And this is from someone that, like both of you, lives in the world of public policy.

For normal people to understand that would be almost impossible.

I agree with you there.

But for policy walks like the three of us and probably a large number of the people who are listening to this, you can follow the logic very clearly that over the last four or five decades, the Liberal Party's solution to... national unity and until recently national unity was about quebec uh was uh stronger and stronger central governments and the federal government coming in and areas of all those areas that are mentioned there health education social services are exclusively or or promote primarily under provincial jurisdiction the the liberal party they've won What's the figure I use? 12 out of the last 17 elections have, over the last 40 or 50 years, bought their way into provincial jurisdictions by revenue sharing, providing money.

And how do provincial legislatures say no to checks coming in from Ottawa? Oh, yeah, but then there's strings attached.

And the minute the strings are attached, then you begin to lose control of those policy areas precisely because then the feds can pull it back.

We can – so there's – if you think the Liberal Party of more national unity through stronger and stronger central governments is a good idea, then I could see why you'd vote against that.

But I would love to see us, the federal government, appoint senators from lists provided by the provinces.

What do you make of that? Is that an intentional thing, do you suppose, on the part of this government? to try and aggregate power to the middle? Or is it just kind of what falls out of a rather tumbling political situation that includes Alberta's concerns over the future as well?

Yeah, well, again, I don't know the answer to that question.

We're going to see it in the next four or eight or 12 months.

But clearly, for these pipeline proposals and initiatives to work, there has to be significant private sector participation.

In other words, financial commitments.

And that's not going to happen without certainty.

It's the lack of certainty.

Do you welcome it?

So what message do you think 25 percent sends as opposed to 30, 35, knowing that the final numbers are still in a little bit of flux?

Well, my fear, as I articulated, I think, last week with you, and I'll repeat again today, is that it sends a message.

I worry that it'll send a message to Ottawa and business and political leaders in other provinces that there's not a problem and Alberta doesn't have any problem with the status quo.

That's simply not true.

25%, 25% is double.

The head was wrong when he said support for Ottawa.

support for separation has never changes.

I mean, what's your sense of where this leaves the Alberta government after six months of campaigning on this?

What do you think would actually move the needle among all the different reforms that are on the table here?

Well, opting out with full compensation is huge because the federal government has moved aggressively into the areas of health, education, and social programs, all areas that fall, if not exclusively, at least primarily into provincial jurisdiction.

Basically, they bought their way in, or if I wanted to be less charitable, I could say they bribed their way in.

It's hard to say no when somebody from the outside comes to say, here, look, we'll help you with education, health care.

building homes.

But then they attach conditions.

And then once the provinces, I need a better word, once they become addicted to that matching federal funding, they don't want to give it up.

How do you think about that potential future, regardless of what happens with this referendum?

Flunked psychology

...

Justin.

Uh, the, the, uh, the current, the...

Carney, you know, he's a trained economist.

He's been head of national banks in Canada and the UK, that he understands economics.

And I would draw attention to one of the findings in the School of Public Policy report that was produced y- just yesterday, that it's about the cost of secession, the potential downside of Alberta leaving.

Um, what's the strongest argument that Canada can make for saying, "We don't agree to your proposed terms"? Like, take us into how you think that that negotiation could play out.

But, I mean, even you acknowledge there has been a difference.

Yeah, and in everything I've written and everything I've said, I would like to be hopeful and optimistic that something positive comes of this.

But I know for a fact in downtown Calgary, I sit on a board.

I still have a lot of networks in the energy sector downtown.

And there's huge skepticism that any private sector companies are going to make the financial commitments that are necessary for either something to the West Coast or North.

Ironically, the most affordable and particularly now, well, it's hard to know what the hell Trump's going to do, but with American gas prices now a dollar more than they were a month ago and Americans freaking out over cost of oil and cost of gas, resurrecting the Keystone XL is frankly, there's interest.

I know in a firsthand way that there's interest on both sides of the border in doing that.

Do you agree with that

We thought it was sort of a...

an experiment or an innovation represented a constitutional change.

But in 1982, nobody could foresee what was going to happen.

And 18 years later, we wrote a book.

Actually, we wrote a book in 1991, Charter Politics.

92.

92.

responsible