@seves76.bsky.social:
Incredibly well said by Chief Troy Knowlton
In summary, seperation is not an option, all FN are united against seperation and if you don’t like that you are free to leave their treaty land.
Bravo to all the FN chiefs is Alberta!!!!!
@amirattaran.bsky.social:
Great!
Let them separate, except for treaty land and … OOPS that’s all of Alberta!
These ‘Berta yokels need to learn to read a map.
@markusoff.bsky.social:
Angus Reid poll: 65% of UCP supporters would vote to take Alberta out of Canada.
and 36% overall, which is up from 25% before federal election.
Gosh.
@dnadoc12.bsky.social:
So ridiculous, 2/3 want nothing to do with the nonsense. The rest can move to Texas if they are so unhappy.
The Alberta MAGAts know land-locked Alberta will never survive separated on her own. Most MAGAts want to be the 51st State but refuse to look at the facts. Below is an excellent 1:38 Min:
@guyfelicella May 9, 2025:
What does the USA out rank Canada in ….
Obesity.
Murder rate.
Incarcerations.
Gun deaths.
School shootings.
To name a few …..
No thank you. Grateful to live in Canada.
@whinyunderscore:
good to note for all those canadians complaining about their country
@TomPark1n:
[Danielle Smith is a] horrible person, risking Canada for personal power
@natnewswatch:
Smith says sovereignty referendum provides ‘outlet’ to avoid creation of new party. Smith cites high popularity of the sovereigntist Parti Québécois in Quebec https://cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/smith-says-sovereignty-referendum-provides-outlet-to-avoid-creation-of-new-party-1.7530218
@carlosstelmac:
Majority of Canadians agree that Danielle Smith has betrayed Canada
@CBCNews:
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says she’s willing to risk a separation referendum in part to avert the emergence of a political rival.
@MondoABx:
“Let’s be honest about what this is. The government doesn’t want to own the referendum. It wants to be pushed into it, to blame the people for asking, to stay a step removed from the consequences. That’s not governance. That’s cowardice.”
@TheBreakdownAB:
“Smith was asked on CTV News Channel if it wasn’t easier to quell separatism by taking it off the table.
Smith responded, “If there isn’t an outlet, it creates a new party.”
Self preservation from Smith, Canada be damned.
@LukaszukAB:
.@ABDanielleSmith
Danielle, mission accomplished!!!
Russian state media rejoices your secessionism and weakening of Canada. You make Putin proud.
@gilmcgowan:
Breaking: The UCP is “flooding the zone with chaos” to distract attention from the worst attack on public health in Alberta history. AFL says the UCP’s Bill 55 will “shatter Medicare” by opening the door to for-profit hospitals.
Fox News (Donald Trump’s favourite TV media outlet) is saying that Danielle Smith’s flirtation with separatism will strengthen Trump’s hand with Carney and may even pave the way for Alberta to become the 51st state. Our Premier is literally a traitor.
@mohde:
Strictly speaking from a non-partisan perspective, the undoing of this government would be in the best interest of this province. Scandal after scandal. This is not what we need. We need a government not a gang.
Danielle Smith asks Albertans to “respectfully debate” separation, As with any other right guaranteed by our Charter, should they really be extended to all? by Deirdre Mitchell-MacLean, May 06, 2025, ABpoli
It seems to be a pattern; people like Danielle Smith who rail against “cancel culture” and “censorship” go out of their way to question whether the rights granted to all Canadians should really exist for some of them. They frame it as though it is as inconsequential as the great debate (in some households) over what movie they should watch on Friday night.
Debate, they say, is healthy. No one should be offended by debate, they say, it’s just a conversation; just asking someone else to defend why they should have the same rights as others.
For some — like the Premier of Alberta who, a year before she saw the opportunity to run in a leadership race to become Premier, had already made the decision to leave the country and purchased her “retirement” home in Panama — the consequences are not theirs to bear.
In a live address to Albertans at 3:00pm yesterday, while a majority were either at work, or picking up children from school, the Premier of Alberta said that if enough signatures were collected, she would commit to holding a referendum on separation from Canada in 2026.
She also said it should not be a divisive issue.
The Charter gives Canadians the right to live, and work, anywhere in the country. Some people may have even decided to live in this part of the country because it was part of the country.
For those who want to give up their citizenship, have already made plans to leave the country, or have no intention of sticking around if the debate on separation isn’t great for the province, or Albertans, they will not be impacted by the result. It allows them to smile and laugh while saying we should be able to “respectfully debate” whether another Albertan should have to choose between their home, and their country of citizenship.
Regardless of what each of us believes about this issue, or what path we think is best; we, as Albertans, must be able to respectfully debate and discuss these issues with our friends, family members, and neighbours.
Nothing to lose
To Ms. Smith, this isn’t a big deal. So what if your family, friends, and neighbours think you should have to leave your home to remain in Canada? How can it be offensive when they probably think that if you don’t like the fact that there’s a liberal government, they should have to leave their home, too; it’s totally the same.
Except, shockingly, it is not, and those who have the privilege of threatening the rights of others willfully ignore this fact.
The consequences — consideration of which are absolutely not Ms. Smith’s forte — are vastly different.
If a separation referendum fails, those who already hate being part of Canada and want to separate retain the same privilege they have if it passes or fails; to stay or not. Their rights do not change depending on the outcome of that debate, or that referendum. That’s legitimately how privilege works.
If a separation referendum were to have a decisive majority level of support — like Ms. Smith’s 93 per cent support for her leadership she received from 0.002 per cent of eligible voters in Alberta — there would not be an option for those who voted “no” to remain in Alberta and still be part of Canada. Their right, as Canadians, to remain residents of Canada would be disregarded unless they left the province.
It’s the same as me asking for a “respectful debate” on whether men should have the vote. Or, if I could get 177,000 signatures, it’s legitimate to have that question put to a referendum for others to vote on. There are no consequences to me asking because my right exists whether that referendum succeeds or fails. I have nothing to lose by asking for “respectful debate” on the subject, though I can imagine someone might disagree with the fact that I’m thinking it should be debated in the first place.
Such is the outcome of a debate on whether everyone should have the same rights. If the answer is “yes”, everyone has the choice to exercise them, and retains the privilege of doing so even if someone else disagrees.
This is why we don’t debate rights for one group of people in a free country like Canada. Individual rights cannot be “respectfully debated” because the consequence is not the same both parties.
Paradoxically, the consequence also cannot be the same because it would mean that rights are, in fact, debatable.
Would those who support separating do so if, by virtue of voting “yes”, they were voting to be forced to leave their home, family, and community?
Would women vote “yes” in a referendum on men’s right to vote if, in so doing, they were also giving up their right to vote?
I doubt it.
In fact, I’m quite certain they would protest against the injustice of having a consequence they don’t want imposed upon them “for having a difference of opinion”.
This is why whether some people should have rights is not a “difference of opinion”; the consequences are not the same for those on opposing sides.
Uniting through division
I’m all for differences of opinion — in fact, I thrive on it. Forgive my humble-brag, but I think my ability to argue the exception is both impressive and annoying in equal measure.
There is, for instance, an argument for holding the referendum on separation just to get it over with and put the topic to rest. But why would it, or should it, end at the provincial level?
If a provincial separation referendum were unsuccessful, could those in Treaty 8 hold their own secession referendum to separate from Alberta and claim the oil sands as their own jurisdiction and revenue resource?
Should Calgary be able to hold a referendum to secede if they don’t like being subject to provincial overreach? I mean ‘“oversight”? Calgary sends more tax dollars to the province than they get in return — is that a good enough reason for them to decide they don’t want to be part of the province anymore?
What if the NDP wins every seat in Edmonton again next election, but the UCP forms government; should Edmontonians be able to secede from the rest of the province if they warned the rest of the province to vote like they did “or else”?Or because the UCP refuse to pay their taxes to the City of Edmonton!?
It’s absurdist to act like this is a legitimate solution to disagreement, or that entertaining the idea will make it less divisive.
I doubt I could be convinced that’s not what this government wants anyway. The chasm between Albertans along partisan lines is already deep; it’s to the benefit of their political dynasty if they make sure it can never be bridged.
All consequences on the path to the goal be damned.
@ryankbrook.bsky.social:
Speaking of referendums, remember when the Alliance Party proposed a referendum would be required on any proposal supported by a petition signed by 3% of Canadians.
Rick Mercer ran a petition that Stockwell Day must change his name to Doris. Voting ceased at 1.2 million.
@javaben.bsky.social:
The authoritarian Smith showed her true colours early in her post election term.
Clawing the $200.00 fed money from AISH recipients is simply cruel. These Albertans live in poverty and those extra dollars have zero impact on prov expenses. Then Smith complains about the feds never helping AB.
Liar Liar Danielle, I’ve made so little annually since 2011 when I destroyed my career and business by speaking out about Encana’s frac crimes and I sacrificed my savings to lying rule breaking lawyers, I pay zero Alberta tax, so I get no tax cut. This is the same for many Albertans like me living below the poverty line. Your tax cuts benefit those who do not need them and give nothing to those in need like those on AISH.
Meanwhile, you’re stealing from public education money that Albertans pay via property taxes – even from those like me with no kids, to give to your rich friends for their kids in private schools. I never minded paying school taxes for public schools, have paid them for four decades (big chunk of my taxes goes to pay for education for other peoples’ kids), but I do mind having my money stolen by a corrupt cruel politician to give to private education for the uber rich.
@PEIBasketball:
But that carbon tax rebate was bad, right?
@audricmoses:
And all cancelled out by higher insurance rates, higher service fees, higher education feeswhich she’s evilly taking from property owners – even those of us who chose not to have any kids, to give to the rich for their private schools, and more, courtesy of this government
@Raven_Call:
Tax cuts. Beneftting who, exactly? Certainly not the low income in Alberta who don’t pay income tax.
Of course Danielle Smith conveniently ignores the Treaty Rights of the First Nations peoples. If anyone in Alberta has the right to complain it is the First Nations. Her ignoring them is a fine example of exactly that.
Then, of course there is the fact that Alberta, from the days of Ralph Klein on, has placed all its chips on oil, giving away their black gold for pennies. They have never made any meaningful effort to diversify their economy, that’s for sure. They certainly play the victim card, conveniently ignoring their failures.
Adele:
Rachel Notley did try to diversify, but the Albertan’s got scared because they only know about oil and gas and oil and gas is their God so diversification could mean taking a risk. Why would they wanna do that when they were perfectly happy doing what they always do and blame the federal government for everything.
Kay:
Most energy groups state that need for oil and gas will decline sharply by 2030. That is in five years. They have done nothing to prepare the province re diversification. Smith prefers to follow the OPEC estimate of decline by 2050. Most say that is too generous an estimation. Of course as a supplier they would hope to keep it going into 2050. OPEC is increasing production whuch will lower the gas prices so Alberta’s revenue is already declining and their budget had the price of oil higher which screws up their revenue estimates. We are going from the boom to the bust now on top of the tariff issue causing global cost increases and wackadoodle thinks lets allow 10% of the voters to raise separation to add to the financial pain. It will also affect PM Mark Carney’s ability to push forward with his plans for Canada as it will risk investment and interest in Canada re,domestic separatist threats and chaos within. Smith is like a hurricane … like Trump … everything they touch they destroy. Imagine blowing up your life, livelihood and financial situation all to support wealthy US oil and gas firms that Albertan’s do not even benefit from.
Elizabeth Hagell:
I think most, if not all, of Alberta is on treaty land so I am not sure what part she is considering for separation? https://www.maptown.com/Alberta-Treaty-Boundaries-Provincial-Base-Wall-Map-p/210701.htm
Deirdre Mitchell-MacLean:
No one does. She claims figuring out what to do will be a problem for if they get signatures, and then if it passes. I’m sure Rob Anderson has it ready to go, it just goes off brand if she pretends she’s thinking about consequences.
Kay:
They can have the tailing ponds. They can pitch their American and Confederate flags all around to make it seem more like home.
Smith is so ignorant. The most dangerous thing to do is to encourage the base to vote to leave Canada without providing them with the long list of consequences. If they think they have it bad now just wait until they realize how much they actually benefited from being within Canada. For one thing they would have to pay for their own pipelines but then again I doubt Canada and the provinces would be too keen to allow a non Canadian separatist country to put a pipeline that leads through each province disrespecting the indigenous rights and environmental laws. I mean how stupid and short sighted can anyone be?
As was clearly spelled out to Quebec that if they voted they would separate they would loose all access to Canadian currency, They would need to set up their own currency and banking system.
They would need to set up their own trade partnerships as they would not benefit from Canada’s trade agreements.
They would need to set up their own social supports, ie unemployment insurance, OAS, etc.
They would need to set up and fund their own disaster recovery services.
They would need to set up their own military/defense department and stock ammunitions and military equipment and personnel.
They would need to find their own border services/immigration system.
The lost was very long. Indigenous told Quebec the land was not theirs so they would need to set to live the land as it is not owned by Quebec. The refendue vote was no thankfully but still my company moved its headquarters from Quebec to Alberta. Oh the irony of it all. Corporations do not like instability. Investor’s do not like instability. So many head offices left. My company transferred out a large percentage of the employees and the remaining who were closer to retirement were terminated. Those who did not wish to transfer were terminated.
Smaller companies moved as well leaving staff jobless. Unemployment skyrocketed. Housing market crashed with thousands upon thousands of homes hit the market at the same time. I recall my street rows and rows of homes with for sale signs up. Values dropped significantly as folks who did not want to be part of a separatist province packed and left even of their company didn’t. The tax base drops significantly when corporations and citizens pack up and leave. The costs then fall in the shoulders of those who remain.
Quebec has never really lost the stench of separatist threat so Investor’s avoid it as do companies. They just go to other provinces within Canada that are not governed by chaos and threat. It also affects the financial rating of the province whuch in turns makes it more expensive to borrow. The lower rating the higher the borrowing rate.
Smith did not explain the fallout at all when announcing her extortion plans. Folks who are all fired up based on her lies re all the supposed injustices will not bother to do fact checking to see if what she says it’s true. Steve Boots on his YouTube debunked many of her claims against the Liberals. She even took a jab at the NDP.
Sadly ill people making emotional decisions based in lies that at the end of the day only benefits the US oil companies as they have been robbing Albertan’s forever and a day between the reduced pricing below market value and the low royalty payments and they complain against the carbon tax. Energy Media shared a post the other day and carbon taxing costs Suncor 47 cents a barrel …. but they do not pay 47 cents a barrel because once they deduct the subsidies they receive both federally and provincially and as well their carbon credits,that 47 cents is reduced down to nothing …. So next time an oil and gas company tries to gaslight re the burden of the carbon tax on them you know they are bs’ing.
Look how Brexit went for the UK.
Frank van Doorn:
Great piece! As usual if one wants to expose fallacies take them to their logical conclusions and then ask if it is truly what they wanted. Problem is we rarely do see these idiotic ideas taken to their logical conclusions and we rarely see good examples of it. This is one of those! Loved it from first line to last. Well done!
Kathleen:
This still seems to be the ‘great distraction’ from the growing corruption investigations and complete dismantling of AB health. And of course the season of fires is already threatening people and property. But … leaving confederation would make all these issues disappear … governance is so complex.
Lee Neville:
Question for all – if the threshold for passing one of these patently ridiculous referendums is all of 178,000 signatures, what is to prevent me from filing a referendum to pass a “Clarity in Presentation” resolution – whereby the Premier must be wearing a tall white conical hat, heavy rimmed glasses, fake nose and snaggle-toothed false teeth and draped in a voluminous cape with alternating vertical white and black stripes whenever she is on the floor of the Legislature, or giving any public speech on any media platform.
I mean if we end up up electing gibbering idiots, we should clearly indicate to the unaware world such an idiot is standing up and blithering on our behalf.
Deirdre Mitchell-MacLean:
To be honest, as I was editing it, the thought occurred to me that part of her might be absolutely giddy thinking this is payback for the vaccine mandates. She was in extremely high spirits during her speech yesterday and it really belied the importance of what she was talking about. When I think about how she might be just tickled to make the rest of us squirm over this… I wouldn’t put it past her.Smith’s a vicious piece of shit, like her hero, Adolf Orange, she thrives off of harming and belittling others. I’ve watched her for decades. Hideous racist bigoted cruelty douche.
Nicholas Miller:
Why? She knows perfectly well that only a minority of Albertans want to separate. This nonsense just gives this silly idea oxygen, and adds zero value to Canada.
She is shit disturbing, at Canada’s expense, for her own personal political advantage. Despicable.Yes, and I expect GOP dark money is rewarding her shit-fuckery a plenty, perhaps via heaps of cash deposited for her in Panama. I believe everything Smith has done since made leader by the corrupt and even more cruel TBA, serves Putin (via Adolf Orange). Putin wants Canada, which is why he has his poodle working to destroy Canada. Putin licks up the crumbs left behind, while Smith rots richly and selfishly down south. I’ve never seen Smith give a shit about anything or anyone other than herself.
And, after all hell breaks loose and Canada is destroyed, Smith will – of course, blame the feds for her treachery, “Carney made me do it, because Canadians exercised their democratic rights and voted for him instead of Pee Pee.”
Haliborn:
Yes. Be better than she is! She never debates! She accuses, she lies, she bullies, she whines, she has a laundry list of imaginary grievances, she’s a crook under investigation, she hates Canada. What the fuck is supporting this greedy power seeking hag and her fascist bullshit going to get you??!! Debate it. YOU decide what you want, not her. And don’t fall for the momentary diplomacy coming out of her mouth. That’s a smoke and mirror event right there. If you don’t agree with her far right agenda, she hates you 100%
Cathy:
Many are. Smith and her MAGA fan prefer the US