Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
The Never Ending Inquiry
85 Plays3 years ago
University of Calgary law professor Martin Olzsynski joins us to discuss the inquiry that never ends. Regardless of whether or not the Allan Inquiry meets its latest deadline the inquiry has been an omnishambles since it started—we break down why as well as what's going to happen with this mess.
Recommended
Transcript
New Shows Announcement
00:00:01
Speaker
The Progress Report is a proud member of the Harbinger Media Network, and there's big news coming from Harbinger with three new shows joining the network this summer. We've got Half-Pass Capitalism with Breach co-founder Drew Ogije, we've got Sweater Weather, an arts and culture podcast with Aaron Giavone, and Fezivor Ashish from the fine folks at Ricochet Francais. I'm very excited to check these new shows out, and you should check out these new shows as well as other exclusive supporter-only content at harbingermedianetwork.com. Now, on to the show.
Introduction to The Progress Report
00:00:40
Speaker
Friends and enemies, welcome to The Progress Report. I am your host, Duncan Kinney. I'm recording today here in Amiskwichiwa, Skaigan, otherwise known as Edmonton, Alberta, here in Treaty Six territory on the banks of the Kasis-Kasa-Wandissippi, or the North Saskatchewan River.
Guest Introduction: Martin Olshinsky
00:00:53
Speaker
Joining us today is Martin Olshinsky, a law professor with the University of Calgary. Martin, welcome to the pod. Thanks for having me.
The Secretive Public Inquiry
00:01:01
Speaker
So Martin, during the Cold War, there was like a term created to describe the study.
00:01:06
Speaker
of the politics and policies of Soviet Russia. And it was it was called Kremlinology. And like the Soviet Union was this, you know, secretive place. It didn't necessarily give a lot of information out to the West. So this kind of scholarship was like, you know, heavy on like reading the tea leaves of like appointments and like conjecture and speculation. And and that's kind of where I feel where we're at with this this public inquiry. It's been incredibly secretive.
00:01:32
Speaker
This public inquiry headed by Steven Allen, I should I should clarify that's that's looking into supposed anti Alberta energy campaigns. And, and, you know, I think, Martin, you are one of Alberta's foremost in virologists. How do you feel about being dubbed an in virologist?
00:01:49
Speaker
Yeah, I think I'm I think I'm comfortable with it. You know, I guess some necessity is the mother of all invention. And so I think the term and the role are sort of just required in this context. And I just happen, I guess, to have, you know, there's really sort of you can think about the inquiry is having sort of these two aspects. One is the substantive aspect which deals with
00:02:13
Speaker
essentially environmental law and policy, and in particular around the regulatory sort of oversight of the oil sands, and then the other one being the process, which is essentially administrative law, those both kind of fall in my wheelhouse. So I guess I'm sort of, I won't say that it's totally forced participation. There's a lot about this inquiry. I get emails from colleagues across Canada who are just like,
00:02:41
Speaker
just struck by every twist and turn. And we'll talk about all of those. They can't believe it, you know, they're just they're completely shocked or sort of, you know, dumbfounded. So so it's been, it's been interesting for sure. So it's kind of a mixture, I guess, of sort of like service and an interest.
00:03:02
Speaker
Well, we're very pleased to have you on here to do, you know, a long discussion and examination of Alberta's very famous never ending inquiry, right? This is the song that never ends. And I'm glad that we've got someone like you who's kind of studied it so closely from the very beginning on it.
Origins of the Public Inquiry
00:03:18
Speaker
So, yes, let's just establish a kind of baseline knowledge about the inquiry before we kind of get into everything that has gone wrong with it. And I think a great place to kind of start us off with why the inquiry exists is like the home stretch of the 2019 Alberta election, spring 2019. The final weekend before voting, Jason Kenney is doing a campaign rally in Valley View, Alberta, the rally for the North.
00:03:43
Speaker
And, you know, it's a great success. He's he's cruising to victory. He's going to eventually cruise to victory. And at this stage, just a few days before voting, his campaign puts out this press release that's really and it sums up a kind of consistent stump speech talking point of his over the past few months. It was in his it was in his platform. And the headline of this press release was Kenny announces UCP government will pursue legal action against the U.S. funded campaign targeting Alberta's energy.
00:04:09
Speaker
And do you remember this? You probably don't remember the press release, Martin, but you probably do remember the piece by Vivian Krauss. And this was this press release by the UCP campaign was essentially a very tight follow up, like it was like the next day or the same day, a follow up to this piece by Vivian Krauss. And this piece had blown up as well. And this piece by Vivian Krauss
00:04:28
Speaker
really tied together, it tied together us, Progress Alberta, it tied together the Rockefellers, Rachel Notley, various other political enemies of the UCP into a very complicated conspiracy that all of these folks were collaborating together to hurt Alberta while, hurt Alberta and specifically Alberta's oil sands, while, according to Krauss, and here's the quote, benefiting US interests to the tune of billions, unquote,
00:04:52
Speaker
So do you remember this piece by Crouse at all, Martin? Oh, I do. And in fact, of course, it's it's been in the news lately. Right. So, I mean, and Miss Crouse's work has been in the news again lately, starting, I guess, a couple of weeks ago. So, yeah, no, I'm absolutely familiar with it. I've looked at it recently. Yep.
00:05:12
Speaker
Yeah, you were digging through her clips to be, well, we'll get into that later. But yeah, let's, but it's funny, like Kenny was actually like interviewing Kraus in a piece of content that was officially branded as like authorized by the UCP with like their campaign phone number at the bottom that was posted on their social media accounts. And in this clip, I mean, it's, it's, let's just listen to it. It's, it's pretty wild.
00:05:34
Speaker
Hey guys, I'm here with the amazing Vivian Kraus, who you've probably heard about. Vivian has broken open one of the biggest stories in Canadian politics in the last decade, and it's only now starting to get mainstream media attention. Vivian, why don't you just give us a quick overview of your research on the Tar Sands campaign.
00:05:51
Speaker
Well, you know, Jason, as you know so well, we're in a crisis. Here's Alberta, the engine of the Canadian economy in many ways. No province has contributed as much to the prosperity of our whole country as Alberta. And on the eve of an election, the backbone industry of Alberta is practically broken because the province can't get a pipeline.
00:06:12
Speaker
And sad to say, this didn't happen for no reason. This was planned. And it was planned as part of a Rockefeller-funded campaign to landlot Canadian food.
00:06:23
Speaker
Just to close off, you said you wanted to make a point to Albertans about how important it is to vote. Did you watch Sesame Street? You must have watched Sesame Street. Can you remember how this program is brought to us by the number or whatever? Well, this election has got to be brought by the number nine, okay? Because in B.C., you know, I'm from B.C., right? So, we had on our last election
00:06:43
Speaker
On election night, the election was lost by 9 votes. And a lot of people were kicking themselves that it hadn't been more of an effort to get out and vote. In the end, there was a recount and the BC Liberals lost about 160 votes that they lost.
00:07:03
Speaker
Right. So to me, that's a big lesson. And Alberta, you know, don't make that mistake. Right. Get out and vote. Yeah. Because you, Alberta, it's not just Alberta, our country, Jason, our country needs a leader. And I want to thank you for stepping up. You know, I believe in you because you listen. I know you listen because you listen to me even when everyone was still saying I was a conspiracy cook. Right. So thank you. Thank you for being here. That's quite a line at the end, isn't it?
00:07:30
Speaker
It is, yep. The whole thing is, I mean, what's interesting, of course, is that, you know, there's not actually very much said there, except for that, you know, like someone's view about an assessment of the situation of Alberta, the importance of the oil and gas industry, and by implication, to suggest, you know, that there's something inherently wrong, that that industry would face any kind of opposition.
00:08:01
Speaker
Yeah, the video really is like an incredible, shambling mess. It's just under 10 minutes. And, you know, we'll link to the whole thing because it is it is just wild to kind of see in 2021 this this like this.
Kenney's Campaign and Foreign Influence
00:08:12
Speaker
This was how Jason Kenney romped to victory right on on the back of this fightback strategy on the back of the idea that that, you know, foreign actors were funding an unfair, malicious, you know, lie filled attack on Alberta's economy and on the oil sands specifically.
00:08:31
Speaker
This was a reliable part of Kenny's stump speech. This was guaranteed to get people angry, and it helped propel him to victory. He wasn't necessarily running against Rachel Notley. Jason Kenney was running against Justin Trudeau. He was running against these evil foreign funders of this shadowy campaign to besmirch Alberta's oil sands.
00:08:52
Speaker
And he won. And after he won, he started putting what he promised in his campaign into action. And in July of 2019, he won in April. He announced to great fanfare this public inquiry.
00:09:08
Speaker
And there was a press conference, there were cabinet ministers there. Steve Allen was actually briefly there. He's only on camera for like a second and he doesn't say a word, but he is at the press conference. And this kind of continues him operating in the shadows and not being very public. But the inquiry was given $2.5 million. It was given a year to complete their inquiry and hand in their final report. And how would you characterize how the inquiry has gone since July of 2019, Martin?
Criticisms of the Inquiry
00:09:37
Speaker
Yeah, I mean, so, you know, with respect sideways, I think is the only way to really to describe it.
00:09:46
Speaker
You're too kind, but yes, sideways is very, very accurate, if even generous. Yeah, I mean, and that's on purpose on my part. So, you know, and I think it's worth pointing out, of course, though, that, you know, you're right, in some respects, there were quarters who were celebrating the launch of this inquiry. But, you know, at the same time, there were a lot of people who were very critical about it, right from the outset, right. And so, of course,
00:10:11
Speaker
we might dismiss the talking heads out of the Globe and Mail who said very clearly, this is a very undemocratic, what is the sin here that they were opposed to what they considered to be unsustainable development of the oil and gas sector in Alberta, which of course even Peter Laheed actually suggested in the 2000s. But even closer to home, Don Braid,
00:10:38
Speaker
even pointed out that this was an inherently political beast, right? And that the inquiry power had never been used in such an overtly political way to go after a group of individuals basically who just don't agree, I guess, with the governing
00:10:56
Speaker
And so, you know, I and then, of course, there were concerns expressed by other organizations, Amnesty International, the Mutark Foundation. Right. So I think there has been. And then, of course, you know, my colleagues at the University of Calgary, several of us have been ringing the alarm.
00:11:12
Speaker
So I do think there was some opposition from those early days, but I do think at the same time that essentially over the conduct of the inquiry, whatever support it did have has been just consistently eroded by a series of missteps, essentially one misstep after another, you know, for the past two years.
00:11:36
Speaker
Yeah, that's very fair. So you've spent a lot of time researching and writing and thinking about this inquiry. Why did you feel it was worth your time and attention? What is it about this inquiry that inspired you to start doing this work? Yeah, well, so I'm going to borrow the premier's favorite term and essentially say that the very basic premises of the inquiry are false.
00:12:04
Speaker
Um, and, and so that's, that's really, that's the thing that struck me at the outset. Uh, you know, and, and what I'm referred to there, I mean, there's really two things that really glare, um, stand out at me. The first one was the, the terms of reference, you know, and the very obvious othering, right? So this wasn't about, this wasn't like, uh, you know, to, to look into.
00:12:25
Speaker
even if you were to say like, you know, opposition to oil and gas, you know, you could put that in there, but it doesn't even say even anti oil and gas, it says anti Alberta.
00:12:36
Speaker
And so that's, in my mind, such a deliberate and obvious attempt to delegitimize opposition to oil and gas development, to conflate dissent with disloyalty. So that was a huge red flag for me right there in that language. And it was consistent with the language.
00:12:56
Speaker
you know, in the clip that you played earlier, for instance, you know, like Vivian will point out that the Rockefellers have funded this campaign. Sure, they've funded part of it, but they didn't fund all of it. You know, and no one's very, you know, it's interesting, when we talk about foreign funding, these aren't, no one's ever claimed that these are fully. And in fact, you know, Vivian has acknowledged that they are partially funded. She'll insist that she doesn't know what the exact proportions are. But that's really beside the point, right? The point is that
00:13:23
Speaker
There are deliberate choices being made here in messaging and implication. And so the implication here is that you can't be Canadian and you can't be a Burton and support these organizations. And I think that that was a very obvious and deliberate decision.
00:13:42
Speaker
which just really highlighted the very sort of political and undemocratic nature of the inquiry. The second point was this idea in the definition of anti-Alberta energy campaigns, that they opposed or sought to frustrate the responsible economic efficient and timely development of Alberta's oil and gas resources, when that has never been the case.
00:14:05
Speaker
Like, you know, and I can point to a half a dozen reports written between 2005 and 2015, some of them commissioned by the Alberta government, which make it abundantly clear that we've never had responsible development, that that development started to run red hot.
00:14:23
Speaker
towards the middle of the 2000s and created all kinds of problems, infrastructure problems. We have MPs and MLAs from Fort McMurray complaining about the lack of infrastructure, complaining about the lack of services. We have the Royal Society of Canada in 2010 saying that the regulatory capacity of both the Alberta and Canadian governments has been outstripped by the pace of development.
00:14:46
Speaker
We have two monitoring reports in 2011, environmental monitoring reports that basically say that the environmental monitoring system that you had in place to just even assess the baseline environment conditions is essentially worthless. And it just goes on. Honestly, there are like a half dozen of these reports that I can point to. So right there, I have these two
00:15:11
Speaker
strong flags, these strong red flags that say to me that this
Impact on Progress Alberta
00:15:17
Speaker
inquiry is bogus. And then I think, you know, frankly, I don't know if this is, again, I mentioned at the outset, you know, I'm an environmental law professor, but I'm also an administrative law professor. And, you know,
00:15:28
Speaker
One of the most canonical, canonical, I can't even think of the word. One of the most important cases in administrative law from a rule of law perspective is this famous case, Roncarelli versus Duplessis, where the premier of Quebec tried to punish
00:15:44
Speaker
Frank Roncarelli, who was a restaurant owner, because he was using his profits from his restaurant business, he was using those to bail out Jehovah's Witnesses, who at the time were really, you know, a thorn in the side of the duplicity government. And so the Premier sought to revoke his liquor license.
00:16:01
Speaker
And eventually the thing goes to court and the Supreme Court in this really eloquent judgment says like, of course you can't do that. Of course, there's a perspective within which this legislative regime is intended to operate and it doesn't include like these
00:16:16
Speaker
the whims of the premier to sort of lash out and punish people who are exercising their civil rights. And so to me, I think the parallels were just so strong to this context. This was so clearly to me about punishing environmentalists, the staff, donors, anyone who associates with environmental groups for being concerned about the environment. And what's interesting, of course,
00:16:41
Speaker
This is what in the news recently, this is the thing that's become plain is that there is no evidence of commercial US interests there. Essentially what it comes down to is, it looks like the sin committed here by these groups is that they accepted foreign funding in part to deal with a problem that is clearly global international in scope. So all of that, yeah, that's it in a nutshell.
00:17:11
Speaker
Yeah, and I think I have to say off the top that I am not a neutral actor when discussing this inquiry, right? The press release that I referenced off the top, I mean, that explicitly mentioned Progress Alberta, the parent organization of this podcast, by name.
00:17:25
Speaker
And I have to be honest, when the inquiry was officially launched, I was scared. And I had been explicitly threatened with legal action by a vindictive and powerful politician who now had the means to drag my name through the mud and maybe even shut down Progress Alberta, essentially hold me upside down by my ankles and shake me if he wanted to. Thankfully, the inquiry was kind of conducted so incompetently that I never even got an email from them.
00:17:54
Speaker
But we threatened to sue the inquiry off the top and have it shut down if it ever moved forward with things that public inquiries usually do, like public hearings. You know, if this inquiry ever acted like a public inquiry, we would have sued it, but it never acted like a public inquiry, did it? Well, that's it. Right. And so I've struggled a little bit with that because, you know, the first point that you make is absolutely correct. And, you know, and I know
00:18:18
Speaker
You know, and I should say, too, like, I am I am I think I try to be as objective as possible. And I think that in my analysis of the various twists and turns in this inquiry, I've sought to apply legal principles in a dispassionate way. But I'm also not a totally neutral party. I mean, to get standing, and we'll talk about that in a second. You know, I had to show that I had a direct interest in the substance of the inquiry. And, you know, so, for instance, like I've donated
00:18:48
Speaker
Whether it's money or time to various environmental organizations since I can remember like since I was an adult basically and again that that's that's tied into why I knew that so much of this inquiry was bogus because for instance you know you take an organization like eco justice which I've supported for over a decade.
00:19:07
Speaker
you know, I know and they know and their supporters know that they have fought metal mines in BC. They've opposed irrigation dams, you know, the famous Old Man River case that went to the Supreme Court in 1992 that, you know, EcoJustice was there. They've opposed nuclear facilities in Ontario. They opposed genetic modified fish in Atlantic Canada. And you know, so it's anyone who has any knowledge of this space, who has spent time in it knows that groups like
00:19:38
Speaker
EcoJustice, like West Coast, they've been working on issues like there's no question of their bona fides. But to get to your point, too, like, but yeah, that suddenly you have the machinery of the state. And I think this is something that a lot of people maybe don't appreciate. And maybe there'll be time to discuss it down the road. But like, what does it mean to wake up and find out that you're being investigated by the state?
00:20:00
Speaker
in a shadowy inquiry where the commissioner doesn't even release his rules of procedure for 14 months after the terms of reference are posted and after he's already submitted an interim report. What does it mean? And so I've alluded to in the past, and my wife always tells me it's a bad idea. But if Kafka were to imagine a public inquiry, I don't think he could pick a better example than this one.
00:20:30
Speaker
It's interesting because people say, well, what's the big deal? It's just about getting these facts. It's just a fact-finding investigation. It's just about figuring out these facts. It's like, well, let's think about the context for that fact-finding investigation. Let's think about everything that's loaded into it and how skewed it is and how narrowly framed it's become.
00:20:50
Speaker
Is it really just a fact finding investigation or is it actually intended to delegitimize and stigmatize Canadians and Albertans who are totally patriotic or whatever, but happen to be concerned about climate change? And so I think that's just a really important part, but you're right. It's hard to get really wound up about that stuff.
00:21:15
Speaker
because the inquiry hasn't had that effect as much as maybe if they had, you know, some might have hoped because it's had all these missteps along the way. Yes, it has been a glorious dumpster fire, but I think it's my words, not yours. I think it's worth just kind of going through a quick timeline. You mentioned the interim report. I mean, that's the only time that Steve Allen has actually met a deadline is when he handed in his interim report.
Inquiry's Management Issues
00:21:45
Speaker
in the end of January 2020. But I think there was signs, obviously, even at that point, that there was going to be trouble ahead. One, he hadn't started the process of engaging with the organizations that had been explicitly named by Jason Kennedy prior to starting the inquiry.
00:22:01
Speaker
But also a freedom of information request that we put in on to try and get that interim report. It was totally denied. We didn't even get a chance to see like the email addresses or the page numbers. But we did learn the page count of that interim report and it was only 12 pages, which
00:22:18
Speaker
Um, for six months of work is not a tremendous amount of content. Uh, you know, that's including a title page. You know, I, I have no idea whether that was double space or what the font size was, but, um, you know, there, there was signs and I think it's worth just kind of blowing through the timeline really fast, just, just to like get a sense of, of how, um, bad it has been. Right. So, so interim report handed in in January, uh, of 2020.
00:22:44
Speaker
COVID happens, whatever. He blows his first deadline of July 2020. Deadlines push back to October 31st, and Alan has given another million dollars, bringing the total budget for this inquiry, I should point out, to three and a half million. Another fun fact, Steve Alan is getting paid $291,000 a year to do this.
00:23:04
Speaker
Alan also blew that October 31st deadline. He was given until January 31st, 2021. Alan then blew his January 31st, 2021 deadline. That deadline was pushed to May 31st, 2021. That is the deadline that he has blown most recently, the end of May. It's June now. The report still isn't in. His deadline has now been pushed to July 30th, 2021, a full year after his original deadline for when the inquiry's final report was supposed to be submitted to government.
00:23:32
Speaker
So I mean, you're a law professor, you're teaching students, you know, do people get to typically get to hand in assignments a year after their original deadline? Yeah, so so not typically, but I, you know, I think an important point to make here, you know, so I was, you know, this idea that, you know, essentially, it's just like not able to get your assignment in on time, not being able to finish the work, I think I operated under that
00:23:58
Speaker
premise for a while, there's that word again. But you know, what's interesting, of course, is that in the most recent bit of news, you know, we had a former PCMLA Donna Kennedy Glantz come out on a podcast with the CBC where she basically suggested
00:24:17
Speaker
You know, she talks about this negotiation between Alan and the Minister of Energy and her department. And so, of course, the thing that I'm starting to think, I guess, and I think others have thought this too now at this point, is that it may not so much be a question of finishing it. It may be finished.
00:24:34
Speaker
It's just that the government isn't prepared to accept it in its final form. Right. This is the thing that we're starting to I think that is at the very least a very plausible theory at this point is that is that Alan has finished or thought he has finished the work.
Government Interference Allegations
00:24:48
Speaker
But that but that the government keeps saying to him not good enough.
00:24:52
Speaker
Which of course is hugely, if true, is just like mind-blowing. Because that doesn't work that way, right? Alan is supposed to be an independent commissioner. He writes his report. There is one provision in his terms of reference which allows him to go back to the government to adjust the terms of reference if required. And we've seen them do that, and that's been super problematic as well.
00:25:17
Speaker
But it definitely doesn't contemplate this idea that there can be this negotiation, again, between what this final product is going to look like. He's the commissioner. He was appointed. He makes that call. If there's any truth to this suggestion, then I think it basically means that his report will be dead on arrival from a legal perspective. And not to get into the weeds on this stuff, but one of the things
00:25:47
Speaker
When we talk about these kinds of inquiries, the issue of bias is obviously very important. And it's been addressed a little bit that there was early litigation by EcoJustice, but I think it's important for your listeners to understand that that challenge that EcoJustice lost was really just around the launch of the inquiry.
00:26:04
Speaker
It didn't contemplate and it didn't get into the weeds on the conduct itself. It was really limited to the launch and then tied a little bit to Mr. Allen's history of political donations and whether those created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court said, essentially, it's premature at this point.
00:26:22
Speaker
So that argument can be made. And so then another part of that bias argument is independence. And essentially all of it's around this idea that an administrative decision maker like Alan is supposed to be impartial. And so one way that you're not impartial, of course, is if you have some kind of bias. But another way in which you're not going to be impartial is if you're not actually independent. And so again, that's the other just theory that we have to sort of, I think at least entertain here is that there is a report.
00:26:50
Speaker
but that the minister, Sonia Savage, and her staff have somehow suggested that it's not adequate, it's not sufficient. And on that front too, I'll say, with this last extension also, I think it's really important to point out that what it does is, you know, so Alan was supposed to submit his report on May 31st, and then the minister would have 90 days
00:27:14
Speaker
to sit on it again which is really weird no i don't really understand why they would need to sit on that report for three months before releasing it. But but in any event that meant that it would have been out by the end of august.
00:27:27
Speaker
which of course is about a month away, just a little bit more than a month away from a busy electoral sort of season in Alberta, right? With not just municipal elections, but all these referenda. With this extent- And don't forget Senate elections, Martin. Those are very important. I am running for Senate, vote Duncan Kinney for Senate. It's a very important election, yes. Keep going. So now the report doesn't have to be released until October 30th.
00:27:53
Speaker
90-day clock starts July, and you do the math. That's end of October. And I find that timing curious. And again, I'm trying not to put on a tinfoil hat. But again, I think these are things that people need to understand. It was a major quiver in the fight-back strategy was this public inquiry. And yet, now we see that
00:28:16
Speaker
It won't be made public until after, you know, and then there's a clear link, of course, between referenda on equalization and and fair deals and all that kind of stuff with this this notion of martyrdom in this province. And and of course, if the report doesn't substantiate it, well, that's not very convenient for those for those interests that would like to to sort of like capitalize on Albertans frustration and really
00:28:47
Speaker
use it to sort of drive their own political agendas.
00:28:52
Speaker
Yes, and you mentioned independence, whether this inquiry is really independent or not. I mean, there's a reason why these public inquiries are typically headed up by judges or ex-judges, right? And, you know, it's for obvious reasons. These are like quasi-judicial proceedings. You know, judges are largely perceived as impartial, like Alan is an accountant and a UCP donor who like personally campaigned for and donated to the cabinet minister that appointed him to the position.
00:29:20
Speaker
I don't think anyone is under the misapprehension that Alan is this independent actor in this case, and the Donna Kennedy glands blabbing to the CBC podcast about this, I mean, really just confirms what we all knew. Yeah, I mean, it's tricky, right? Time will tell. Like I said, one person who might disagree with you is Justice Horner.
00:29:43
Speaker
But I think it's important to point out again that her decision was rendered before those before that CBC podcast right and before those facts came out or let allegations anyways, we don't know that they're facts or not. But but certainly all of that is relevant and will be brought up in the almost inevitable legal challenge to this report if and when it's finally made public.
00:30:09
Speaker
Yes. And I think one of the reasons why I wanted to bring you on as well is to talk about where this inquiry is going with regards to the law. And the Public Inquiries Act is the legislation that dictates how these things work. Kenny could have called a special committee or a legislative committee or hired a special prosecutor to do this, but he didn't. He called a public inquiry.
00:30:34
Speaker
And maybe he just called the public inquiry because it sounds good, but a public inquiry is duty bound to follow the rules. And there is one kind of extraordinary thing that has still not happened with regards to this inquiry that's now what, 22, 23 months old? And they still have not sent out section 13 notices or misconduct notices.
00:30:56
Speaker
And can you explain to our audience what those kind of notices are and why they are important given everything that has been said in the lead up to this inquiry? Yeah. So basically, at common law, even before there was legislation around these kinds of things. So we are a common law country in Canada with the exception of Quebec. But for over 200 years and more even, there's been this notion that when the state does certain things,
00:31:23
Speaker
It's bound by certain rules of fairness. And in the past, we used to refer to this notion of natural justice. Now that's become essentially what we call a doctrine of procedural fairness. And it varies. It's contextual. It depends on the situation. It depends on the interests at stake. It depends on the kind of decision. But suffice it to say that an inquiry like this
00:31:44
Speaker
which is essentially accusing organizations of engaging in anti-Alberta energy campaigns. Figures in the high end of the spectrum in terms of the procedural fairness that is owed. I'm going to apologize to your listeners right now. My computer is making, my emails are coming through and I can't seem to get that to turn off.
00:32:06
Speaker
But it's so it's at the high end. And so what that usually means is, for instance, you know, we have this suite of procedural rights that we refer to. And some of these are now, of course, not surprisingly baked into the legislation because legislators pay attention right to the courts and they're like, well, we're not going to. Why don't we spell some of this out just to sort of avoid any confusion? So the Public Enquiries Act spells out certain procedural protections. Right. And obvious ones are things like notice, you know, like
00:32:35
Speaker
Notice that, you know, there's a hearing that is relevant to your interest if it is, in fact, relevant to your interest because, of course, you can't participate and you can't make your argument if you don't know what case you have to meet. And let's just say, like, right off the bat right there, you know, this goes back to the issue of the delay in the rules of practice and procedure. The inquiry is launched in July. In the fall of 2019, so July 2019, in that fall, EcoJustice writes to the commissioner and says, okay, well,
00:33:00
Speaker
Can you please let us all know how you're going to go about this? Like what are the rules? Could you please prepare that? He doesn't do it. He submits an interim report. He still doesn't do it. EcoJustice brings a lawsuit to force him to essentially to do that. Or at least one of the grounds is that he still hasn't done this. And at the 11th hour in September, 14 months, September 2020, 14 months after the launch, he releases these rules of procedure.
00:33:27
Speaker
So that gives you an example of the clear problems there. But then to get to the notices. So say he does all his investigation.
00:33:36
Speaker
There's a potential, I mean, public inquiries are designed to essentially look into matters. You know, you can think about inquiries that people would know about, the Crevier Commission into the blood scandal, right, the blood tainting scandals in the 1980s. In that context, what happened is that essentially the commissioner made findings that certain organizations dropped the ball, basically, right? So these are essentially findings, adverse findings or findings of misconduct.
00:34:05
Speaker
And so in that context, the commissioner wrote to all the parties well in advance of this file. So he had done the investigative work. He's preparing his report. He says, look, I think I'm going to make these findings. So he then gives notice to those parties. He says, look,
00:34:21
Speaker
These are the potential findings that I'll be making. Let's come up with a system. I'm going to give you two weeks to say how you want to respond to this. And then there was a hearing, and those organizations were allowed to, in that commission, in that inquiry, for instance, everything was a matter of public record. Everybody was able to cross-examine, everybody else. Everything was clear and out front.
00:34:43
Speaker
And so then at the end of that, we say, look, you've been given those opportunities. So then if the commissioner makes those findings, you may disagree with them, but at least you can say, well, I had my chance to answer the allegations.
00:34:57
Speaker
This is what's been missing so far for 23 months, you're right, going on 23 months in this inquiry, is that there have been no notices sent. And we kept waiting. It was interesting, as you say, when the extension started to come, the second extension in October. So people started to ask in September, well, has he contacted anyone? And the news was, no, we hadn't contacted anyone. And so then there's an extension until January.
00:35:21
Speaker
And in January, people started asking, well, has he contacted anyone? And again, you know, the Greenpeace is in the ecosystem. I know we got no notices of any adverse findings. And so then we wait for the next three months. And then surely now the extension into May, February, March, April, he's going to be doing this work.
00:35:38
Speaker
But still, you know, in late April and early May, we start to get word that still he hasn't contacted any of these organizations. And of course, the minister invokes the totally bogus excuse of the litigation brought by eco justice. And I just want your listeners to be clear that that litigation was over in February.
00:35:55
Speaker
everything, all of the work that was involved, it took the judge from February until April, end of April, sorry, mid-May to render her decision, but everything, she was the only one working on that litigation for those three months, okay? So we all thought, surely he was going to send those out and he still hasn't. And now, again, there are two, at least two sort of competing theories. One is that
00:36:20
Speaker
They're not sure. I mean, they're having a trouble reaching some of these organizations. That seems hard. Those organizations have no trouble reaching him. I know that, you know, again, we know that Greenpeace has reached out to Alan because when he released those commission reports that we haven't talked about yet in January, a bunch of those were slagging Greenpeace basically. And they wrote him and said, well, dude, you released these into the public and you never gave us a heads up. How is that fair? The other
00:36:49
Speaker
The other explanation is that, and I think this is an important one to consider, is that he has made no adverse findings.
00:36:56
Speaker
And of course, when you think about the fact that there's the false and that he's lobbed off the false and misleading information part from it. So, right. So like one of the basic premises of this inquiry, right? Was this idea of defamation, but that got dropped almost immediately, right? Like, you know, we don't know exactly when, but, but one of the first thing that gets dropped is, and he makes it very clear. I don't have the time and resources he says, um, which again, we can get into whether that's a legitimate reason, but, um, that he's not going to fact check these organizations. So what's left?
00:37:26
Speaker
How do you make an adverse finding against an organization for receiving international funding, which multiple organizations do? The MUTAR Foundation pointed out that out of nine different kinds of organizations, it's religious organizations in Alberta that receive the most foreign funding. Environmental groups were ninth.
00:37:47
Speaker
Yeah, the universities are huge benefactors. You know, of course, that political, you know, conservative leaning think tanks, the Fraser Institute, various other organizations are supported financially and otherwise by American organizations. So like, you know, going back to your earlier point, like this is a this is you're right, it's a quasi judicial tribunal. It's bound by the rules of procedural fairness, but also substantive rationality.
00:38:14
Speaker
And I think that's the one that's really tripping this all up. How do you accuse someone of an adverse, you know, of adverse findings of a misconduct when everything that they did was apparently legal?
Legitimacy Concerns of the Inquiry
00:38:26
Speaker
Because, you know, they were receiving funding, they disclosed it in their charitable, you know, required charitable files and records, you know, like, how is he going to accuse anyone?
00:38:39
Speaker
And this is why I bring up the, this is why I wanted that explanation of these section 13 notices. Cause like at the core, if he doesn't send out any section 13 notices, like did anyone do anything wrong? Why did we have, why did we spend three and a half million dollars to confirm that money crosses borders for a variety of reasons? Like.
00:38:56
Speaker
just a huge waste of time. A huge waste of time that's incredible when you consider the sheer volume of negative press that the inquiry has managed to generate over its 22 going on 23 months. I have a list here in my notes of all of the negative press and scandals that this thing has generated. I'm just going to run through them really fast and we're going to end on one that I think is the natural endpoint for this.
00:39:24
Speaker
Early on, the tip line got people mad, headline provinces, new public inquiry, tip line for anti-energy campaign blows up the internet. Then it was revealed by Charles Russell at CBC that Steve Allen handed over a $905,000 Solstice contract to his son's law firm where he's a partner at.
00:39:41
Speaker
also handed over a similar sole source contract to Deloitte, where one of his longtime business partners is also a partner. Then it came out that Commissioner Allen had both campaigned and donated to Justice Minister, at the time Justice Minister Doug Schweitzer. Doug Schweitzer was the person responsible for
00:40:02
Speaker
starting up this inquiry as it was done under the Justice Minister's purview. You've got staid charities, the Moutard Foundation, an organization I had never even heard of coming out of the woodwork to blast the charity, saying that this inquiry was creating a culture of fear.
00:40:17
Speaker
Again, the whole secrecy of all this was covered multiple times. The details about its budget were secret, its findings, who it was talking to was secret. There was the Eco Justice lawsuit, which generated a whole wave of negative headlines for them. It comes out that they changed their terms of reference that you mentioned, that they won't be considering whether there was in fact lies or not. They won't fact check the inquiry.
00:40:43
Speaker
the fact that Steve Allen went to Palm Springs in the middle of a global pandemic to work on the inquiry, which is I do all my best work in Palm Springs in the middle of a pandemic. I don't know about you. And finally,
00:40:58
Speaker
the granddaddy of all the scandals, the one that generated probably the biggest cycle of bad press was the release of these reports that the Allen inquiry had paid for and commissioned. And you were deeply involved in this. You called the content of these reports kind of textbook climate denialism. And you wrote a piece for the Alberta Law Blog,
00:41:17
Speaker
They kind of delved into this specifically. But these things were absolutely wild documents for an ostensible public inquiry to commission as well as have them be on the record. How do you want to frame and characterize these reports, Martin, beyond the textbook climate denialism?
00:41:39
Speaker
Yeah, I mean, so it ties in, I think, a little bit into our discussion about the findings, adverse findings, and findings of misconduct. I mean, it's always this idea that this isn't, like, that these aren't genuine concerns, right? There's a refusal by the premier and, let's say, that side of our sort of politics to accept any kind of legitimate criticism of
00:42:06
Speaker
the oil sands and of oil and gas development. And so, you know, so starting off with the idea that, you know, it wasn't these aren't bonafide environmental interests. These are essentially market manipulation. It's U.S. commercial interests. OK, so now that that ghost has been finally let go.
00:42:21
Speaker
The commission reports tell another story. So, okay, fine. It's maybe not clear US commercial interest. It's not capitalism. It's socialism. Okay. It's those damn watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside. It's a Marxist plot. They want to take away your wealth. They want to take away your convenience. They want to take away your standard of living. They want to create a utopia.
00:42:44
Speaker
you know, that's the next step, right? So once you let go of the ghost of, again, like a commercial, essentially, like conspiracy, then you're into, again, nefarious, Marxist, socialist, McCarthy-esque sort of allegations, okay, that, okay, well, fine, but then it's not legitimate anyways, right? It's always about saying, it's always about delegitimizing the core of the argument, which was always that.
00:43:11
Speaker
climate change, right? It was tailings. It was caribou. It was First Nations. These were the concerns. And instead of ever addressing those head on, it's always been an attempt to delegitimize the messenger. And so going back to what Alan might say and what those reports, I think, were intended. I don't want to infer intentions, I guess. I'm speculating at this point. But one thing that they could have done
00:43:38
Speaker
and they seem to do on their faces, is to provide that alternative negative narrative that would, again, justify the anger, justify the othering, justify this notion. I think this idea that environmental groups like Pembina would not essentially be able to do their work anymore in Alberta, that you would create such a hostile environment for them. And so when it comes down to Alan's report,
00:44:04
Speaker
There's a bit of a wink and a nod, I think, going on, even if he doesn't make any adverse findings. And again, because I think that would be very hard to do. Words have meaning. And how do you give meaning to those words? But let's just say he doesn't. But he releases a report that shows that these groups took money from international sources. For a segment of our population, for a segment of our politics in this province, that's enough.
00:44:28
Speaker
They don't care about the double standard. They don't care about the hypocrisy. They don't care about the glaring inconsistency that other, you know, why can the industry be foreign funded, but opposition can't be. None of that matters, right? None of that matters. It's always about a narrative that allows
00:44:46
Speaker
this side of our politics to, at all costs, not have to chew on the legitimacy of the concerns that were raised about climate change and all those other environmental effects. And climate change is the big sort of thing that people think about. But of course, we're also talking about potentially $230 billion or $60 billion in
00:45:12
Speaker
underfunded environmental liabilities in this province, which again, that side just almost like it's remarkable to me how they are able to not engage seriously in that issue and how strongly and deliberately they blinkered themselves to those concerns. So that, you know, and I think at some point I said that I might have suggested that to Alan to say like,
00:45:34
Speaker
Even if you don't make any official adverse findings, if you write a report and that report doesn't tell the truth, the full facts in context about some of this funding, then you're essentially doing it anyways. You're essentially making those findings. And so then you're still bound then by procedural fairness.
00:45:57
Speaker
to give them that notice. And so we'll see. We'll see what they're, you know, at this point, I couldn't tell you what is going on there. And that's been one of the things that's been really challenging, of course, in all of this, too, is, you know, having all this discussion, as you say, going back to being an inquiry in queerologists, there's so much that like the asymmetry here in information is just like massive.
00:46:17
Speaker
Right. So all that we can do on this side is speculate. I mean, I think that there's been enough, enough has been shown and enough has sort of been made known that, you know, there's reason to think that if, you know, if you had a hunch at the beginning that this thing was not right, certainly that hunch has been confirmed dozens of times along the way. But at the end of the day, what it's going to look like is anyone's guess.
00:46:43
Speaker
You raise an interesting point, too, about a quarter trillion dollars of environmental liabilities that are on the books for Alberta right now, while all these corporations and folks have scampered away with huge profits. We're not talking about that. Instead, we're talking about this Nemeth report that
00:47:04
Speaker
was commissioned by Steve Allen. It's talking about the transnational progressive movement and John Podesta, the pizza gate guy and George Soros and the great reset. Like it's, it's total like pay no attention to the man behind the curtain shit, right? Like it's like, actually, these are the source of all your problems. Exactly. And it's just about scapegoating, right? At the end of the day, it's just about scapegoating. And so, um, that's what this whole thing has been about. It's just been about scapegoating.
00:47:34
Speaker
And so I think it's time to wrap this up. This pod was originally supposed to be a post-mortem on the inquiry, right? We had scheduled this for the couple days after the inquiry was supposed to hand in its final report. It obviously got its extension and it blew its deadline for the fourth time. But I still don't feel like this two-month extension is really going to change much. All of the problems that this inquiry has created for itself aren't going to magically solve by handing in a report in at the end of July.
00:48:03
Speaker
or whenever it's handed in. They decided to have a paper inquiry. They decided to not hold public inquiries. They decided for it to be this incredibly secretive, again, not public at all, public inquiry. I don't necessarily want to offer advice, because I think the thing was a bad idea from the very beginning, one that was, again, putting me and my organization, my ability to put food on the table for my family in danger. But it's like,
00:48:32
Speaker
this thing was such a catastrophic failure. And I still don't think it's going to be resolved in two months. And I think it's worth examining why, right? Like I think this, I mentioned it earlier, like a public inquiry was, you know, if you wanted to have a political circus, like again, hire a special prosecutor, have a legislative committee to like call witnesses. And then people know if it's a legislative committee, people know it's political.
00:48:58
Speaker
uh, farce, right? They were obviously unable to hire a judge. So if they had hired a judge or an ex judge, maybe this thing would have had much more of a veneer of respectability. Um, you know, I, I, I don't think we can talk about this without talking about incompetence, like failing to like, you, you, you mentioned
Mismanagement and Failures
00:49:16
Speaker
it, right? They didn't have a way to engage. Like they didn't have a process to engage with inquiry until two months after their first deadline had passed. And, uh,
00:49:26
Speaker
And also, when you come to incompetence, again, I'm not a lawyer. I'm only repeating what other lawyers have said to me. But Nigel Banks, your colleague at the University of Calgary, in an interview for a piece I did a while back, he talked about how it's not a great idea to hire a bankruptcy lawyer to be the lead counsel on a public inquiry, because bankruptcy lawyers are not necessarily
00:49:48
Speaker
very familiar with public inquiries or administrative law in general. He's like, yeah, they're just starting from scratch. You're paying them to get started from scratch on how to run an inquiry. What's your take on why this thing turned out the way it did?
00:50:09
Speaker
Well, so we'll separate a little bit for a moment anyways, and I know we're probably running out of time, but so we can separate even Commissioner Allen from the UCP government. I don't think on the latter front,
00:50:22
Speaker
aggressive incompetence has been a hallmark of this government for the past six months, at least, if not longer. I think actually longer, but there's no shortage of examples. Even just as recent as the turning off the TAPS legislation, the Premier will try to wrap that up as some kind of promise made and promise kept, but the reality is that they let a key piece of legislation lapse
00:50:48
Speaker
without renewing it and then have to go back to the drawing board and reintroduce the thing from scratch. You know, whether it's Keystone, other kinds of litigation, you know, at the government level, I, you know, absolutely, I think, in competence, the parks file, the coal file,
00:51:08
Speaker
That's the rule. It's the rule. And why that's the case? Why they have such a weak bench? I don't know. That's an interesting question. But it certainly seems to be the case. And again, maybe as an example, this trickles into their issues, managers. For whatever reason, the skills and ability are just not there. And we can, again, that's an interesting conversation to have about why they don't have what looks like they have a major talent gap.
00:51:38
Speaker
From the commissioner's perspective, I think it, yeah, there might be part of it as just a lack of sort of that tactile sort of sensitivity to the issues that are gonna pop up here. But I also have to say like, the commissioner's made choices. He's made many, many choices along the way and he owns those choices, right? So for instance, if you look at those rules of procedure, he gives himself essentially unfettered discretion to slice and dice the public record.
00:52:06
Speaker
That's very weird. Like why would you why would you give yourself that power, which of course is going to make organizations like yourselves, any organization would have to think twice before engaging in an inquiry, where the commissioners basically said, I decide what becomes public or not.
00:52:21
Speaker
You know, before the end of his first phase, I had sent him I talked about those six reports that essentially like eviscerate any kind of narrative that oil and gas development in this province has been economic, timely, efficient. He he could have easily relied on those reports to fact check, for instance, some of those campaigns, or he could have said to the he could have said to the premier in cabinet, I think we need to change the terms of reference here because I have all these reports and they make it very clear that
00:52:49
Speaker
there were some legitimate concerns here and criticisms about how this all shook down. He chose not to do those things. And then he, in his going back to his rules of practice, he said that, for instance, all of the submissions in the first phase are not part of the public inquiry unless I make them.
00:53:05
Speaker
And then there's the commission reports. He hires Barry Cooper, Tammy Nemeth, and Energy in Depth, which is just essentially a sidearm of the American Petroleum Institute. Those were his choices, unless he's going to say that they weren't his choices.
00:53:20
Speaker
But that, of course, is a huge problem, right? Then again, we get back to a big problem. So, you know, and it goes back a little bit to, you know, I want to, you know, come back a little bit to that conversation, the suggestion that that Steve Allen was just looking to help Albertans. Now, if that's the case, I have questions, you know, and I probably they'll never probably be answered because that's that's how these, you know, you don't get to ask a commissioner after the fact, oh, what were you thinking of? Like, why did you do this? Why did you go that way?
00:53:48
Speaker
But that's the reality is that there are multiple decision points in this inquiry along the way where the commissioner made certain choices. And those choices have, from the inquiry perspective, if inquiries are about getting to the truth of the matter and laying out all the facts and providing insight,
00:54:09
Speaker
You know, those decisions, in my view, do the opposite. They obscure the facts. They obscure the reality. And that's probably the biggest indictment. You know, like setting everything else aside, you know, that's the biggest problem. And I think Andrew Leach has made this comment as well that, you know, maybe in some formulation.
00:54:26
Speaker
in a fair and neutral way to look into this issue, there might have been some benefit, but the way it was cooked up and then the way it was implemented, it's hard to see it having, it will only further, I think, obscure and politicize and polarize the conversation about these issues. You say we can't ask
00:54:50
Speaker
Commissioner Allen, what he was thinking. But I disagree. As a senator, when I call the public inquiry into this public inquiry, we will get an opportunity to ask Steve Allen what he really was thinking about how he conducted the inquiry. I'm obviously joking, of course. So I think that's a fantastic way to end it up. I got one last question for you, Martin.
00:55:17
Speaker
Do you think commissioner Allen makes his latest deadline? Yes or no? Yeah. Yeah. I think he does. Uh, and again, and I agree with you that the timing, you know, like again, so you have a two year inquiry now at this point, it'll be 25 months at the end of July. Um,
00:55:34
Speaker
two months is not enough to fix I think and provide even just from a procedural fairness perspective like those notices would have to go out right away and even then you think like you know of course the organizations are going to get counsel and they're going to have concerns all the concerns that I've spelt out around the rules of procedure and practice and all that kind of stuff so like two months is not enough to deal with all of that but it's enough
00:55:56
Speaker
to punt the release of the report past that election cycle in October. And I think that at the end of the day, again, I'm speculating now, but you know, my bet, my hunch is that that's the main, that was the main intention here was to punt it past that point because whatever it does,
00:56:13
Speaker
You know, to borrow again those words, it's not going to meet everybody's expectations. And so I think I don't expect to see a fulsome engagement or a comprehensive engagement with the organizations that we would have assumed were going to be part of this. I think it's just a question of pushing that release past that very politically important time period.
00:56:39
Speaker
There's another way to think about it though.
Political Implications
00:56:41
Speaker
If the report had been handed in, as it should have been on May 31st, they could have released it in the dog days of August when everyone is happy that they've got their second shot and they're out gallivanting across the country or the world. I don't know.
00:56:57
Speaker
I don't know. I don't, I cannot conclusively give you a like, I think they'll make this deadline. All the evidence shows that he's just going to blow another. Well, if history's any indication, then yeah, I mean, of course you blow past four, you're going to blow past five, but. And they, and they keep talking about engaging with, uh, you know, the, the, the organizations like the, like Savage and Kenny and, uh, keep mentioning this and it still hasn't happened.
00:57:22
Speaker
And so if it's going to happen there in any way, they're going to blow their deadline. So like, I don't know. I think, uh, I think it pays to be cynical when it comes to this, whether, whether Steve Allen will make a deadline or not. But, uh, but Martin, I want to thank you for taking the time to come on this podcast and talk about this issue. I know you're passionate about it. I think, uh, I was incredibly grateful to have you on and to, and to learn about this stuff. What's the best way for people to, how can people find you on the internet? How can people follow along with the work that
00:57:50
Speaker
Yeah, so I mean, I for the time being anyways, I am on Twitter. And I think you've you've thrown my handle out there. And of course, I'm at the law school and we have a faculty website and people can always find me on there. And it's got my I think it's got my Twitter handle and my email as well. I prefer nice emails, but I get all kinds. So that's fine. And yeah, I mean, I think that this issue is just, you know, it's not going away. I guess my my one hope is that, you know,
00:58:20
Speaker
I guess the one comment I want to make, and I don't want to sound too sort of naive about it, but I just think people need to understand that this was a seriously undemocratic play. And certain people stood up, I think, to it. And again, you refer to the Mutar Foundation. We know Amnesty International, EcoJustice, of course.
00:58:40
Speaker
But a lot of people didn't. And that'll be something that we'll have to think about, too, is the enablers and the enabling culture in this province that allowed this thing to continue. Because it's McCarthyism. Again, I think it's blunted only by its incompetence. That's the issue. It's hard to get people riled up about it when you don't see the harm. It's not obvious to you in the face. But think about the precedent.
00:59:07
Speaker
Imagine that you joked about having a public inquiry into the public inquiry. But if this kind of public inquiry is fair game, then why wouldn't we have an inquiry into separatism, Western separatism? Why wouldn't we trot out the Wild Roads Independence Party? I talked about confusing dissent with disloyalty. They're actually disloyal. They're actually talking about separating from Canada.
00:59:30
Speaker
Should the Trudeau, like, is it OK? Like, presumably it would be fine then for the Trudeau government to launch an inquiry right now and to list those organizations and force them to come into a hearing and divulge their funders, for instance, and divulge their, you know, who are they organizing with? And if people, if that makes those people uncomfortable, then they should be very uncomfortable right now, because that's the precedent that they've allowed and enabled to set in this context. And that's again, maybe that's a whole other plot, but
01:00:01
Speaker
Well, let's keep the conversation open and going. Again, thanks to Martin for coming on. Thank you for listening. Folks, if you like this podcast, if you want to keep hearing more podcasts like it, there's a few things you can do. I'll be brief because this has been a very long, but good conversation. Kudos to you for getting all the way to the end. Easiest and best way to support us is to become a patron, $5, $10, $15 a month, whatever you can afford. There's a link to become a regular donor in the whatever your pod catcher of choice.
01:00:29
Speaker
but also if you go to theprogressreport.ca slash patrons, it's very easy. Again, credit card, five, $10, $15 a month. If you want to donate to us another way, or if you have any notes or thoughts, comments, things you think I need to hear, I'm very easy to get a hold of as well. You can reach me by email at duncank at progressuberta.ca, and you can reach me on Twitter at, at Duncan Kinney. Thanks again to Cosmic Family Communist for our theme. Thank you for listening and goodbye.