed by members of the public. So she is bending every rule she can, most of them made by herself, to ensure that these separatists get their question on the ballot.

So do you think, Max, that this is a question, I guess what is with each successive Quebec referendum, and now Alberta is having their kick at the can, it's this ever-evolving attempt to establish rules of the game in real time. In other words, when you set out to build a country, you don't necessarily set out the rules to break up that country. And so as as new players come in to take their kicket, breaking it apart, we got to create new rules. A little bit.

Yeah. I mean, I mean, you know, look, we didn't have the Clarity Act in 1995. And thank goodness we passed that afterwards that, you know, we now have a, you know, a mandate or a ruling that says you have to have a clear majority on a clear question, not 50 plus one on a very muddled question. So that was progress. Yeah. You know, I suspect we will perhaps see more progress as we move forward here. But the antipathy that some folks have towards the courts is, I think, wildly misplaced. It's a tell.

And I would just encourage them to, you know, imagine how they would feel about the courts pushing back against governments. If it was a government they didn't like. Yeah. They seem very happy to criticize the courts when they're ruling against conservative governments. When they're ruling against non-conservative ones, suddenly their opinions change. I know you can see what's happening in the United States right now. All right. Well, we got a little more time.

I'll just, I'll editorialize for one sec. If you can tell me what a clear question and a clear answer to that question are. I got it. Yeah. Oh, you've got it? Tell me. Tell me because I'm telling you, there are a lot of people out there who believe that 50% plus one is the definition of a clear answer. I know that you're shaking your head, Max, but there are people out there to say 1% above

50, one person above 50 is the definition of clear. So, Demetre, what do you say? Well, as you know, I'm born and raised in Quebec, Ben. So I am 50% plus one, but to a very clear question. What's that very clear question? I was campaigning in 1995. I was 16, 15 years old. And it was literally a paragraph and a half. The question is so simple. Do you want to separate Alberta from Canada? Do you want to separate Quebec from Canada? And even if Alberta, Alberta held a referendum. A yes result, I'm on the 50% plus one side, that would only force negotiations with Ottawa. It does not force automatic independence. And don't forget the 1980 referendum in Quebec by René Leveque, the 1995 referendum by the PQ, especially the 1981. Its main objective was

to get a mandate from the people of Quebec in that case in order to negotiate a better deal within Confederation and if there was no passage to a better deal, then that would mean more discussions and possibly another referendum for independence. I will remind you that in the early 1990s, negotiated by the government of Brian Mulroney and at the time the liberal government in Quebec, Quebec got more immigration powers, for example, to control its immigration. Ottawa kept some of those powers, but again, these are the discussions. In the case of Alberta and Max probably knows better than me, the question is natural resources. Yeah. Well, I think, listen, I'm of the opinion that 50% plus one shouldn't cut it because the, as we say in French, Les Angues, they are different.

Like if you get a yes versus a no at 50% plus one, a no is a no for today and a yes is a yes forever. And therefore, I think that the benchmark that that you have to clear should be higher than 50% plus one. I think it's got to take into account some people who are voting emotionally. And if you want to know that if you attested that question again six months later, you'd still get the same result. And I think if you're talking about the life of a country and ending it in a meaningful way, then 50% plus one,

because that could change the day before the day after, is too low. But that's one humble radio shows host's opinion. I don't know. Max, what do you think? We only have about half to a three seconds. A humble radio show host who lived through Meach Lake, Charlottetown, and so on.

Yeah, Max, what do you think? I mean, I think it should be a super majority, something that consequential. You cannot unbreak up a country. It is extremely difficult. You know, we see this right now in the UK with Brexit. Just the damage that's been done to that country's economy and the challenge they're having

and sort of putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It's not like an election. It's not like you can just replace the people at the next election. This is life or death. And it should be a super majority. And if you can get that amount of people to want to break a country up,

then, you know, full steam ahead, I suppose. Yep. All right. Well, we're going to take a break. When we come back, we're going to talk about these trucks that ICE is building from Canada that are less and less Canadian as the day goes by. Don't go on here. The Ben Mulnery show continues.

Canada's Wonderland is bringing the holiday magic this season with Winterfest on Select Nights, now through January 3rd. Step into a winter wonderland filled with millions of dazzling lights, festive shows, rides, and holiday treats. Plus, Coca-Cola is back with Canada's kindest community, celebrating acts of kindness nationwide with a chance at $100,000 donation for the winning community and a 2026 holiday caravan stop. Learn more at Canada's Wonderland.com. At Capital One, we're more than just a credit card company. We're people just like you who believe in the power of yes. Yes to new opportunities. Yes to second chances.

Yes to a fresh start. That's why we've helped over 4 million Canadians get access to a credit card. Because at Capital One, we say yes, so you don't have to hear another no. What will you do with your yes? Get the yes you've been waiting for at Capital One.ca.ca. Yes. Terms and conditions apply. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show and welcome back to this week in politics, our Monday edition, which means we are pleased to be joined by

Max Fawcett and Demetri Soutis, guys, thanks for sticking around. Let's talk about Stephen Gilbeau, the former environment minister. I mean, he's had other portfolios, but that's really the one he was known for, deciding to step away from Cabinet for environmental reasons. And now it feels like he's lightened the house on fire on his way out, suggesting that Canada's MOU, the federal government's MOU with Alberta, could make Quebecers feel a certain way about independence. What do you think of that, Max?

I mean, I think Albertans would be flattered to believe that Quebecers are so keyed in on what we're doing here with our natural resources. I find it a little hard to believe that that's going to be a motivating factor for separatists in the province of Quebec. You know, Gibo has a view of the MOU and its impact on climate policy. I have a view that is markedly different than that. But I just beggars belief that what Alberta does with its oil and gas is going to be. be anywhere near the top of the political agenda in Quebec, if that oil and gas isn't coming east, which it isn't. Dimitri, what are your thoughts on this? And what does this, if anything, telegraph about Giebeau's political future? Well, let's talk about his political past first.

He was on the yes campaign to separate Quebec from Canada in 1995. And I wouldn't be surprised if he was on that same bus, if Quebec had another referendum in the next four years. Now, Stephen Gilbeau is scorching the earth and is emitting more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire country by doing this. What's his endgame? His end game, I think, is to slowly but surely go back into activism mode. I would add the following point. While Quebec does not really care about a pipeline that potentially goes from Alberta to

Northern British Columbia. Quebec does care, and I think other provinces do care about what Mark Carney promised and what Mark Carney is doing. And let's be clear, this MOU with Alberta is a 180 degree of the net zero Mark Carney prior to him becoming liberal leader and liberal prime minister. It is a 180 degree in terms of what he promised during the election campaign. So it's not so much on the issue itself, but much more so on credibility of what is the value of his promise. Well, and that's interesting because, you know, he's a, he's a moving target, Max. Like, uh, there's, what, what, it's, it's, it's hard to nail him down for what he said on the campaign trail. And, and if you ever try to do that, people say, well, things have changed. And

so there's, there's a lot of grace for him. There's nothing wrong with that. I mean, if, if, if that's how people want, want to hold someone accountable, that's, it is what it is. But it's, you know, he's, he's, he's, he's still enjoying a little bit of a honeymoon, isn't he? A little bit. I think the Trump effect kind of guarantees that for maybe longer than it would otherwise. I just don't buy the framing that Dmitri offered there that, you know, this is a 180-degree turn. I know that environmentalists think that, a little surprised to hear Dmitri in league with them. But, you know, if you look at the actual, if you look at the substance of what he said in the campaign,

you know, his first decision as Prime Minister was to get rid of the carbon tax, the consumer car. tax. He has always believed in the industrial carbon tax, in the importance of it, in its effectiveness, in markets, and that is exactly what he did with the MOU. He is betting on markets. He is betting on capitalism. He is betting on the industrial carbon tax. And if you read through the MOU and look into the numbers, there's a very credible case that it will deliver more emissions reductions than the policies that Stephen Gebo is mourning about, which wouldn't come into place until 2035, by the way. That assumes that we're not going to have a conservative government for the next 10 years. It's not a bet I would want to take. I'm not sure why Gibo would either. But it just, yeah, the math doesn't math the way I think some folks wanted to. All right. Well, I want to move on to some news that, and depending on how you read it, depending on your perspective, it was either great news last week or not so great news that a Canadian company was selling their wares to the United States government. There was an armored an armored vehicle company from the greater Toronto area that called Rochelle that was selling

its vehicles to the Immigration Customs Enforcement Agency, ICE in the United States. And a lot of people, including the NDP, took great issue with this because ice. And it is what it is. Actually, it wasn't a very surprising thing that they were going to take issue with it. But then we'll find out that these vehicles are going to be made in the United States. And Max, I'm thinking, is this even a Canadian company anymore? Like, where the jobs are not going to be in the United States? Yeah, maybe not for long, especially with the blowback that's probably going to come its way. Look, you know, business is going

to business. And if you want to sell your wares to the Trump administration, fill your boots, but don't be surprised if there's a price to pay in this country. And I think in the fullness of time and not very much of it, anyone doing business with ICE or affiliated with ICE is going to look very, very bad. And we all take ownership of our choices. And, you know, I think that's going to be the case here as well. Demetri, I just, it's, it's one of these things about Canada, where I, and with great respect to Max, it's like, do we have the luxury to be making these sorts of choices these days. We are, I mean, I don't know what to say. Yeah, go ahead. You go ahead. Moral indignation and moral scandals. To this day, Barack Obama has deported more illegals than

Donald Trump has. Listen, guys, the military, industrial, and defense relationship between our two countries, it's not occasional, it's not transactional, it's structural. And what is ICE doing? ICE is doing what its mandate requires it to do, which is enforcing immigration laws, including detaining and removing individuals who entered or remained in the United States illegally. So if there's anything wrong with a Canadian company supplying armored vehicles to a U.S. government agency, let's say what the issue is. These vehicles are not, you know, for mass combat. suppression or warfare in the United States.

And as you said, Ben, the vehicles are actually built in the United States. It's not some rogue militia that's going around in the United States, capturing people and doing whatever with them. ICE actually operates under U.S. law, under the executive branch with congressional oversight and judicial review and deportations are not violations of rights. They are the legal consequence of entering or remaining in a country illegally. And Max, for me, what it comes down to, it's yet another example of Canadians just thinking we have the luxury to put pressure on a company, one of the few companies doing business and signing contracts in a time where we need more businesses to be successful.

And it's this odd Canadianism where we think we're doing far better than we are. I think we're allowed to have moral principles about the way that the American government is conducting these raids, this campaign, the tactics, the brutality of it. I mean, look, you can put numbers up of, you know, the deportations done by the Obama administration, which, by the way, had eight years versus the Trump administration, which is in year five. you know, the devil is in the details and the details are horrific. So look, this company is welcome to create jobs in America. I don't really see how that helps Canada all that much. And it's a pretty small contract that they have. So let's not make this out to be, you know, some massive, you know, procurement.

That's fair. But look, at some point, you have to, you as a country, have to decide what your principles are worth and whether they can be bought. And I think this is a pretty good line for us to draw that we do not. treat people the way the Americans are treating them in this sort of massive anti-immigration, anti-people-of-color campaign, which is what it has devolved into. Dmitri, they're only letting people into the country who have white skin now. I mean, come on. Dmitri, I'm going to give you the last 20 seconds.

You know, it comes down to one very simple, basic point. You wish to enter any country. You must enter it legally, not illegally. And we have the exact same problem here. in Canada with illegal immigrants. We don't know where most of them are. The difference between us in the United States is they're doing something about it and we're not.

All right, gentlemen, I want to thank you very much for a spirited way to start the week. I hope you guys have a great one and we'll see you back here next week. The world is changing from the misuse of AI and the rise of deepfakes to the dangerous spread of misinformation. It's getting harder for Canadians to separate fact from fiction. That's why having a trustworthy news source is vital. At global news, we're committed to objective journalism that cuts through the noise. Stick to the facts.

Global News. Canada's trusted news.