Alberta Separatist Lawyer Completely Steamrolls David Cochrane on Live TV

the government could try to move ahead with this referendum.They would still have to meet at the threshold of the duty of consult, because they are acting on behalf of them.

No, they don't, sir.You don't understand the law.

This is a sight to see.Welcome back to Moose on the Loose.My name's David.Today, we've got Geoffrey Rath of the Alberta Separation Movement absolutely destroying David Cochrane.Cochran thinks he can write some notes down and think he can pretend to be a lawyer.Rath schools him live on CBC.

Like that's the only way to say it.We got some other stuff here.Let's jump into this.Starting this episode off on CBC, we've got Doug Ford in the hot seat once again.Ontario releases documents on 28 .9 million private jet.Here's what they show.

Expenses include nearly $140 ,000 in aircraft management services, nearly 34K in outside legal counsel.So while Doug Ford said that he'll just send it right back and it won't cost us anything, it costs the people of Ontario We've got the National Post with this story, first reading, This goes on to talk about, well, the industrial carbon tax.It would take about the same effort to repeal Canada's other less well -known carbon tax, the industrial carbon tax.Although it isn't itemized in the same way as the consumer carbon tax, a March report by the Fraser Institute estimated that it would slow down the economy just enough to equal $1 ,730 in lost income per employed Canadian by 2030.The Conservatives have put the industrial carbon tax at the center of their messaging against the Carney government, although the campaign has never managed to seize the public's imagination to the same extent as their crew it against the consumer carbon tax.here, which is making Canada uninvestable.

We have that very same CEO of TC Energy, Francis Poirier, on American television now, Fox News, saying that America is the place to invest.This is embarrassing.

I mean, just a few years ago, you said you said, I want to build a nat gas pipeline.I mean, you're the devil itself.Do you get the same kind of hostility now?I'm sure you don't.The tone has completely changed.I think in in the Trump administration, we have the most energy literate administration in the White House we've seen in many decades.

We've already seen through more reasonable and traditional application of regulations acceleration of timing for permits.We had a permit we received on one of our projects in the Midwest here a couple of months ago.about 25 % faster than we have over the last few years.

25 % faster.You're not going to see that in Canada.Not even 25 % slower in Canada.It just is not even happening.Moving ahead.We've got this one from the Toronto Star, an opinion piece.

Mark Carney fiddles while Canada burns.You know, things are getting bad for Carney when you have stuff like this being posted in the Toronto Star.Moving ahead.I got a segment here.I filmed about a week and a half ago that I sometimes I just film these things.They don't fit into an episode, so I don't put them in, but now it is relevant.

So this is a segment on the governor of Wyoming approving Keystone XL pipeline reboot.Now with the announcement that's going on today, I'm filming this before Carney's announcement of his new supposed possible pipeline with Daniel Smith in Alberta, is Carney going to try to tie in this new Keystone XL reboot part of the Kuzman renegotiation?Is he going to attach this to Pathways project as well?That's what I'm guessing.He wants to build this $20 billion Pathways project, injecting carbon into the ground and then bring in Keystone as well and get that tied into it as a package deal, which then boosts his carbon credit industry, builds it from the ground up in Alberta.Says Trump pipeline approval shows U .

S.Canada still can get things done, quoting the Wyoming governor.So the governor of Wyoming is in favor of this Keystone XL expansion, which is now the Bridger pipeline expansion.Wyoming Governor MarkGordon says the potential pipeline expansion project US President Donald Trump approved last week is a positive sign of cross -border communication and cooperation after more than a year of tension stemming from a trade war.So we've got Donald Trump approving this already.

We've got the Wyoming governor fully on board and Alberta's on board with much of the pipeline already built in Alberta.What is going to happen here?Is Mark Carney and Tim Hodgson going to approve this or are they going to block it?So after seeing that, Now we think about what Carney announces today and then we've got the Alberta separatist movement going on and how the activist judge has blocked the referendum vote even going forward.There's a lot of moving pieces here and clearly Carney wants to keep Alberta part of Canada because he's building this new carbon credit industry from the oil and gas industry from the ground up here where there's billions of dollars and it's easy for him to do.If you're wondering why I have black earphones now versus the silver ones, because I bought black ones because I think these look goofy.

Jumping over to CBC, we've got quite the interview here.Jeffrey Rath gets brought on by David Cochran talking about the next step of the separatist movement, what they're going to do to push back against the activist judge that has ruled that the separation referendum vote can't go forward.David Cochran gets absolutely schooled here.I don't know if he didn't realize that Jeffrey Rath is a lawyer and knows what he's talking about here, but Cochran tries to pull a few ones over him.It doesn't work.

You said after the judgment came down yesterday that there are numerous errors of law in this decision that you will be appealing.What is your main argument that this decision should be overturned?

Oh, we have so many, but I mean, one of the, you know, One of the big ones is that she hadn't even ruled on what the record was prior to the hearing.So, the province had brought an application to strike huge portions of affidavits that were before the court.So, we went through this hearing without anybody actually even knowing what the record is.There's a Latin phrase, it's called, audi altera partum, you know, and that is, you know, you have to know the case that you have to meet.You know, it's a fundamental error for a judge to allow a case to go forward before she's even defined what the record of the case is.before the court is.

But I mean, that's actually, even though that's a fairly major ground for appeal, you know, that's the smallest part of the errors that she made in this case, right?One of the interesting things about this decision, and this is what creates the big political problem for Danielle Smith that you might want to talk about, is that she ruled in paragraph 76 that even though it's unconstitutional and illegal for citizens to express themselves democratically by getting together and signing their names on a piece of paper to communicate their wishes, kind of like a letter to Santa Claus going to the legislature saying, we want a question on the ballot.Even though she said that's illegal, she ruled clearly and expressly that it's not illegal for Premier Smith to call the question herself under Section 1 of the Referendum Act.

So he's basically saying here that Daniel Smith can still call this, but the people with the referendum, with the petition, with the 301 ,000 votes cannot.And who he's talking about here is this activist judge, this lady here.This is who made this ruling of the Alberta separation referendum, not consulting First Nations and thus can't go forward right now.This judge, as we can see here, was appointed Justice Shianna Leonard.She was appointed by none other than the Honourable David Lamedi, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Justin Trudeau, so she's a liberal appointed Trudeau appointed judge, not surprised activist judge getting involved in politics when she should just be a judge and not making rulings like this that don't make sense.As Jeffrey's going to point out here, First Nations rights were not infringed upon.

They were not taken away.Thus, this shouldn't stand.

I can jump in just so the audience can I can try to explain to the audience here some of the reasonings the judge spelled out here.I mean, essentially the way the citizen initiative law works in Alberta is that if you get the signatures and they get certified, then it will go on the ballot.And because a referendum like the one you are seeking is an issue of a constitutional question, the law says it would beAnd what the judge has essentially said is, because it is a constitutional question and it would be binding on the government to follow it, that would trigger a duty to consult under the principles of the Haida decision, that if the government knows it might affect treaties, if they are contemplating action that would affect treaties and recognize there would be potential adverse impacts on those treaties, there is a duty to consult.whether it's a citizen initiative or a government initiative.

She's wrong about all of that.Why is she wrong?Well, I'm just going to start with paragraph 76 of her decision, where she says, although pursuant to Section 1 of the Referendum Act, Lieutenant -Governor and Council retains discretion over holding a referendum on any question relating to the Constitution of Canada or relating to or arising out of a possible change to the Constitution of Canada, that discretion is not applicable to referendum questions arising under the amended CIA.Well, how is it legal for the government to call the question itself under Section uh, one of the referendum act and perfectly constitutional, but it's unconstitutional for citizens to just put their name on a petition and say, Hey, government, we want you to call a question.

But is the ruling that the signature process was unconstitutional or that this process can't?Well, it's it what's unconstitutional.They argue is that the duty to consult wasn't met before this process was allowed by the issuance of the petition.

Okay.But the problem is that she doesn't understand the way that the duty to consult works in Canadian law, okay?There has to be an actual infringement of an actual right.And again, you know, try to keep up, right?How is anybody's right infringed by people putting their signature on a piece of paper?Nobody's rights were infringed by that.

How would anybody's right be infringed by the elections Alberta counting these signatures and transmitting that number to the government Alberta?Nobody's rights are infringed.No, no, let me finish, okay?Just let me finish.And again, even holding a referendum nobody's rights are infringed because the government or I'm sorry the secession reference of the Supreme Court makes it clear that even holding a referendum and even if there's a yes vote in a referendum doesn't affect anybody's legal rights and of course the judge completely ignored that in her decision and of course the only way that rights would be illegally infringed under the Canadian Constitution were it was if the government were to completely disregard and that would take both canada and alberta in the event of a yes vote if they were to completely disregard section 35 .1 of the constitution act 1982 which says for government powers with regard to indians treaties etc to be devolved to another government.So federal power is devolving to the province, right?

There has to be a constitutional conference under section 35 .1 of the Constitution Act 1982.So what that means is that If there was a yes vote, and if the governments didn't convene a constitutional conference, or if First Nations thought their rights weren't addressed in good faith in the context of that constitutional conference, then they could come to court.But until then, this is all purely speculative and hypothetical, and I can show you half a dozen decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada that say that you don't have an obligation to consult with regard to speculative and hypothetical questions.

because it doesn't infringe the rights of First Nations.This is simply a vote and that would be afterwards if there's some rights infringed.Now, this gets complicated because I showed you in a previous video there, we've got Chief Alan Adam of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, who's taking money from the Tides Foundation, George Soros down in America to block pipelines in Canada, intentionally blocking prosperity in our country, then gets tax dollars from Canadians.Meanwhile, the rest of Albertans in this case are not getting equalization payments from Ottawa.It's like the West gets screwed over and over and over again.

But those are the issues that we're taking forward to the upper court.

But on that point, just you pointed to paragraph 76.I'll point you to paragraph 232, where the judge talks about the conditions under the height of tests.And again, going back to the contemplated conduct, that if the crown will act on something and acting on a successful separation referendum would obviously affect the treaty rights of trees.But she says that once an initiative petition is approved and the required signatures are obtained, the executive must hold a referendum and must implement the results of the referendum.So if it goes ahead and you win, they are bound by the law to implement it.And then it will be too late to start the duty to consult because it will be happening after a decision has been made and found binding on the executive.

And that infringes on the rights to be consulted in advance.

That is the fundamental argument.What's that?We say that's all wrong.So, yeah, that's what the judge said.We're obviously appealing our decision because we say that's wrong.And the reason we say that it's wrong is because the Supreme Court of Canada itself in the secession reference said that nobody's rights are engaged even in the event of a yes vote in a referendum because simply citizens expressing their opinions on something doesn't affect anybody's rights.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that it's a political process and you knowwe have here is we have this is the second judge now that's decided that they want to engage in politics and they want to be a political actor rather than a judicial actor and to basically engage in politics while wearing a black robe with a red sash.

I think what needs to happen here is if these cases where it's clear that the judge isn't following the typical rules a judge should follow, the act of the law, then other judges or there should be some sort of investigation.And if it finds that the judge was engaging in politics, as he's saying here, then the judge should lose their license.They should not be a judge anymore.It should be a strict one violation and you're out because judges can't be engaging in politics and doing liberals favors.That's what this looks like.This is the rule of law should be very strict.

It should just be black and white.be grey zones, but of course in this case you've got a judge who's trying to interpret it a different way.

Can this all be resolved by October to actually get your signature certified and get your question on the ballot?Or do you think it could push it past that window?

Oh, no, absolutely.I mean, one of the first thing we're doing is we're obviously we're drafting and filing a notice of appeal, which we are going to have filed by either late tomorrow afternoon or Monday, for one.And then simultaneous to that, we're working on a stay of this decision.effectively a court order from the Court of Appeal setting this decision aside so that Elections Alberta can do its legislatively mandated job of counting our petition signatures or verifying our petition signatures and communicating that information to the Lieutenant Governor and counsel through the Attorney General.That being said though, and this is the importance of paragraph 76 and actually the decision of Justice Feesby, both of those judges, again, as far as I'm concerned, playing politics, have made it clear that Danielle Smith herself can call the question anytime she wants.So she can actually call the question Notwithstanding the fact that her government's appealing, notwithstanding the fact that there's ongoing court processes, she can put our referendum question on the ballot under Section 1 of the Referendum Act.

regardless of any court processes going forward.And that's what 301 ,620 Albertans expect her to do.And I think she's gonna learn quite quickly that almost a unanimous base or the unanimous membership of the United Conservative Party expect her to do, because even the 33 % or so of the United Conservative Party that are not in favor of independence are 100 % in favor of democracy.and are of the view that people in Alberta have the right to vote yes or no on this question.

I think he's 100 % right here.Daniel Smith can't be pushing back against this.She has to be in favour of this because she has to be in favour of democracy and people getting their voice and their right to express their voice, because essentially the activist judge has taken that away in favour of the corrupt First Nation chief who gets paid $246 ,000 a year, who also took payments from America to block Canadian pipelines.So we have less prosperity up here.It's not a good look.She has to be in favour of not only separatists, but just democracy and Canadians' ability to vote and voice their opinions.

So Daniel Smith is in a tight position here.And as you saw on the previous panel on CTV, they seem to think that this is all Daniel Smith's fault, when really this mess came about from, well, Justin Trudeau for 10 years, and now Mark Carney.These guys have been running the country into the ground, favouring Quebec and the East for years and years and years.We're putting supply management, which is less than 1 %of our GDP over top of other industries like steel, aluminum autos, forestry that really pay the bills in Canada, just because the Laurentian elites have big investments in CDBQ and in Brookfield and the supply management dairy cartel.If we can't get this situation where we have activists, judges making decisions based on their own feelings and their own opinions versus the rule of law, well, then what is Canada?

You know, Danielle is literally facing politically what I consider to be an existential choice or an existential turning point in her leadership.She can either decide to accede to the overwhelming will of her members or the members of her party, or she can lose all moral authority to lead the United Conservative Party and should likely go the way of Jason Kenney.

OK, so yes, the government could try to move ahead with this referendum.They would still have to meet the threshold of the duty of consult because they are acting on behalf.

No, they don't, sir.You don't understand the law.They're the Crown.They do not have to consult.And that's exactly what Justice Feasby said.And that's exactly what Justice Lettard said.

They basically say you have to consult if you go under the Citizens Initiative Act.But you know what?If you do it under Section 1 of the Referendum Act, There's no ability whatsoever for the court to get involved because even Justice Leonard agrees at that point, the Supreme Court of Canada and the secession reference says the courts have no role to play and no jurisdiction because it's a purely political issue.

This is hilarious.David Cochran getting scolded by Jeffrey Rath.Somebody ought to do it here.It doesn't end there.This keeps going.

You know, I'm sure that the First Nations, because they're being funded by the Tides Foundation and funded by George Soros and funded by foreign money, will fight every single step of the way because they have billionaires backing them.But at the end of...

I got to say, this is refreshing.I mean, I say this stuff on my channel and I did a whole video on this in the previous video, but to have someone on CBC saying this stuff, because they sure aren'tgoing to say it on CBC themselves.

You know, we're, you know, we are pushing ahead.Our movement is not deterred by this and we will have a referendum on October 9th.

Well, Mr. Rath, you've been meeting with the Americans, like you've been going across the border, have you not?And talking to people.

Oh, come on.That's not even a comparison.Chief Adam Allen here took $55 ,000 from the Tides Foundation, went on stage with Neil Young.He met with Leonardo DiCaprio, Greta Thunberg, I believe some other people, environmental activists trying to support and help and simply support blocking pipelines from Alberta.to the west coast.This guy doesn't want prosperity for the rest of the people of Alberta, but then gets taxpayer money, $250 ,000 a year.

Like this guy is the definition of a traitor.He's being funded by Americans to hurt Canada.That's what this guy is.And then David Cochran has the audacity to say that Jeffrey Rath has gone down to America and it's the same thing.They went and met with the Americans.They were looking for a loan if they needed it.

They're not being paid by the Americans to hurt our own country.Chief Adam Allen is being paid by the Americans to hurt our country.

I just bring that up because the other side is raising these silly foreign interference arguments in the context of this court case.when they're the ones that are actually being funded by foreign sources that are tied to communist China.Let's be clear here, and I've heard you talking about this with other guests on your program, and Jason Kenney and others, so I just wanted to balance out the record, because typically, the commentary on your show is very unbalanced when it comes to Albert Independence.

OK, well, Jeffrey Rath, I'll give you the last word there on that.Thank you so much, Jeff Rath, for joining us with the Alberta Project.

down were doing something to sabotage Quebec.It would be the same equivalent, something that hurts Canada, which is not what's happened here.Cochrane's credibility is zero.