What's, what's your analysis?

Yeah, I mean, as Stephen said, uh, legally we're, the, the, the folks on, on both sides of the camp of, of these questions, um, they can't collude [laughs] according to the law, and, and they've been doing a very good job of, of making sure that they don't run afoul of that legislation.

It's very different from Quebec as well, right? Quebec's referendum law states clearly you can only have one team on either side of a question, and Elections Quebec has a lot of authority in choosing who that might be.

I think, yeah, my, my thinking has evolved on this as well.

I think there's an expectation in a referendum that because there's two options there will be two sides.

But in, you know, modern campaigning, uh, you know, it's very difficult for different voices to break through out- outside of their bubbles and outside of their, their partisan and ideological camps.

And so it's, it's not necessarily a bad thing, you know, to have, uh, you know, Stephen's group, uh, talking to one group of, of folks that's very different from the Lukaszuk group in Forever Canadian, which is distinct from the Lead Not Leave folks that we're talking to.

So what, what have been some of the biggest practical challenges you've faced?

Mm

...

they seem to think that th- these are folks that are predominantly from rural areas, predominantly men, older, from blue-collar jobs and, and so on, and that they're...

If, if we're getting into normative judgments, a lot of urban progressives would label them as being rednecks or backward or somehow falling, falling behind society in some way.

If you unpack it enough, I think that's what a lot of people think.

But if you dig more deeply into the polling results, you find actually that there are some folks that fit that description, but that a lot of folks that are motivated by separatism are some of the most privileged members of our communities.

These are folks that have a lot and want more.

Yeah.

Mm-hmm.

And, and they're recognizing that, uh, even a lot of their own supporters have an attachment to the flag.

It's not an attachment to Canada as it is today or how they see it being today or what it would be tomorrow, but it is an attachment to the way that Canada used to be.

There's a nostalgia there.

And I think, um, you know, going into September, if conservatives are able to tap into that nostalgia and say that, "No, that Canada still is here," right? You don't have to buy into everything that the Liberal Party of Canada, let alone the New Democratic Party of Canada, are saying about what Canada is or can be, that Canada's big enough for a bunch of different visions, and let's work together to achieve that vision.

[short sharp music] This episode is also brought to you by the Forest Products Association of Canada.

Canada's resilience will not be built through diversified trade and good intentions alone.

Mm-hmm.

What are your thoughts?

But those aren't, those aren't conservatives, right? And, and to be fair, um, I take most flak from, uh, from other self-described conservatives.

I don't take it from progressives.

People are, people are mildly amused and surprised when they hear that I'm a conservative.

But I think it speaks to the bigger division that we have in, in Canada right now.

It, it's not actually between progressives and conservatives.

It's between populists and pluralists, right? And most people who can look at themselves, uh, in the mirror in the morning and call themselves a conservative because they are doing so in a principled way would also subscribe to the concept of pluralism, right? It's this notion that, uh, we should bring more voices to bear on matters of public policy because more voices are better.

Oh, no, 'cause Socrates got killed by a democratic majority.

But how do you navigate and approach those conversations outside of that context, maybe with people who aren't as involved and really are sitting on that emotional end of the spectrum when it comes to politics and policy?

Well, again, put yourself in the shoes of someone who feels that sense of unrequited love or that they're jolted.

So somebody came to you and said, look, I feel like I'm putting more into this relationship than I'm getting out of it.

A bad response would be to say, well, here's a spreadsheet that shows all of the money and everything and all of the time that I've spent on you.

And don't forget about that pipeline we built to the neighbors through the neighbor's yard and so on.

I mean, those kinds of responses are what I would say is a ticket to the couch in a romantic relationship.

But in Confederation, it really amounts to exacerbating the situation.

But how can and has maybe polarization manifested inside our province? And what role do urban Albertans, Edmontonians like us, have to help bridge that gap that we see?

What do you think is different about this movement and this time?

Yeah, this isn't your grandparents' western alienation.

I think there in times past, even a generation ago, it was about railing against, uh, Alberta being held back, uh, from its full potential and full prosperity.

Now there's a palpable sense among folks in the separatist movement particularly that, um, Alberta is now falling behind, or at least they are falling behind where their, uh, where their parents were, where they expected to be at this point in, in their lives and their careers.

And that, and that creates a really, uh, you know, a really attractive, um, mentality for far right populist movements.

We've seen this in the United States and in, and in Europe.

And the separatist movement in Alberta today is, is just that.

Is it, is this a, a, um, a movement to scare Ottawa or do, are, people really have a serious desire to leave?

I'm gonna stay at arm's length, and I'll comment after the fact." It's convenient, but that's not always the right move.

No, and, and if the scandal is as bad as everyone thinks it is, then that leader usually pays the price.

So the example I'm thinking of here is Jean Chretien and the, when the auditor general back in 2002 revealed that there was in fact a sponsorship scandal or ad scam.

Um, the, the RCMP started the investigation, and, uh, like any good Canadian, uh, Jean Chretien ragged the puck for as long as he could.

His party said, "Enough is enough." They ousted him, and it wasn't until the f- the, the, you know, the, the next, uh, leader, Paul Martin, stepped in that they called an inquiry.

Interesting, though, the Gomery, the Gomery case has a lot of lessons for us.

Uh, I hear the premier saying it's not wise to have multiple investigations going on at the same time.

But where can you see it going?

I mean, is, are you concerned that there's be a, a precedent that's being set here?

Well, they, we could end up in the type of tit-for-tat gerrymandering that we're seeing in the United States, right? Where states are saying, "Well, if you're gonna gerrymander your map, Texas, then we're gonna do it here in California or Virginia." Right? And we don't wanna end up in that kind of situation where parties are, are, uh, you know, using the r- using the rules to their own favor, tweaking them, uh, you know, to, to favor their own base.

And, um, you know, the, if, if we are gonna change the rules, I'd make the case for Alberta moving away from bipartisanship altogether to a nonpartisan process like they have in provinces like Manitoba, right? Those folks aren't selected.

The people that sit on an independent boundaries commission there are not selected by political parties.

They're selected based on their positions.

Could be deans of law schools, could be presidents of universities, could be retired judges.

Whatever it is, they're there because they fill certain positions, not because they're there to serve the interests of their party.

And that is why that is the guiding principle of electoral boundaries commissions when done in a non-partisan fashion.