And all are still receiving transfer payments , from Alberta .
Alberta
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Give your head a shake, because you aren't comprehending that I'm criticizing the Liberals for their assertion that the truckers were fringe Nazis.
I'm pretty sure if you check my previous posts on the Freedom Convoy, you'll likely find a post where I say I believe that the appearance of the Nazi Flag was a plant likely orchestrated by a Liberal or Liberal Supporter Like Liberal staffers planting Trump buttons at a Conservative event, then bragging in front of CBC reporter.
But that's what you gravitate toward while ignoring the blatant stupidity of the REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ALBERTA.
Talk about embarrassing.
Give your head a shake and tell me if you can hear anything outside your own partisanship.
Last edited:
Danielle Smith says Alberta separation referendum faces hurdles amid court challenges
Alberta premier said the nine other referendum questions announced in March will proceed to votes in October
Author of the article:Matthew Black
Published May 11, 2026 • Last updated 11 hours ago • 3 minute read
Premier Danielle Smith is with Advanced Education Minister Myles McDougall, not shown, at NAIT on Monday, May 11, 2026, to announce $384 million to create 5,500 more apprenticeship training spaces.
Premier Danielle Smith is with Advanced Education Minister Myles McDougall, not shown, at NAIT on Monday, May 11, 2026, to announce $384 million to create 5,500 more apprenticeship training spaces. Photo by Shaughn Butts /Postmedia
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said Monday that it remains uncertain if a question about Alberta separating from Canada will be on the ballot for the province’s scheduled October referendums, pending an ongoing court challenge and a leak of the province’s voters list.
“We’re waiting on a few things,” Smith said to reporters at a news conference Monday. She pointed to the ongoing MLA committee hearings over the future of Thomas Lukaszuk’s Forever Canadian petition as well as legal questions around Stay Free Alberta’s separation petition.
“There’s a couple of things that we’re waiting for first, and then we’ll have to decide that as a caucus and cabinet afterwards,” she said. “I think we have to just wait for the process to play out.”
Lukaszuk’s petition asks: “Do you agree that Alberta should remain within Canada?” It is before a committee of MLAs who will determine if it will go to a vote in the legislature or if it will be recommended to go to a referendum.
Stay Free Alberta’s petition, fronted by Mitch Sylvestre, asked: “Do you agree that the province of Alberta should cease to be part of Canada to become an independent state?”
Sylvestre returned more than 300,000 signatures in support although validation of those signatures remains on hold after two First Nations secured a court injunction temporarily blocking that process last month. A ruling on the future of the petition is expected in the coming days.
The recent revelations about the leak of the province’s voter list may also lead to further court challenges and has prompted investigations by police, the office of the information and privacy commissioner, and Elections Alberta.
Last week, Deputy Premier Mike Ellis described the investigations as “very serious” and said the province is looking at all options in relation to the leaked list.
Coal mining petition could be on ballot
Smith said a petition from Corb Lund that calls for a ban on new coal mining on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains is due June 10 and, if validated, would also appear on October’s ballot.
“We want to be permissive on the topics that citizens decide to put on the ballot. And if it passes various hurdles, and the signatures get validated, then I have said that it will go on the ballot in the fall.”
She also reiterated that the nine questions on immigration, judicial selection, Senate abolition and asserting provincial jurisdiction will go ahead in October.
“The nine questions that we put forward on the ballot have nothing to do with the current investigation,” she said. “There’s no reason that I can see that we would delay.”
Deputy Opposition leader Rakhi Pancholi said the voter list leak throws the integrity of the Stay Free Alberta petition into question.
“There’s no way we can have a referendum right now and feel confident either in its results or in the petition that led to it in the first place,” Pancholi told reporters inside the legislature Monday.
“There is already this huge shadow overhanging the separatist petition, making it clear that every single Albertan should be doubting the veracity of the signatures on that petition. We certainly cannot go forward with a referendum under these conditions.”
mblack@postmedia.com
torontosun.com
Alberta premier said the nine other referendum questions announced in March will proceed to votes in October
Author of the article:Matthew Black
Published May 11, 2026 • Last updated 11 hours ago • 3 minute read
Premier Danielle Smith is with Advanced Education Minister Myles McDougall, not shown, at NAIT on Monday, May 11, 2026, to announce $384 million to create 5,500 more apprenticeship training spaces.
Premier Danielle Smith is with Advanced Education Minister Myles McDougall, not shown, at NAIT on Monday, May 11, 2026, to announce $384 million to create 5,500 more apprenticeship training spaces. Photo by Shaughn Butts /Postmedia
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said Monday that it remains uncertain if a question about Alberta separating from Canada will be on the ballot for the province’s scheduled October referendums, pending an ongoing court challenge and a leak of the province’s voters list.
“We’re waiting on a few things,” Smith said to reporters at a news conference Monday. She pointed to the ongoing MLA committee hearings over the future of Thomas Lukaszuk’s Forever Canadian petition as well as legal questions around Stay Free Alberta’s separation petition.
“There’s a couple of things that we’re waiting for first, and then we’ll have to decide that as a caucus and cabinet afterwards,” she said. “I think we have to just wait for the process to play out.”
Lukaszuk’s petition asks: “Do you agree that Alberta should remain within Canada?” It is before a committee of MLAs who will determine if it will go to a vote in the legislature or if it will be recommended to go to a referendum.
Stay Free Alberta’s petition, fronted by Mitch Sylvestre, asked: “Do you agree that the province of Alberta should cease to be part of Canada to become an independent state?”
Sylvestre returned more than 300,000 signatures in support although validation of those signatures remains on hold after two First Nations secured a court injunction temporarily blocking that process last month. A ruling on the future of the petition is expected in the coming days.
The recent revelations about the leak of the province’s voter list may also lead to further court challenges and has prompted investigations by police, the office of the information and privacy commissioner, and Elections Alberta.
Last week, Deputy Premier Mike Ellis described the investigations as “very serious” and said the province is looking at all options in relation to the leaked list.
Coal mining petition could be on ballot
Smith said a petition from Corb Lund that calls for a ban on new coal mining on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains is due June 10 and, if validated, would also appear on October’s ballot.
“We want to be permissive on the topics that citizens decide to put on the ballot. And if it passes various hurdles, and the signatures get validated, then I have said that it will go on the ballot in the fall.”
She also reiterated that the nine questions on immigration, judicial selection, Senate abolition and asserting provincial jurisdiction will go ahead in October.
“The nine questions that we put forward on the ballot have nothing to do with the current investigation,” she said. “There’s no reason that I can see that we would delay.”
Deputy Opposition leader Rakhi Pancholi said the voter list leak throws the integrity of the Stay Free Alberta petition into question.
“There’s no way we can have a referendum right now and feel confident either in its results or in the petition that led to it in the first place,” Pancholi told reporters inside the legislature Monday.
“There is already this huge shadow overhanging the separatist petition, making it clear that every single Albertan should be doubting the veracity of the signatures on that petition. We certainly cannot go forward with a referendum under these conditions.”
mblack@postmedia.com
Danielle Smith says Alberta separation referendum faces hurdles amid court challenges
The Stay Free Alberta separation petition faces questions over a leaked voters list and a delay in validation due to a court injuction.
Never heard of divorce? It happens when there are irreconcilable differences.
Much of Northern BC would likely vote to join Alberta in a new country because of the same treatment from both Ottawa and the lower mainland.
Spoken like a true Liberal.
The Separatists are really doing the Liberals a favor, they give them another crisis to solve.
Spoken like someone who didn't understand the context of what I was saying. Read the whole thing, and then you'll get the sarcasm in this statement.
Does it hurt your feelings that many Albertans realize that Canada is broken beyond repair ? As a once proud Canadian it sadens me to see the state our dominion has fallen into . Resting on our past accomplishments does not change that fact .
If the goal of Alberta Court of King’s Bench Justice Shaina Leonard was to fuel the separatist fire, she’s doing an exquisite job.
On Wednesday, Leonard quashed a petition that separatists in the province had organized to trigger an independence referendum in the fall. Why? Because the chief electoral officer who allowed the petition to go forth in the first place didn’t adequately consult the Indigenous peoples of the province.
That’s right. The very same duty to consult responsible for roadblocking major projects and hobbling the country’s economy — and driving separatist sentiment among Albertans fed up with all of the above — is now being weaponized to prevent a democratic consultation of the general public.
apple.news
Justice Leonard’s reasoning was that consultations needed to happen before the petition was even approved because a successful petition triggers a cascade of steps that can lead to secession. But by ordering consultations so far upstream, Leonard is guaranteeing waste; obscene amounts of waste.
Timelines like that would be obstructive to democracy: putting a mere petition on hold to ensure that an ethnic minority can give its express-line input first would probably mean missing the referendum timeline set out in the legislation. Maybe that’s the point.
It wouldn’t be the first time; this is now a common cause of death for major projects in Canada. After the constitutionalization of Aboriginal and treaty rights in 1982, the courts sprouted the duty to consult, requiring the Crown — the executive, not the legislature — to meaningfully consult and accommodate Indigenous groups that might be impacted by government action. For example: the granting of pipeline approvals, the allocation of salmon quotas, the handing out of tree harvesting licences. What makes the duty to consult so brutal is that it’s a constantly moving target.
There isn’t a clear rubric setting out how it can be met — indeed, it depends on the scenario. Courts have also expected more over time. Aboriginal groups are able to use this uncertainty to launch lengthy challenges that stall approvals and sometimes kill projects completely. The duty to consult isn’t officially an Indigenous veto, but it certainly amounts to one when you consider the concessions it takes to bring Indigenous groups onside — and the years it takes to fight the holdouts in court.
On Wednesday, Leonard quashed a petition that separatists in the province had organized to trigger an independence referendum in the fall. Why? Because the chief electoral officer who allowed the petition to go forth in the first place didn’t adequately consult the Indigenous peoples of the province.
That’s right. The very same duty to consult responsible for roadblocking major projects and hobbling the country’s economy — and driving separatist sentiment among Albertans fed up with all of the above — is now being weaponized to prevent a democratic consultation of the general public.
Jamie Sarkonak: When Indigenous rights come before your democratic rights — National Post
Alberta judge weaponizes duty to consult to kill separatist petition
Timelines like that would be obstructive to democracy: putting a mere petition on hold to ensure that an ethnic minority can give its express-line input first would probably mean missing the referendum timeline set out in the legislation. Maybe that’s the point.
It wouldn’t be the first time; this is now a common cause of death for major projects in Canada. After the constitutionalization of Aboriginal and treaty rights in 1982, the courts sprouted the duty to consult, requiring the Crown — the executive, not the legislature — to meaningfully consult and accommodate Indigenous groups that might be impacted by government action. For example: the granting of pipeline approvals, the allocation of salmon quotas, the handing out of tree harvesting licences. What makes the duty to consult so brutal is that it’s a constantly moving target.
There isn’t a clear rubric setting out how it can be met — indeed, it depends on the scenario. Courts have also expected more over time. Aboriginal groups are able to use this uncertainty to launch lengthy challenges that stall approvals and sometimes kill projects completely. The duty to consult isn’t officially an Indigenous veto, but it certainly amounts to one when you consider the concessions it takes to bring Indigenous groups onside — and the years it takes to fight the holdouts in court.
Did it work that way in Quebec?If the goal of Alberta Court of King’s Bench Justice Shaina Leonard was to fuel the separatist fire, she’s doing an exquisite job.
On Wednesday, Leonard quashed a petition that separatists in the province had organized to trigger an independence referendum in the fall. Why? Because the chief electoral officer who allowed the petition to go forth in the first place didn’t adequately consult the Indigenous peoples of the province.
That’s right. The very same duty to consult responsible for roadblocking major projects and hobbling the country’s economy — and driving separatist sentiment among Albertans fed up with all of the above — is now being weaponized to prevent a democratic consultation of the general public.
Justice Leonard’s reasoning was that consultations needed to happen before the petition was even approved because a successful petition triggers a cascade of steps that can lead to secession. But by ordering consultations so far upstream, Leonard is guaranteeing waste; obscene amounts of waste.Jamie Sarkonak: When Indigenous rights come before your democratic rights — National Post
Alberta judge weaponizes duty to consult to kill separatist petition
Timelines like that would be obstructive to democracy: putting a mere petition on hold to ensure that an ethnic minority can give its express-line input first would probably mean missing the referendum timeline set out in the legislation. Maybe that’s the point.
It wouldn’t be the first time; this is now a common cause of death for major projects in Canada. After the constitutionalization of Aboriginal and treaty rights in 1982, the courts sprouted the duty to consult, requiring the Crown — the executive, not the legislature — to meaningfully consult and accommodate Indigenous groups that might be impacted by government action. For example: the granting of pipeline approvals, the allocation of salmon quotas, the handing out of tree harvesting licences. What makes the duty to consult so brutal is that it’s a constantly moving target.
There isn’t a clear rubric setting out how it can be met — indeed, it depends on the scenario. Courts have also expected more over time. Aboriginal groups are able to use this uncertainty to launch lengthy challenges that stall approvals and sometimes kill projects completely. The duty to consult isn’t officially an Indigenous veto, but it certainly amounts to one when you consider the concessions it takes to bring Indigenous groups onside — and the years it takes to fight the holdouts in court.
Does that hurt your feelings? Are you fucking mentally inept? Weak-willed? Easily led by the nose?
It would seem so by your excessive use of narratives created by people for people with zero imagination of their own. I was in the army for 12 years and served as a drill instructor. I don't get hurt feelings over others' short-sighted ineptitude.
I'm not happy with the state of the country either. But threatening to leave helped the Carney Government achieve a majority. Liberals love separatists; they love crisis, whether it's a trucker crisis, a pandemic crisis, a fake environmental crisis, or the crisis of unity.
The truth is that the separatists will further reinforce the Carney government's position of ongoing existential crisis, but they will not have their own country. Even if they get a referendum, which as a Canadian I support, Albertans are not that bone stupid, and it will fail. They don't have the numbers.
Did you get free tampons in the males room ? You served in the Canadian Armed forces , we didn’t have an army in those days . Doesn’t matter if they fail or not Canada is a dying country and will fail with or without Alberta or Quebec separation . Canada is broken beyond repair imho . Shit even lalaland has a group proposing separation and it is gaining traction .
Saskatchewan Alberta History 101
121 years years ago...
Saskatchewan and Alberta didn't have full Provincial Rights until 1930...
Yes , that disparity has been eating at both provinces .Saskatchewan Alberta History 101
121 years years ago...
Saskatchewan and Alberta didn't have full Provincial Rights until 1930...