Danielle Smith Just Sent Carney a MAJOR WARNING — CBC & CTV PANIC

That is why I'm announcing today that I will be requesting our government add an additional question to the October 19th referendum vote announced previously.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has just unveiled a referendum question on separation that could change the future of both Alberta and Canada.And in doing so, she sent Mark Carney a major warning.Alberta will no longer be taken for granted.And before she even made her announcements, panelists on CBC and CTV were panicking and going as far as calling Smith stupid and mad.We will of course react to all of this, but there is also one big detail in what Danielle Smith announced that almost no one is talking about.which we will get to in today's podcast episode.

My name is Eli, welcome to the show.Today we will break down what Danielle Smith has announced, what this means for Carney.Of course, as I said, we will react to the legacy media and NDP reactions to all of this, and we'll talk about why some separatists are mad at the premier.This is an episode you do not want to miss as we're touching on the biggest gamble of Danielle Smith's political career.But first, be sure you like this video.Hype the video, too.

That's very important.Be sure you're subscribed.Up to 90 percent of my viewers aren't actually subscribed to the channel.Hit the notification bell.Comment your thoughts down below and consider getting a paid channel membership because I'm one of few journalists left in this country that refuses to take subsidies from the federal government.And now let's get to it.

1.The Announcement In an address last night, Alberto PremierSmith announced that she would add a new question to the series of questions she is planning on asking Albertans in the fall, with that question being related to Alberta separation and independence.Here is Danielle Smith making her announcement.

I am deeply troubled by an erroneous court decision that interferes with the democratic rights of hundreds of thousands of Albertans.Albertans who volunteered, prepared petitions, made their case to fellow citizens, and appear to have secured the required amount of signatures necessary under Alberta law to hold a provincial referendum.The fact is that between the Forever Canada petition requesting a referendum on Alberta remaining in Canada and the Stay Free Alberta petition requesting a referendum on leaving Canada, approximately 700 ,000 Albertans have signed a petition requesting a vote on this issue.And I, as Premier, will not have a legal mistake by a single judge silence the voices of hundreds of thousands of Albertans.That's not the Alberta way.Alberta's future will be decided by Albertans, not the courts.

In the meantime, under our legal system, this troubling court decision is binding law in Alberta until it is successfully appealed.This means that it is unlikely the courts will permit Elections Alberta to hold a binding provincial referendum on separation until this incorrect ruling is overturned or clarified.But there is another way to hear from Albertans while we wait for our legal appeal to be heard.That is why I'm announcing today that I will be requesting our government add an additional question to the October 19th referendum vote announced previously.

Now, as you probably know, separatists have been pushing for a referendum.In fact, they had gathered over 300 ,000 signatures to trigger a referendum through the Citizens Initiative process, because in Alberta, citizens can trigger a referendum if they have enough signatures.And on top of the 300 ,000 signatures that was raised by the separatists, there was an additional 400 ,000 signatures from anti -separatists who had guarded their own petition on whether or not Alberta should stay in Canada.And it basically asks the reverse question, should Alberta stay in Canada?So therefore there's 700 ,000 people who have expressed interest in such a question.But there was a roadblock because there was a judge who happens to be a Trudeau appointed judge who had blocked the separatist petition because there was a lack of consultation with indigenous peoples.

Now, according to some lawyers, Smith could have just put the question forward herself because there's two types of referendums.And there's a couple subtypes underneath, but the two main types are citizens and government referendums.And some people were saying she could just do a government referendum, but there was other people who were saying that that too was legally risky.So Smith opted to appeal the decision instead.But in the meantime, there was that other petition, the staying in Canada petition from Thomas Lukasuk and the forever Canadian people, and that had to be dealt with.And many thought that she would use this as an opportunity to just put it forward and have the referendum that way.

But that's not exactly what she's doing.Here's the question she is instead putting to Albertans.

The additional question will be, should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?Because this proposed referendum question does not directly trigger separation, but if successful, would ask Alberta's government to commence the legal process necessary to hold a binding referendum on the matter, the recent court ruling would not be applicable, and the referendum question I outlined could proceed.

So I'll be honest, when I first heard this, I was a little confused because this is essentially a referendum on whether or not to have a referendum.And I thought to myself, isn't this kind of pointless?Why would she choose to do that?Because there are some risks involved here, and we will get into that momentarily.Smith has also said that she will vote for Alberta to remain in Canada.Here's her talking about that.

Now, I want to be clear.I support Alberta remaining in Canada.That is how I would vote on separation and a provincial referendum.It is also the position of my government and my caucus.

Now, this sentiment was echoed by Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Polyev, who also said he supports a strong Alberta within Canada.And he said that he would be campaigning for Alberta to remain in Canada and that his caucus is pro -Canada.

So I'm a strong Canadian federalist, a proud Albertan and a proud Canadian.I want a strong Alberta within a united Canada and all conservative All conservatives will be campaigning for Canadian unity in Alberta and potentially, we hope not, but potentially in Quebec as well, if the separatists win there.

Part two, the reactions.Obviously, there was a range of reactions to this announcement, it being a very big announcement.And we will start with the reactions from the legacy media.Legacy media reacted very negatively.and very passionately against Danielle Smith before she even made her announcement.And I'll be honest, I found some of those reactions to be hysterical.

Let's start with Bob Fyfe of the Globe and Mail, who has been known to have some pretty strong reactions to things especially related to conservatives in recent years.Here is Bob Fyfe on Power and Politics, the show hosted by David Cochrane, railing against Danielle Smith, saying what she's doing is total madness.

watch madness.Okay.I mean, I'm sure the Prime Ministerprivately must be pulling his hair out of his head like, what is going on with this?You know, look, I have great faith in Albertans.They're patriotic people.

They're not going to vote to separate from Canada.There's a group of 20 percent who are mega -separatists, I guess, independentists, and they're the ones that she's playing footsie with, which is crazy.I mean, she should be telling these people, go and form your own separatist party, run an election.If you get elected, you can put a referendum.But why is she aiding and abetting this?It's madness.

And last week, Bob Fyfe says he doesn't like referendums.Referendums are bad ideas in parliamentary democracies, in my personal opinion.

On that, I would actually like to remind Bob Fyfe and other members of the legacy media that referendums are the ultimate form of democratic expression.

Abraham Lincoln, the former famous U .

S.president had given this really important speech called the Gettysburg Address, in which he said that democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people.And whether you agree with operative separatism or not, there's both separatists and federalists who watch this show, having a referendum that is triggered by 700 ,000 people signing a petition is the ultimate expression of that of the people, by the people, for the people principle.So when people like Bob Fife say they don't like referendums, well, it sends the message that, well, they would prefer politicians to just make decisions to be a type of ruling class over the people.But that's not what democracy is supposed to be.I mean, you look at the House of Commons.

House of Commons is the House of Commoners.It's literally the idea of common people representing each other.So, no, referendums, whether you agree with the question or not are actually a very important part of democracy.And I think we should have more of them in Canada in general, not less.

Now let's go over to CTV.

where there was another very strong reaction from former B .C.C.liberal Premier Christy Clark.Christy Clark accused Danielle Smith of stupidity, being unqualified, and potentially the worst premier in Canadian history.

You know, if this should succeed, Danielle Smith will go down as probably the worst premier Canada has ever had.I think if it fails, she'll go down as someone who got lucky and got out of there with their skin intact and certainly still isn't qualified to be the premier of a province.

Now, regardless of what one thinks of Alberta independence or even what one thinks of Danielle Smith, I think we can all agree that Danielle Smith should not be taking advice from Christy Clark.Because let's remember, it was Christy Clark who handed British Columbia over to the NDP and the Green Party in 2017 after she failed to secure a majority.Literally anytime David Ibi does something, literally all these policies that have only fueled Alberta's separatism well they are in part thanks to her.So yeah and that's not all.Let's remember that Christy Clark was well anticipated to run for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership last year to replace Justin Trudeau and basically torpedoed any chance of that in arguably the stupidest way possible.An entirely self -inflicted mistake that had a lot of us putting our palm to our face.

That was because She was claiming to be a lifelong federal liberal, even though she had purchased a Conservative Party membership to support her friend and also former liberal Premier Jean Charest when he was running against Pierre Polya.And when she was asked about that, she decided to lie.

You have called yourself a lifelong liberal, but you voted in the last federal election.leadership race.That would have required you to cancel your liberal party membership in order to join the conservative party.How long were you a member of the conservative party, Christy Clark?Never.

There is only one leader who's running for office right now who is going to be able to unite the country, I think, and who's going to bring a moderation and a willingness to talk to the people with whom he disagrees, and that's Jean Charest.I'm joining the party so that I can support my friend Mr. Charest and what I think he can bring to the national dialogue.I mean, I do think he'd be a devastating opponent for Mr. Trudeau.

Alberta NDP leader Naheed Nenshi, meanwhile, decided it would be a good idea to put out a video calling those who want independence extremist folks working with Trumpists and funded by foreign governments.

For the first time in history, Alberta's position in Confederation, the fact that we are part of Canada is at risk.And I know a lot of us are nervous, anxious, scared even.How are we going to let these extremist folks who run the premier and think they run the province take away our country.The other side is motivated.They're working hard.They have money and influence from other countries.

They're working with the Trumpists.

To that, I have to say this is a very irresponsible thing on the part of Naheed Nenshi.Extremely irresponsible.This is the last thing that someone who wants Alberta to remain in Canada should be saying.I actually had this conversation with Thomas Lukasik who agreed with me it was important not to demonize people on the other side.Because here's the thing, if you demonize those who want independence as extremists, that will only motivate and mobilize them.And it will confirm a notion, and this is a key notion in fueling separatism to begin with, that while people in Alberta, the Midwest,

the working class, well, they're looked down at by the elites, especially the left wing elites.And well, if you go and dismiss their concerns by calling them extremists, you kind of just confirm that notion.And that's just really not helpful.This was a big mistake done in Brexit by those who wanted the UK to stay in the European Union.And it was also a big mistake of the liberal order in response to Donald Trump rising to power in 2016.Let's remember Trump's opponent in 2016, Hillary Clinton, decided to describe his supporters as a basket of deplorables.

You can put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.

They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.

And what we saw from Naheed Nenshi yesterday was Nahid Nenshi's basket of deplorables moment.And to those on the pro -Canadian side, many of whom I know and have some sympathy with, I would caution not to associate with anyone who uses that sort of language.Do not associate yourselves with anyone who calls the other side MAGA or extremists or any other insult that the left likes to hurl at people.That will not get you anywhere.good.It's just not the way to go and it's not how you will get a good outcome.

It's also a bit disingenuous from Nenshi the way he's framing all of this because this is not a legally binding question.In fact, this is a question of whether or not to have a referendum and this leads me to the reaction from the separatist side because there are several people in the independence camp who are also not happy with Danielle Smith.Here is Jeff Rath, a lawyer and separatist leader, talking about his thoughts on the Announcement with Sean Amato, who is a journalist with City News.

her office and leaked the question because they were so upset over how disgusting and cynical and dishonest this was.So we weren't surprised by it.I think it is literally one of the most cynical and dishonest things that has ever been attempted to be pulled on the population of Alberta.Think about it.We're going to have a referendum to have a referendum.Right.

That means that's going to kick if we win the so -called referendum vote in October, that kicks it over into 2027.Under Alberta law, you can't have that referendum the same year as an election year.So it literally forces everybody on the independent side to campaign for Daniel Smith for premier in 2027.

Look, as I said, I was a little bit confused on this question of a referendum on a referendum myself, I will admit.And I say this as someone who's simply observing the process.I have no skin in the game.I'm just a journalist.And this is where there is actually quite a risk for Danielle Smith.And we will get into that momentarily.

That said, I first want to address why this question is so important, why it matters.And this is a great segue into part three.Part three, the major warning to Carney.Now, despite this not being a constitutionally binding question, it still is quite significant and it still does send a major warning to Mark Carney that Alberta will no longer be taken for granted.And here's why.The question that's been put forward is obviously less consequential.

And therefore, there is less of an incentive for those who are opposed to separation to come out and vote, because if they don't come out and vote, well, the consequence won't be as big because there would be another vote in which they can get out of their home and get out and vote.Whereas for the separatists, this is kind of their only chance, maybe ever, to have such an opportunity.So they're more advantaged and they're more motivated to go out and vote.And there's a reason why this matters.Now, I've been out to Alberta, I went twice in the last two months, and I went there to feel the pulse.And I met two types of people that really make this situation

interesting.The first are closet separatists.And these people are supporting independence, but they won't say so publicly.They'll tell you privately.And some of these people are in places you wouldn't expect.They're CEOs of large companies.

They're politicians.They're, you know, quite influential people.And they are planning on voting yes in a referendum.The second type are people who are not separatists, but want to send a message to Ottawa.And these are the people that I think could make a big impact here.These people want to send a message to Ottawa.

Now, if by sending a message to Ottawa, you risk a permanent secession, you may be less inclined.But now this referendum really opens the door for people to send a message to Ottawa without actually triggering a major consequence.So that therefore, again, tilts it in the favor of separatists.There's one poll that had separation support at 41%.And if that poll is accurate and you have 10 % more people who just want to send a message to Ottawa, then you're at 51%.And that would send a very strong message to Mark Carney.

It would show that Canada is not united the way that he, his cabinet ministers and the CBC like to portray that it is.It would basically be a reckoning because, well, it would show that no people actually want to have this vote, and it would be very consequential.And it obviously would put a lot more pressure on Mark Carney to change.As we know, Alberta had been decimated after 10 years of the Liberals.You had $670 billion of cancelled natural resources project.You had Justin Trudeau, who said he wanted to phase out the oil sands, who had left Alberta out of his Canada 150 speech, who appointed Stephen Gilboa, who was a radical climate extremist, who was not a friend of Alberta, and that was the environment minister.

And you know, Mark Carney had previously written in his book values, some pretty anti oil and gas stuff.But in the wake of separatism, we have to give himsome credit.He has changed his tune.He did announce the MOU.Now, I know some people don't like the MOU, but it is better than what we had with Trudeau.

So he's already changing a bit.But if there is that yes vote to have an official referendum, he will be in big trouble.He will know that, well, there needs to be a reckoning here, basically.And there has been some consequence for the action of his predecessor.So there's a lot at stake here for Mark Carney, regardless of if you're pro or anti separation.Objectively, this is a big deal for Mark Carney.

Part four, Daniel Smith's big gamble.This is a big deal for Carney, but it's also a very big deal for Alberta Premier Daniel Smith.Now, to understand the stakes of this, we have to go back to her predecessor, Jason Kenney.Jason Kenney was elected in 2019 with a lot of fan and fanfare from the grassroots conservatives in Alberta.And only a few years later, he was basically ousted.He had a leadership review.

He did win it, but it was such a tight margin that he basically came to the conclusion he didn't have the confidence to stay on as premier.And this came after he imposed mandates and lockdowns in Alberta that were very unpopular.And this goes to Alberta's conservative culture.It's very much grassroots.While in other provinces, the conservative parties are run by elites, In Alberta, the grassroots are very much in charge.And when the grassroots aren't happy with something, well, they have a tradition of ousting their leaders.

So in many ways, this has been a big moment for Danielle Smith.And for a while, I thought she had basically come up with a brilliant solution.So she had already announced that she would lower threshold for citizens initiatives after the recalled Gondek petition in Calgary.And so she made that formal after Carney won the election.And this basically allowed for a way to be like, hey they want to have a referendum it's not on me they're the ones who got the signatures it's basically a political win for her but things didn't go as plannedbecause, well, a liberal -appointed, Trudeau -appointed judge decided to get in the way and interfere with democracy.

Now, some say, as I mentioned, she could have just put forward a question anyway, but there is legal risk.The Thomas Lukasik petition, the problem with that petition is that there's two types of referendum petitions.There are legislative and policy ones, and there are constitutional ones.And the Lukasik one was a policy one, not a constitutional one.But some argue, and I would be in this camp, that she should have just made that a constitutional one and been able to defend that with the fact that there were 700 ,000 people that had signed it.And look, I'm not saying this as a separatist.

I'm just saying, I think if you have 700 ,000 people to sign a petition, I think it kind of warrants a vote.You know, that's where I'm coming from at this.I'm not coming from at this with skin in the game.I'm just coming at it as a journalist with some common sense.But instead, she did put that question on having a referendum on referendum.And she's walking into some dangerous territory here.

And that is politicians trying to please everyone and ending up not pleasing anyone.And that's a risk that she's taking because the pro -Canada Albertans are upset that she's even doing this in the first place.And the pro -independence Albertans, while they feel like they've been let down and that she lacks courage.And if you look online, there are already people saying they're done with her, that her political career is over.Now, I think that's a little premature, but there is a risk here, again, given Alberta's history with outstanding leaders and the power of the grassroots and just other examples in the past, including in other provinces where politicians tried to please everyone, and it ended up just backfiring.Now, in Smith's defense, she can argue that, well, I was never elected on a referendum, and that is true.

It's not like in Quebec, where the Parti Québécois, which was a separatist party, was elected specifically on that sort of stuff.But she is putting a lot on the line.here.That's just a fact.Regardless of where you stand on the issue, regardless of if you like her or not, she is objectively putting a lot on the line.So to summarize, Danielle Smith has announced that there will be a separation question on the October referendum ballot.

Members of the legacy media had meltdowns before the announcement was even made.The Alberta NDP has reacted in a way that is not only ill advised, but honestly unbecoming.of a political party by smearing people in just a gross and inappropriate way.And some of the separatists aren't happy with her.But all of this still sends a major warning to Mark Carney.But it's also a big risk for Danielle Smith.

Now, one more thing I want to say on Danielle Smith is she has shown to be a very resilient person in the past.This was someone who became a complete pariah after she had crossed the floor when she was in Wild Rose to go join the PCs.This was back when Alberta had two conservative parties and she had crossed the floor and was very unpopular.People thought her career was over and she was able to mount a very impressive comeback and become Premier of Alberta.And if you asked anyone back when her political career ended after crossing the floor, if she would ever do that, they would have said no.She's also shown as Premier to be able to really push the Overton window, to take on risks.

I mean, she took on gender ideology.She's taking on lots of other issues as well, and some of these issues were issues that consultants would have probably said don't even bother, and she did it anyway.So she's shown in the past to be a very tactical person, very good at navigating these situations.That said, this is the biggest risk yet, and the consequences for her if this doesn't go well could be quite negative.But if she succeeds in what she's doing, she may uh gain some political capital as well so i'll be keeping an eye on that and on how smith handles this and on the whole story as a whole because my friends the consequencesof all of this could be historic.

Now, before I go, I do want to know what you guys think.So comment your thoughts down below.I want to know where my audience stands on all of this.I've also included a survey if you want to fill that out, and I can hear directly from you on where you stand on Alberta independence.I would love to know that.So the link is below for that.

Be sure you like this video, hype the video, subscribe.And I'm not done covering this story.As I said, I flew out to Alberta a few times this year.We did a documentary, which I encourage you to go and watch.I put a link below to that.We've interviewed Jeff Rath, the pro -independence activist.

I've spoken with Thomas Wilkacik.I've done streeters.And there's still a lot to cover here.And with me, we'll always get the truth.I'm not here with any agenda.I'm just here to give people a voice.

So thank you so much for watching.I'm Eli Kanton -Nantell.And God bless.