Former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Thomas Lukaszuk is being accused of failing to deliver after disavowing a referendum despite successfully exceeding the signature threshold.
Lets GO Alberta! Woohoo - time to get the heck outta dodge and leave these socialist deadbeats to their own devices - enjoy the crackheads Eastern Canada! And in case you didn't know it, say goodbye to that Alberta money you've been stealing for decades - and guess what, to eat you need to work. So no more free milk from the cow you lazy pricks!
It’s time Alberta. We’ve been more than fair for more than 50 years. But when you have provinces in Canada trying to destroy your livelihood but still want your money, I’m done
I would check all the names on that list . You can bet most we added or don't exist . This clown is a shill for the Liberals and really just a useful idiot .
Grey Cup is coming, and if Carney doesn't improve Albertan's lot in life, the uproar in protest from Albertans will be heard across the Nation. That alone should force the UCP into stepping into the separation of Alberta. And if they don't, then Albertan's will do it themselves, whether Eastern Canada thinks they can stop it or not.
Within 90 days, that committee can recommend that either a bill be introduced or the matter be referred to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for a referendum. Not true that a bill being introduced is one of the options. It is to table a report.
Several calls into a radio show also said that retirement people were told that the separation group wanted to join the US if AB left Canada, which was not true either & callers were outraged that their parents told this as it was not true & a misrepresentation to get signatures! True? I don’t know but know as a ward elected Con MP years ago he was not helping his constituents, as one who contacted him & only made the mistake of Voting for him once! Was too busy building playgrounds to help constituents & getting his name out there for future politics now an NDP supporter wonder if that was this was all about “name recognition for future endeavours”? Makes the answer easier yes or no! My question is who supported the vehicle, time off & travelling the province supporting this “petition”?
Indeed - a free and independent Alberta would need a separate referendum on joining the USA. They are two DIFFERENT decisions. My priority is a free Alberta - no shackles from Ottawa or Washington; no taxes sent to either. I'm okay with a defence agreement with the USA though - that would keep those lazy Canadian socialists from invading us with their 3 working tanks....lol
NDP is busy these days! Hands are full causing havoc with teachers strike now. What else are they up to??? Oh yes, they want to take over the UCP AGM??!
Good boy...you did all the work for us...thanks, Thomas, you useful idiot! We are sick of this BS "Team Canada" crap. Albertans have been bent over by Ottawa for far too long. It's time for change!
Now that's a good one. He was thinking like a regular sneaky politician. Glad he's not an mla. But by this article it could a few years away. When ever the next election is. That's no good.
In case the authors and sponsors of this highly slanted piece might want to know - in 1995, the supreme court ruled unilateral secession illegal when Quebec was contemplating it. In their referendum, the people voted not to separate by an extremely slim margin. Their premier stepped down. While the question we have now may be legal, one of the answers cannot be considered legal or binding. The only legal and possibly binding answer to the question (stay) does not suggest any constitutional change - it suggests a legislative one to the government spending a lot of money placating separatists for no feasible endgame except fueling enough anger to keep them voting against reason. Trust me, if and when the US wants to make us a non-voting territory, they're not going to wait for us to say most of us like it; they'll just ask our price. All the foreign resource companies have been glad to pay it and get an excellent ROI. That's a best case scenario for secession BTW.
DS is now acting like she doesn't want a referendum because she knows she'll only have to suppress the result, step down - or call any vote to leave non-binding/illegal (because it would be) and anger her base. But what's a few more million on another nothing-burger, right? They'll forgive her. Plus it's harder to rig a referendum than an election, as much as she's tried both. TL doesn't want a 'constitutional' referendum because we don't really need one to stay in Canada and get rid of DS with a legislative motion of confidence. It's a game of chicken and ultimately, the Lieutenant Governor and the voters will decide who wins, but either way, Alberta stays. The question might as well be: Do you want to keep your pension, currency, sovereignty, health care, coastline, and your right to vote? The only sane answer is the same answer, and it's the only legal one.
That said, if anyone really wants to leave Canada so bad, it's quite simple: Leave. Leave the oil, the water, the job, the benefits - leave the taxes too if you hate them so much. Private benefits and insurance will be glad to take your money instead and likewise, give you nothing in return. Alberta isn't going anywhere, but you could could really go places! Remind yourself of that in 30 years like Quebec is reminding themselves today - to the very day. Still Canada.
That's intelligent. Throw a label at someone you don't even know because you don't like history, facts, or what they think. Or perhaps you just don't like thinking in general. Maybe look up the word 'conservative' to see what it actually meant before it was turned into a brand name by people who are anything but.
I said: if anyone WANTS to leave, the border's right there and it's open, eh? (scroll button not workin'?) Never said 'should' anything - you're welcome to stay, for sure. No referendum needed either way! And hey, sorry we're all sold out of education for ya here bud. Our bad.
You may want to do your own research on your facts with regards to sucession being illegal. The Supreme Court of Canada actually laid out a path for a province to separate. While the Court created a constitutional framework for secession, it made it clear this would require agreement from the rest of Canada, not just a provincial decision. This is all in the Clarity Act (2000).
The Court's decision established several key principles:
1. No unilateral secession - A province cannot legally separate from Canada on its own, even with a referendum result in favor of separation.
2. Obligation to negotiate - If a "clear majority" of a province votes "yes" on a "clear question" about secession, the federal government and other provinces would have a constitutional obligation to negotiate the terms of separation in good faith.
3. Four guiding principles - Any negotiations must respect: federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and protection of minorities.
4. No guarantee of success - While there's an obligation to negotiate, there's no guarantee negotiations would succeed or that secession would actually happen.
This ruling led to the federal Clarity Act (2000), which gave Parliament the authority to determine whether a referendum question and majority were sufficiently "clear" to trigger negotiations.
I did say 'unilateral' seccession (1)... and if you think and 2 and 3 are realistically achievable in these circumstances, you've neglected to consider the inability of most provincial governments to negotiate anything in good faith, and the protection of a certain 'minority's' treaty rights. 4 speaks for itself. That said, the 'leave' faction has not come up with a clear question, or even converged on this path - a good lot of it is guided and funded by US interests many within the faction simply do not believe will provide any more autonomy or independence than we have now. We simply do not have the population, the situation, the history, culture, or resolve to even attain what Quebec has now in these respects (even if we may have enough money to do it) and they're still technically part of Canada, as much as they like to pretend they're not. A lot of the autonomy and independence they're satisfied with is performative, not substantial. The substantial parts were achieved and entrenched well before anyone sold half of them on trying to leave, and they still have those as part of Canada.
Lets GO Alberta! Woohoo - time to get the heck outta dodge and leave these socialist deadbeats to their own devices - enjoy the crackheads Eastern Canada! And in case you didn't know it, say goodbye to that Alberta money you've been stealing for decades - and guess what, to eat you need to work. So no more free milk from the cow you lazy pricks!
Let the referendum begin. Vote NO.👍
It’s time Alberta. We’ve been more than fair for more than 50 years. But when you have provinces in Canada trying to destroy your livelihood but still want your money, I’m done
I would check all the names on that list . You can bet most we added or don't exist . This clown is a shill for the Liberals and really just a useful idiot .
Grey Cup is coming, and if Carney doesn't improve Albertan's lot in life, the uproar in protest from Albertans will be heard across the Nation. That alone should force the UCP into stepping into the separation of Alberta. And if they don't, then Albertan's will do it themselves, whether Eastern Canada thinks they can stop it or not.
Smith must make it a referendum question. ALL Albertans must be heard, not just the Elbows Up/NDP gang.
Within 90 days, that committee can recommend that either a bill be introduced or the matter be referred to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for a referendum. Not true that a bill being introduced is one of the options. It is to table a report.
Several calls into a radio show also said that retirement people were told that the separation group wanted to join the US if AB left Canada, which was not true either & callers were outraged that their parents told this as it was not true & a misrepresentation to get signatures! True? I don’t know but know as a ward elected Con MP years ago he was not helping his constituents, as one who contacted him & only made the mistake of Voting for him once! Was too busy building playgrounds to help constituents & getting his name out there for future politics now an NDP supporter wonder if that was this was all about “name recognition for future endeavours”? Makes the answer easier yes or no! My question is who supported the vehicle, time off & travelling the province supporting this “petition”?
Indeed - a free and independent Alberta would need a separate referendum on joining the USA. They are two DIFFERENT decisions. My priority is a free Alberta - no shackles from Ottawa or Washington; no taxes sent to either. I'm okay with a defence agreement with the USA though - that would keep those lazy Canadian socialists from invading us with their 3 working tanks....lol
Ohhh! He is NDP!!! That explains alot!
NDP is busy these days! Hands are full causing havoc with teachers strike now. What else are they up to??? Oh yes, they want to take over the UCP AGM??!
He campaigned door to door for NDP & everyday usually, some what I hear anyway, comments from CHED radio so gather his wife is too😂😂😂
It is a ways off yet, but if Alberta voted to separate, and Ottawa said no, just give the Donald a call. Problem solved.
Which of course encourages Ottawa to be careful, but at the end of the day Canada is not viable without Alberta.
👍
Two faced double speak, Lukaszuk certainly represents what is Canada.
Good boy...you did all the work for us...thanks, Thomas, you useful idiot! We are sick of this BS "Team Canada" crap. Albertans have been bent over by Ottawa for far too long. It's time for change!
Now that's a good one. He was thinking like a regular sneaky politician. Glad he's not an mla. But by this article it could a few years away. When ever the next election is. That's no good.
In case the authors and sponsors of this highly slanted piece might want to know - in 1995, the supreme court ruled unilateral secession illegal when Quebec was contemplating it. In their referendum, the people voted not to separate by an extremely slim margin. Their premier stepped down. While the question we have now may be legal, one of the answers cannot be considered legal or binding. The only legal and possibly binding answer to the question (stay) does not suggest any constitutional change - it suggests a legislative one to the government spending a lot of money placating separatists for no feasible endgame except fueling enough anger to keep them voting against reason. Trust me, if and when the US wants to make us a non-voting territory, they're not going to wait for us to say most of us like it; they'll just ask our price. All the foreign resource companies have been glad to pay it and get an excellent ROI. That's a best case scenario for secession BTW.
DS is now acting like she doesn't want a referendum because she knows she'll only have to suppress the result, step down - or call any vote to leave non-binding/illegal (because it would be) and anger her base. But what's a few more million on another nothing-burger, right? They'll forgive her. Plus it's harder to rig a referendum than an election, as much as she's tried both. TL doesn't want a 'constitutional' referendum because we don't really need one to stay in Canada and get rid of DS with a legislative motion of confidence. It's a game of chicken and ultimately, the Lieutenant Governor and the voters will decide who wins, but either way, Alberta stays. The question might as well be: Do you want to keep your pension, currency, sovereignty, health care, coastline, and your right to vote? The only sane answer is the same answer, and it's the only legal one.
That said, if anyone really wants to leave Canada so bad, it's quite simple: Leave. Leave the oil, the water, the job, the benefits - leave the taxes too if you hate them so much. Private benefits and insurance will be glad to take your money instead and likewise, give you nothing in return. Alberta isn't going anywhere, but you could could really go places! Remind yourself of that in 30 years like Quebec is reminding themselves today - to the very day. Still Canada.
That's kind of opinion we'd expect from a diper lieberal. Maybe you should leave Alberta.
That's intelligent. Throw a label at someone you don't even know because you don't like history, facts, or what they think. Or perhaps you just don't like thinking in general. Maybe look up the word 'conservative' to see what it actually meant before it was turned into a brand name by people who are anything but.
You was the idiot who suggested us ALBERTANS should leave. What kind of ignorant ass are you?
Just another ignorant ass Albertan, bud.
Born in Alberta, will die a Canadian...
right here in 'berta.
I said: if anyone WANTS to leave, the border's right there and it's open, eh? (scroll button not workin'?) Never said 'should' anything - you're welcome to stay, for sure. No referendum needed either way! And hey, sorry we're all sold out of education for ya here bud. Our bad.
Yah, and after all your years living here you have learned nothing. But became a good lieberal diper fool.
You may want to do your own research on your facts with regards to sucession being illegal. The Supreme Court of Canada actually laid out a path for a province to separate. While the Court created a constitutional framework for secession, it made it clear this would require agreement from the rest of Canada, not just a provincial decision. This is all in the Clarity Act (2000).
The Court's decision established several key principles:
1. No unilateral secession - A province cannot legally separate from Canada on its own, even with a referendum result in favor of separation.
2. Obligation to negotiate - If a "clear majority" of a province votes "yes" on a "clear question" about secession, the federal government and other provinces would have a constitutional obligation to negotiate the terms of separation in good faith.
3. Four guiding principles - Any negotiations must respect: federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and protection of minorities.
4. No guarantee of success - While there's an obligation to negotiate, there's no guarantee negotiations would succeed or that secession would actually happen.
This ruling led to the federal Clarity Act (2000), which gave Parliament the authority to determine whether a referendum question and majority were sufficiently "clear" to trigger negotiations.
I did say 'unilateral' seccession (1)... and if you think and 2 and 3 are realistically achievable in these circumstances, you've neglected to consider the inability of most provincial governments to negotiate anything in good faith, and the protection of a certain 'minority's' treaty rights. 4 speaks for itself. That said, the 'leave' faction has not come up with a clear question, or even converged on this path - a good lot of it is guided and funded by US interests many within the faction simply do not believe will provide any more autonomy or independence than we have now. We simply do not have the population, the situation, the history, culture, or resolve to even attain what Quebec has now in these respects (even if we may have enough money to do it) and they're still technically part of Canada, as much as they like to pretend they're not. A lot of the autonomy and independence they're satisfied with is performative, not substantial. The substantial parts were achieved and entrenched well before anyone sold half of them on trying to leave, and they still have those as part of Canada.
the pension plan is bankrupt, by 2027 it will not be viable. one of the reasons to leave. https://vigilante.tv/w/f3kVcK1mXAfg5W9TN4aZvT