Keith Wilson: “The only viable path forward is independence”

U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer says it's time for America to get tough on Canada over provincial bans on American liquor sales. Greer told a trade committee hearing he's reached the end of his rope in dealing with Canada on the matter and is looking at enforcement.

Every Canadian province, with the exception of Elbert and Saskatchewan, has ceased distribution of US wine and liquor products, including Ontario to the north. This is distorting the market, causing immense harm to our wine producers in the district. And have you and your team raised this issue as well

with our Canadian counterparts, and have they been trying to help us? Have they been constructive in this issue, much like with the dairy issue?

Well, it's at the provincial level, right? So we hear from the federal government of Canada, well, it's the provinces, and then we do have two provinces who don't have this. That being said, I think we're kind of at the end of our rope in just asking for them to do this.

Think about it this way. There are two countries that have retaliated economically against the United States in the past year, the People's Republic of China and Canada. So that's kind of the company that they're running in. So my sense is there may have to be an enforcement action to deal with this issue on wine and spirits in Canada.

An enforcement action could see the U.S. respond with higher tariffs, import restrictions, and other penalties on Canadian goods. There are also ongoing issues over Canadian restrictions on U.S. dairy products, fruits, and vegetables. Meantime, Prime Minister Carney has dismissed conservative attacks on his handling of the U.S. trade negotiations.

Carney says Conservative leader Pierre Polyev isn't qualified to second-guess him on such matters.

No, it's pretty cool.

I'm saying you need to explain your plan to Canadians on trade talks. He says you're showboating too much. You need to stop the YouTube videos.

When's he ever negotiated on this?

In last year's election, Carney promised a negotiated trade agreement with the United States would be completed by last July. A US senator wants the Trump administration to stop insulting Canadians. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, scolded Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick

over the Trump administration's mocking reference to Canada as the 51st state. Let's listen. Canada's economy leans on the incredible $30 trillion economy of America.

There's no doubt about that, Mr. Secretary. But insulting our closest ally and neighbor, who provides a lot of business. We have a lot of businesses in New Hampshire, small businesses, who work on both sides of the border. We have all those Canadian visitors who are not coming because of your comments and comments by the

administration. How does that help our economy?

It is outrageous that Canada will not put U.S. spirits on the shelf. It is insulting. It is. And disrespectful to America that they won't even put...

Absolutely. And my husband has an interest in a company that has American spirits. And they won't do it because of the insults from this president and comments like yours.

President Trump has taken to refer to Prime Minister Carney as governor, but says he's no longer interested in making Canada the 51st state. Well, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is back talking about economic matters, including the need for closer ties with China.

He says U.S. trade policies have pushed Canada into forging a closer alliance with that country. Let's listen.

We're seeing a similar thing happen right now with President Trump threatening the Canadian auto industry, where we're now having to look at working with China because the American industry doesn't want to work with us anymore. And the big example we get right now is on aluminum. Anyone who knows the aluminum industry knows that Canada has for decades been one of the great places to make aluminum in the world. Massive amounts of hydroelectricity, access to the raw materials meant that we are a strong, clean, reliable supplier of aluminum that America, the United States decided to put 50% tariffs on Canadian aluminum. And though suddenly, the Americans weren't buying aluminum from Canada anymore,

they were looking to try to increase their own production, which is not easy to do because electricity is so expensive in the States and not as clean. And the Europeans sort of came to us and said, hey, what you make the cleanest aluminum in the world and you're not able to sell it to the US, will you sign a deal with us?

We said, absolutely.

Well, Trudeau once said there was no business case for selling LNG to Europe. And he didn't mention that China has maintained tariffs on Canadian canola and seafood products, including lobster and crab. RFK Jr. has described Canada's euthanasia program as abhorrent and amoral.

U.S. Secretary of Health Robert Kennedy told a Senate subcommittee this week Canada's MAID program targets the most vulnerable people, including the disabled.

I think those laws are abhorrent and we see in Canada today I think it's the number one cause of death is assisted suicide and as you say it targets people with disabilities and people who are struggling in their lives and I don't think we can be a moral society. We can't be a moral authority around the globe if that becomes institutionalized throughout

our societies. Main causes of death in Canada remain cancer and heart disease. Maid now accounts for about 1 in 20 deaths nationally. Well, the man who once dismissed Alberta's separation and the movement as a fringe movement now says it could become a real factor in Canadian politics. Former Premier of Alberta Jason Kenney told the Globe and Mail Ottawa may not fully grasp the seriousness of a referendum vote set for

October 19th. Well, Premier Danielle Smith says a government website is being set up to give Albertans information about the upcoming referendum question, but she makes it clear she does not support independence. Let's listen.

When you talk to people, whether they be politicians or voters, whether it be in Alberta or outside of Alberta, when you talk about a referendum in the fall, most people already assume that independence is going to be on the ballot. Why not just do it? Just choose a question that is clear, put it on

the ballot right now so that conversation can actually start. You can have a yes and a no camp. Why not do it today?

Because my position is that we should remain in Canada. That's the position of our government. We believe that we should assert sovereignty within a united Canada. So that is our policy. And so others are putting forward a proposal that would have a different position. And so it would not be a government sponsored question. It would be one that would be a citizen initiated

response. And so we're waiting to see if the court will affirm that and allow the signature collection to go to be validated. We, I don't want to prejudge what the court's gonna do. I believe they're going to be making their decision in May.

Our guest today is Keith Wilson, a pro-independence lawyer, who will also be taking part in a debate about independence with former premier Jason Kenney. Welcome, Keith.

Thanks for having me on.

All right, paint me a picture of the day after a pro-independence referendum vote. Do you think that premier Smith, who is a staunch supporter of the federalist side, should resign right afterwards? I mean, given her position as a believer in federalism, would

you think that that would be appropriate?

Well, the Supreme Court of Canada was clear in its 1998 decision on succession and the Quebec reference, where the court laid out a legal pathway for any province to become independent, which includes the process of a referendum where a clear majority vote in favor on a clear question for independence. So, after that vote, if it's successful, the Premier is going to have a choice. She's going to either have to step down or she's going to have to lead the negotiations and the follow-up steps towards independence.

The Supreme Court of Canada did not say in its decision that if a clear majority vote on a clear question, then negotiations for independence must ensue unless the Premier doesn't want them. So it'll be incumbent on her to make a personal decision. I'm hopeful that she'll be reactive to the will of the people and lead the negotiations

with the federal government

and the steps towards implementing independence. I mean, it would be an awfully awkward scenario, wouldn't it? I mean, she's pro-federalist side, and then after a vote, then potentially you're saying she could just flip and say, okay, I'm with the independent

side now. Albertans have had their say, and I'm going to be the person to negotiate a termination of our relationship with Canada. I mean, do you think that that's a practical way to move forward?

I mean, given her stance? I do. I mean, it's only she knows the answer to those questions, but clearly the Supreme Court of Canada, which is the binding law of Canada, binding upon the federal government and all of the provinces is clear that where a decision is made by the people to become independent, the provincial government must lead the negotiations and implement the steps

towards independence. So she'd either have to decide that's something she's comfortable with or not.

And I never really quite understood the idea of a sovereign Alberta in a united Canada. I mean, at some point you got to pick a lane. You cannot be sovereign within the context of your being a province in another country. You know what I'm saying? Maybe she could explain it to me one day in a way that makes sense. I mean, I understand the Quebec experiment, you know, and the fact that they consider themselves a nation, but they're not really a nation.

Everybody knows that they don't have a seat in the UN.

Well that might, that having a, not having a seat in the UN might actually be a good thing these days, but more to your point, the reality is that what I haven't heard from anybody who's saying let's fix Canada, whether it's Jason Kenney or anybody else, is how they plan to do it. Because first of all, it doesn't seem to me that other parts of Canada even think they're broken. I don't think the carny liberals think Canada is broken. They're quite happy having Albertans work really hard

and send 30 to $40 billion extra to Ottawa. They're quite happy controlling our lives, providing us with maid instead of healthcare and things like that. So I just don't know how anybody who thinks who it seems there even those who are not separatists acknowledge that Alberta has legitimate grievances and that acknowledge that Alberta has

good reason to feel that it's being treated unfairly and it doesn't have proper representation in the House of Commons and so on but none of them have laid out a plan that I've seen to have it addressed. The only plan that makes sense to me, legal plan that actually has viability is independence, and that's why I think an increasing number of Albertans are supporting it.

Yeah, I mean, the feds are holding all the cards, really, and there has to be an acknowledgement, and they like the status quo, to your point. They like the status quo, hold all the cards. So unless they are absolutely forced into doing something, they won't do it because they like things just the way they are. And speaking of Jason Kenney, there was this quote in the Globe and Mail.

If they get enough of those frustrated Federalists voting for leverage, and you get, I don't know, 20, 30, 35 percent, yes, that creates a permanent divisive fact in our politics. It will turn the separatist movement from a marginal fringe to a real factor in our politics that will be disruptive for a long time to come. Well, this is the same man who dismissed your movement

as fringe, just a small group of angry people who are not getting their way and making a lot of noise. But now he seems to be acknowledging, no, this could be an issue. And he's even acknowledging later on in that article in the Globe and Mail that, you know,

maybe the feds are not really taking this as seriously as they should.

What do you make of all of this? Well I'm longing for the old days a few months ago where they were severely underestimating the independence movement. We enjoyed it when they'd say, oh, it doesn't stand to hope. We'd just say, I just keep telling yourself that. That's fine. But I don't agree that he's describing something new.

Separatist movements have existed throughout the history of the province. The reason we have the 1930 Natural Resources Transfer Agreement in Alberta and in Saskatchewan that transferred control of all of the mines and minerals, which we now know is the third largest preserve

of oil and gas in the world, from the federal government to the Alberta government was because there was a separatist push. The reason that Premier Lougheed in the 80s was able to get the amendment, section 92A to the constitution,

the last time the constitution's been amended to give the provinces greater control over resource development was because there was an independence push. And there was actually a threat to turn down the volume of oil being supplied through the pipeline into Sarnia from Alberta, which turns into the most of the oil and gas and the jet fuel used at Pearson.

So we've come to these points in the past, they simmer up. I don't think it's anything new. I think what's happened is the liberals under Trudeau and Carney have been much more ideologically extremist. They're determined to hold back our oil and gas industry and other industries, and then they have these other ideological agendas that do not sit well with Albertans

at all, whether it's MADE or these other, to be blunt, woke agendas. They're soft on crime. People think it's just about economics and it's just the separatist movement here is just about a pipeline in economics. It's not. It's much deeper than that. Albertans do not support the cultural direction that the federal government's taking the country and do not support the reckless deficit spending that's

causing inflation and making life unaffordable for our kids.

Yeah and now they have a majority government, which is probably the best friend of the independence, uh, proponents that they could ask, you know, because anybody thinking, well, they've got a minority government, there has to be an election, you know, maybe in 2026 or the next year. And now poof, they've got a majority, which they got in a frankly, a sneaky little way. And so the hope that they could extract this government in favor of one that's more in

favor of economic growth and resource sector growth, that's extinguished. And I'm wondering if that's not worth another five to 10% of support on your side. What do you think?

Well, not only that, how it happened. This is the first unelected majority government. They did it through floor crossing and effectively offering some form of reward that is not disclosed or is disclosed and is troubling to MPs who were elected and ran on another party platform, made a representation as to their views, betrayed the voters, and it was an affirmation for Albertans that we're not voting

our way out of this in terms of voting in federal elections. It was an affirmation that the structural allocation of seats and how the party system works in Canada is fundamentally disadvantageous to Albertans and not representative. We have taxation without representation. So yeah, it was a big boost.

Carney generally though, I said this right after he was elected, I said he's going to be, my prediction was, I didn't realize he was going to perform at this level, that he was going to be the biggest proponent for Albert independence that we'd ever seen. And he keeps affirming it. You know, when he stood in front of the microphones a few weeks ago, or I guess a few months ago now, and said that our relationship with the United States is over, right? 90% of Alberta's trade is north-south with the United

States. The largest economy in the world. We're closest to them geographically and for him to announce that that amazing business relationship, economic relationship that we have with our largest, most powerful nation in the world is over really upset a lot of Albertans and then he replaces it with a closer affiliation with China. You really can't even make this stuff up. It seemed if I were to predict these things to you

a few years ago, you'd think I wasn't mentally stable. So he is the biggest proponent. And then look what happened at their convention and And then his video, YouTube video last weekend, politicians and leaders usually inspire hope. And he mocked it. He said, hope is not a plan. And nostalgia is not a strategy. He used the same phraseology on that red tinge stage

that looked like something from a super villain set when at their convention and his wife got up and then slowed down again the phrase. They could say new world order, like it's a new ginsu knife, but they go new world order, like central casting stuff. So to your question, the bottom line is

Prime Minister Carney has been the best booster of Alberta independence beyond even my wildest expectations.

Well, we did have the MOU, Memorandum of Understanding, that was signed between himself and Premier Smith who then took it to the party and touted it. The reaction, from what I recall, was not very positive. But has that not been much of a game changer in terms of Albertans' belief that things

will change in terms of promoting the oil sector and exploiting this amazing resource? It's been an affirmation of how bad things are. It's not as, and the reason is the fact that so much pressure has to be brought by a province to get Ottawa to pay attention, to help unleash economic growth. We had RBC come out with a report last week

about a trillion dollars worth of investment lost. We had the Canadian Federation of Business talk about unprecedented departure from Canada of small businesses, of job creators, of high wealth taxpayers. And the reason the MOU hasn't changed the equation much is, number one, it's an illustration of how bad things are that you have to kind of negotiate some special deal. But more importantly this, right after he announced the MOU, he simultaneously announced that he was giving Premier Eby of British Columbia and the First Nations

a veto over the pipeline. So it doesn't matter if every detail is negotiated and settled on the carbon taxes and the pathway project and all of these other features of the MOU. It's dead on arrival, unfortunately, because he said, well, there's not going to be a pipeline unless EB and BC agrees and the first nation agrees. And they immediately stood up and have repeatedly said there'll be no pipeline. So it's all theater. I think it's obvious that Mark Carney still is in an era of climate alarmism.

He believes he's going to save the world. There's going to be big statues of him and he's going to make sure that there's a transition away from fossil fuels. There was a Freudian slip. And he is going to use Canada, and particularly Alberta as a test case. Albertans are done. The world desperately needs our oil and gas. We should be supplying it.

We're a stable supplier. You don't have to bomb things here like they're doing in Iran. You don't have to have wars like they're having in Russia and Ukraine. Albertans can be a stable supplier. The only reason we're not, the only reason we're not

one of the richest places on the planet Earth is because of the deliberate policies coming out of Ottawa. And like I say, an increasing number of Albertans are realizing the only viable path forward is not to amend the constitution, is not to vote our way out of this in terms of trying to get the CPC in power in Ottawa and all that stuff. The only way out is to vote yes in an independence referendum on October 19th.

Yeah, I mean, I think Carney's opposition to Alberta oil, the resource sector, has less to do with environmentalism than it does with his own investments elsewhere. And you know, there are oil producers that are much more profitable elsewhere in terms of making him richer. And I know it's not a popular point of view, perhaps, but I believe he has financial interests that want to see oil produced elsewhere, and Canada, it would be a competitor to that, and therefore that's the

real reason, in my opinion. But I want to ask you about this because there had been some talk, and yeah, it's a little gray in terms of where it came from, but this was a discussion that was had between Jeff Rath and a supporter in Hamilton, Ontario, who worked at Stelco, who apparently overheard a conversation coming from the Prime Minister himself that suggests that the government of Ottawa in Canada would use the Emergencies Act as an avenue in the event of a yes vote in the referendum and stop it in its tracks because they would see it as a threat to Canada, its sovereignty and its security.

And under that proviso or criterion in the Act, they could stop independence for Alberta from moving forward.

You're a lawyer. Maybe you could address that for me. Well, as you may be aware, I've also been legal counsel to the Freedom Convoy protesters and was on the ground in Ottawa during the protest and was there dealing with the government when they invoked the Emergencies Act and my clients had their bank accounts frozen and I saw everything that flowed from it and I also dealt with the litigation where the courts have ruled that it was improper,

unreasonable, unconstitutional, and breached charter rights. So I'm very familiar with the Emergencies Act and seeing how it can be abused by this government. So I don't place anything in this stuff about somebody at Stelco said something or didn't, it's just unverifiable. But I have, prior to this, done an analysis of, well,

what would happen if and when, hopefully, Alberta votes to become independent, and could the federal government use the Emergencies Act? And my analysis, legal analysis is no, because the process of independence is a lawful one, because the Supreme Court of Canada has made it part of the constitutional framework of the country that any province can vote in an election through referendum to secede. So there would be no pretext to invoke it. Now of course, there was no pretext to invoke it. Now, of course, there was no pretext to

invoke it against the protesters in Ottawa in February of 2022, and that didn't stop the government. So I think if they were to unlawfully invoke the Emergencies Act again, and try and use force against Albertans, I think that would attract a significant international response and would have very serious repercussions for the Canadian government. And I think there would probably be a very strong response from our neighbors to the South, the United States of America.

Of course, Alberta supplies 55% of their oil imports, I think they would be creating a national security crisis for the United States. I just can't see the federal government even thinking of going down that road.

So you're saying a yes vote would then be followed by recognition from other countries, most importantly the United States. And then were things to get ugly, which is to say, well, I know you might want to leave, but you're not going anywhere. You know, you know what I mean? Like, like a spouse saying one spouse says, I'm out of here. And the other one says, Oh no, you're not.

And you know, we'll use whatever levers at our disposal to make sure you don't leave. And by the way, you know, we'll throw you a bone here and there, like a few extra, you know, seats and okay, you can have your pipeline. I can envision something like that, where once the stark reality of an independent reality, of an independent Alberta, really hits these people,

like being hit with a salmon across the face, all of a sudden, you know, their eyes are going to open up and they're going to go, oh my God, this is real and we have to stop it.

What do you think?

Well, it's too late. The courts have laid out a legal pathway. The legal pathway involves a referendum. We're going to have a referendum in the fall. We've already had Tomok Lukasik here with his Forever Canada. He's triggered the threshold for a referendum.

The Premier acknowledged that today at her press conference. So no matter what happens in the courts with the other Stay Free Alberta referendum petition request, there's going to be a referendum on independence. The courts have already laid out the pathway if a clear majority vote yes. One pathway is through negotiation

and a peaceful, amicable, mature divorce settlement. And the other is as set out in paragraph 155 of the Supreme Court of Canada decision, it's unilateral declaration, relying on recognition by other nation states.

In October 2025, Prime Minister Carmy did the most remarkable thing where he announced that the government of Canada was going to recognize the state of Palestine's unilateral declaration of independence. I fell out of my chair. He refreshed that international doctrine. So if the United States were to recognize

Alberta, I think the Trump administration would say, what are you talking about? You just did it for Palestine. How can you complain that we're doing it for the new country of Alberta? Other countries would come forward. 92% of our trade is with the United States. And then if they're going to threaten things to Alberta, well, there's a pipeline that leaves Alberta and supplies oil to Sarnia, the refineries that turn it into jet fuel and gasoline and diesel that operate the Ontario economy.

Now they do get some other supplies from the US, but the major supplier is Alberta. If they're going to do something inappropriate, it would be open for Alberta to turn off the valve just like Premier Lawheed promised and committed to do back in his negotiation for the amendment of 92A. And similarly, with British Columbia, they primarily get all of their fuel supplies from a pipeline that goes from Edmonton to the Burnaby refinery. And the reports all the analysis is that within, you know, five

to 11 days, they would be out of fuel, their airport would be shut down. Now, nobody wants any of those things to happen. Albertans just want to be treated fairly. We're the economic engine of the country and we allow free trade and movement of goods through our borders. $8 billion worth of goods from British Columbia travel freely through Alberta on rail and truck easterly. And we just want the right to be able to move our goods to market too. So an independent of Alberta would

have leverage with the rest of the country, very significant leverage, reasonable leverage, and I think it would be exercised responsibly. And I think if the federal government tried to do something irrational or irresponsible, Alberta has the ability to prevent that from happening. And we also have, I think, friends in the United States that wouldn't want to see harm come to Alberta. Right. You've got a bodyguard or I mean, Alberta is going to need its own

military but I guess in the meantime, you know, you've got friends south of the border.

The Canadian government couldn't, remember the spy balloon? A big, huge, slow-moving balloon. They couldn't even take it down. They had to rely on the Americans, twice.

– Prime Minister Kearney, Keith, has never, to my knowledge, said that he would recognize an independence vote that went in the affirmative. To my knowledge, I've never heard him say that. Have you?

And no, that's a great question. I think he should be asked that. That's a brilliant question.

I would ask him that question and help somebody does eventually, because I think Canadians and Albertans would sure like an answer. What does he say? No?

You know. I would be- And that would be an unconstitutional response because the Supreme Court of Canada has been clear that it's the binding law. It overrides the Clarity Act. If there's a conflict between the Clarity Act

and the Supreme Court of Canada decision, that decision prevails over the Clarity Act. There are some things in the Clarity Act that aren't even aligning with the decision already. So it would be, it would, well, you know, but he's not followed the Constitution already. the MOU that he is giving to British Columbia a veto over the pipeline is directly inconsistent with the express provisions of section 92 of the constitution that give exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government to approve interprovincial pipelines.

This has been affirmed not that long ago in court cases involving the TMX pipeline, the twinning. When the previous administration in British Columbia tried to stop it, the court said, no, the provincial, the federal government is exclusive jurisdiction. Once it's an interventional pipeline and it's approved by the federal government, the

provinces have no say. First nations have no veto. And then here he's ignoring the constitution and delegating that authority to the province, to the First Nations, knowing full well they were going to say no. So it's his way of playing Alberta and saying, oh, here, I'll give you an MOU so you can

get a pipeline. And then he turns around and announces a mechanism so the pipeline can never happen. And then on top of that, we have a more core problem, which is net zero fixation and obsession. There can't be a pipeline even if there's a route and even if there's no tanker ban, because a pipeline company needs commitments from oil companies to produce the oil and put the oil into their pipe and pay tolls. The companies aren't prepared to commit to expand production

because they don't know if they'll make any money because they're paying these carbon taxes. They have net zero rules they have to deal with. They have methane emission caps and then the Pathways Project, all of which significantly add to the cost of production. No other country does this to their oil and gas industry. As the industry leaders have said recently, finally, in the oil and gas industry, no customer is asking for this and no customer will pay a premium for it.

So Carney's putting layered obstruction in because ideologically he sees himself as a superhero and he's going to save the planet by turning back the clock and moving us all away from fossil fuels. And that's a very dangerous concept at every level. And Albertans are tired of being held back and tired of propping up the rest of the country and tired of the ideological direction and have great hope in what Alberta can become

as an independent country.

I know we have to wrap things up, but I mean, if polling suggests, by the way, you better use paper ballots or however you're going to do it.

You know, just on that note, Danielle Smith passed a law about a year ago. No more tabulators. Every vote must be paper.

Yeah, exactly.

The only province to do that municipal elections, every vote must be paper. You're the only province to do that. Even municipal elections, all elections, it must be paper.

Yeah, they'll figure out a way to rig it if they can, but if the polls suggest that your side will win, the feds are gonna roll in with a convoy of Brinks trucks, you know, packed to the brim with cash and promises, you just know it's gonna happen.

No, that's not what they're going to do. They're going to, they're going to try and scare everybody to death. That's what they're going to, they're going to use a fear campaign. That's what they're going to do. They're going to try and they're going to, and they've already do it. You know, talk of independence creates investment uncertainty. Yeah. okay. No, no you guys is Policy-created investment uncertainty and it's quantified now by RBC and it was a trillion dollars the only pathway forward to bring investment stability is for Alberta to free itself from these ideological extremists in Ottawa and have control over our policies because we won't have carbon taxes,

we won't have net zero, and we will have an efficient, stable business environment with minimal regulation to allow the power of the market to rise all boats.

Keith Wilson, thank you so much for coming on the show. We hope you come back. Thank you very much. If you enjoyed this show, consider supporting great independent journalism by becoming a premier member of Juno News. Please go to Juno News dot com

backslash straight up. You can find the link below. It helps us do what we do here. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. We'll see you next time.