Last edited:
ABEXIT - is it time for Alberta to think about leaving Canada?
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Have not except for the billions just in grain that could only go to Ontario so they could sell it on the open market and, . . . wait for it, . . . make billions for doing nothing. Same with beef no doubt.
Sometimes a bad penny is just a bad penny. In this case Ontario and Quebec are aligned with the UK and France rather than they see Western Canada as being as important as they are.
It should go to Dawson Creek and then Grande Prairie rather than Edmonton, The inlet above is straighter and longer, the move away from established centers is the way to go and saying anything else is pacifying the people that already live there. Vancouver already has enough oil and gas for local consumption, adding a line for exports that will never happen is just stupid, that is why it gets so much backing and why the people of BC just want the money that comes with building and operating. Right of ways will cost a lot compared to a more norther route that is mostly crown land, until speculators get a look at the route and then they buy that property up so Canada can buy it back at 1,000x the price they paid for it.
Why would you have to replace Vancouver's port. Can it double the goods coming in that are destined for the interior that is north of Edmonton. Why open a 2nd port to serve just lower Canada when the people that need many types of goods that are stupidly expensive because it has to be moved through lower Canada first. It makes a ton of 'free money' for those companies and robs the people in the north as most good become too expensive, . . . by design.
WTF you babbling about!! :lol:
The referendum is coming and there is nothing you can do to stop it..
Borders change every day around the world.. Time for Alberta's to be redefined as part of the USA.
So many members.... overreacting to forum blather.....
You people are funny....��
You people are funny....��
You're a fecking traitor that wants to destroy Canada. You claim to be an American, living in Lethbridge and soliciting support for the break up of Canada. That makes you literally, an enemy alien.
At the very least, you should have a file open on you for publishing your seditious, anti-Canadian material and trying to elicit the support of others.
You are a traitor .... literally, legally a traitor to Canada.
... and as thick as 3-1/2 boards to not realize what you are ....
That would be what your post is all about, . . . you are a retard that is all alone, . . all alone, . . . all alone.
Make the northern route an industrial zone rather than a city the size of the ones in the south are. A twinned highway and 2 heavy rail lines would cost about 25% of the proposed pipeline that has no customers except the people in the lower mainland.
If it were only millions, maybe we could overlook things
Ottawa is doing a bang-up job all on their own relative to destroying the country.
This ridiculous game of pitting region against region, let alone the regional and socioeconomic discord they promote through the tax system is yielding the desired results for the honorable end game of - you guessed it - simply getting elected for their own personal ends.
Face facts, there is no interest in Ottawa seeking the overall best interests of all regions, not when the vote is decided in 2 provinces.
That said, direct your angst and drama towards the body where it belongs, the Fed gvt
Really? We owe somebody in foreign lands about $900B (for nothing) and Ottawa is the problem??
LOL - guess you can't read! Where did you get out of what I said whereby I said anything about separating.
In fact, I disagree with separation as we wouldn't be any further ahead. However, with the right people in power, it will be to our advantage to remain as part of Canada and all Canadians will benefit once that come about.
Your referendum would fall as flat as a pancake anyway, seeing as Alberta and the West in general is at least half non-westerners, these days.
Boomer is stills traitor for desiring the demise of the country that keeps his sorry ass.
All the leaders did, that is why they got the job in the first place. Team player even id treason against Canada is part of the package. Stops people from getting uppity I guess.
Are you being an ignorant troll or are are you really that naive?
The Clarity Act (Bill C-20)
Published Online April 22, 2013
Last Edited July 14, 2014
Bill C-20, the bill known as the Clarity Act gives effect to the requirement for clarity set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Québec Secession Reference.
Bill C-20
Bill C-20, the bill known as the Clarity Act gives effect to the requirement for clarity set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Québec Secession Reference. It is the interpretation of the Court that the federal government give "political actors" the responsibility of returning the right to determine, what, among other things, constitutes a question and a clear majority after a referendum that one province or territory initiates with a view to secession from Canada.
Bill C-20 also defines in article 3, under what prior conditions the federal government is subject to political obligation to negotiate secession resulting from a referendum that has satisfied the requirements for clarity as defined in articles 1 and 2 of the Act.
The bill was introduced in Parliament on 13 December 1999 by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. Despite criticism on both sides of the House of Commons, the bill eventually passed through Parliament, receiving royal assent on 29 June the following year.
According to Bill C-20, only the House of Commons has the power to vote on the clarity of the question and the majority; yet the exclusion of the Senate's power to hold a vote on these issues calls into question the principle of the two chamber system entrenched in the Constitution. As to the government's refusal to recognize the right of Aboriginal peoples to participate in negotiations on territorial division - this directly affects ancestral rights and treaty issues that were recognized in the Constitution.
Legal opposition could conclude the bill invalid. Concerned groups, including the Québec Cree, had already expressed their intentions of bringing the debate before the courts.
Although the Québec government had expressed strong and clear opposition to Bill C-20, and had countered with Bill 99 to deny the legal and political impact of the federal bill, public opinion in Québec remained deaf to the rallying calls of the sovereignist forces.
Bill C-20 was rather favourably received across the country. Nevertheless, the federal government preferred to defend the country's integrity by making the conditions of a province's secession especially difficult, rather than affirming the unity and indivisibility of Canada through the constitutional route, like several Western democracies
Published Online April 22, 2013
Last Edited July 14, 2014
Bill C-20, the bill known as the Clarity Act gives effect to the requirement for clarity set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Québec Secession Reference.
Bill C-20
Bill C-20, the bill known as the Clarity Act gives effect to the requirement for clarity set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Québec Secession Reference. It is the interpretation of the Court that the federal government give "political actors" the responsibility of returning the right to determine, what, among other things, constitutes a question and a clear majority after a referendum that one province or territory initiates with a view to secession from Canada.
Bill C-20 also defines in article 3, under what prior conditions the federal government is subject to political obligation to negotiate secession resulting from a referendum that has satisfied the requirements for clarity as defined in articles 1 and 2 of the Act.
The bill was introduced in Parliament on 13 December 1999 by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. Despite criticism on both sides of the House of Commons, the bill eventually passed through Parliament, receiving royal assent on 29 June the following year.
According to Bill C-20, only the House of Commons has the power to vote on the clarity of the question and the majority; yet the exclusion of the Senate's power to hold a vote on these issues calls into question the principle of the two chamber system entrenched in the Constitution. As to the government's refusal to recognize the right of Aboriginal peoples to participate in negotiations on territorial division - this directly affects ancestral rights and treaty issues that were recognized in the Constitution.
Legal opposition could conclude the bill invalid. Concerned groups, including the Québec Cree, had already expressed their intentions of bringing the debate before the courts.
Although the Québec government had expressed strong and clear opposition to Bill C-20, and had countered with Bill 99 to deny the legal and political impact of the federal bill, public opinion in Québec remained deaf to the rallying calls of the sovereignist forces.
Bill C-20 was rather favourably received across the country. Nevertheless, the federal government preferred to defend the country's integrity by making the conditions of a province's secession especially difficult, rather than affirming the unity and indivisibility of Canada through the constitutional route, like several Western democracies