Forever Canadian petition proponent Thomas Lukaszuk (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).
Ms. Smith went on, still mistakenly claiming, “Over time, our federal government has sought to move towards a more centralized American-style system with Ottawa attempting to take over many provincial areas of jurisdiction using all manner of legislative, judicial and financial leverage.”
In truth, while the United States has increasingly concentrated power in its central government, Canada has actually been shifting towards a less centralized model.
It’s essential to highlight this misinformation since many significant issues with Ms. Smith’s push for Alberta’s risky and divisive separation referendum arise from her flawed understanding of constitutional matters.
Her lack of knowledge about both U. S. and Canadian constitutions would be laughable if she weren’t a premier advocating for changes in Canada’s constitution using provincial funds as an aid and seeking support from foreign interests that don’t have our best interests at heart.
This poses serious risks, yet it’s shocking that no one within her own party has attempted to curb her actions. Perhaps this is why Matt Jones and Nate Horner-two more sensible ministers-were let go this week following yesterday morning’s otherwise inconsequential cabinet shuffle.
It was somewhat amusing three years ago when Ms. Smith thought she had presidential powers like those in America to pardon criminals; now it’s concerning as she uses considerable provincial authority to help questionable groups-both foreign and domestic-in their campaign aiming at separating our country.
Former UCP premier Jason Kenney (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).
“The misinformation is so profound that there is no redemption for such ignorance,” retired Mount Royal University political science professor Keith Brownsey remarked during a discussion about last night’s address.
Take into account how she plans on phrasing her referendum question after courts blocked an overly simplistic yes-or-no option put forth by allies within something called Alberta Prosperity Project for its Stay Free Alberta separation initiative. Voters will now be asked: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”
This wording is convoluted, ambiguous, and perhaps purposely confusing. How will voters respond? We weren’t told-it can’t simply be yes or no.
Why go through all this? According to Ms. Smith it’s “because this proposed referendum question does not directly trigger separation but if successful would ask Alberta’s government to commence the legal process necessary to hold a binding referendum on the matter; hence, recent court rulings wouldn’t apply here.”
In other words, despite what she says daily-including during last night’s talk-she really is promoting separatism!
Unfortunately for Ms. Smith , this might not satisfy those who are pushing hard for separation within her party who’ve threatened her leadership unless she adopts their suggested question facing numerous obstacles due to several court decisions made prior.
“Smith doesn’t understand that there is no such thing as a binding ‘referendum’ in Westminster parliamentary systems,” Dr. Brownsey noted.“You can’t instruct Parliament-or our Legislature-for that matter-what actions they must take.”
“I suggest she reads section 91of Constitution Act 1867,” he added.“Additionally, someone needs remind Ms. Smith Justin Trudeau isn’t prime minister anymore!”
Well , sure-a lot what Ms. Smith said last night sounded like worn-out talking points associated with convoy protests which evolved into Maple MAGA movements infiltrating Conservative Party under Jason Kenney ultimately morphing into pushes toward separation campaigns related specifically targeting initiatives discussed above.
There were predictable criticisms leveled against various judges across ALberta whose decisions have thwarted efforts aimed supporting Stay Free Albertan propositions moving forward onto ballots -which Premier insisted were mistaken fundamental misinterpretations regarding legal processes etc.Well , perhapsthat couldbe true …we do have appeal courts. Butt I’d wager any superior judge based outof Albertawould likely interpret laws accurately than one acting likethey’ve never lookedover Canada’s constitution before …
There also seemed quite an unhealthy focus regarding irrelevant attacks directed towards Trudeau himself. Ms. SMith recycled old jabs leveled against both ruling Trudeau-Singh coalition locatedin Ottawa alongwith another notable target being NDP slogan claiming “leave-it-in-the-ground” rhetoric. I suppose we ought expect similar repetition come next upcoming elections.
Plenty whining surrounding rights enjoyed by ‘law-abiding gun owners’ wanting unrestricted access weapons-a perspective probably understandable considering proponents associated With Stay Free Alberta petition owns his own firearms business…
Earlier yesterday afternoon loyal supporters serving UCP dominated Select Special Citizen Initiative Proposal Review Committee finally managedto approve motion previously derailed daybefore advocating utilizingquestion promotedforever Canadian petitions spearheadedby former Progressive Conservative Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk.
Not long afterward though Premier stated there’re no intentions truly behind doing exactlythat. Still ifreferendum proves unpopular-as I suspect it may-we’ll see UCPattempt shift blame onto Mr. Lukaszuk.
Watching UCP members battling against positions once held firmly alongside NDP committee members was mildly entertaining; yet hardly relevant upon hearing Ms Smith readingthroughher notes..
< P C L ASS = " WP-BLOCK-PARAGRAPH "* Formerly known as British North America Act…Source link
