Sounds like they’re preparing for war.

This is part of the Free Alberta Strategy, penned in 2021 by Smith’s right-hand man Rob Anderson, UofC political science prof and climate change denialist Barry Cooper, and someone called David From. The Sovereignty Act is also in there. Smith has clearly been trying to implement the strategy from day one. For those who are curious, freealbertastrategy.com .

The consequences for those who think they are protected are clear: they will be charged starting in October of 2026 (so much for “law-abiding gun owners”), and the RCMP is not in a bind. They will simply do their job. Smith is bringing this up now because her government is crumbling and she needs the crazy fan base more than ever.

Hypothetically, if Martians were to land on Earth, do you think we should welcome them?

The convention is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what conservative voters will do, which is not at all the same thing.

If they intend to exempt the pipeline from the FIsheries Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act the First Nations would not accept it - unless they bribe them with the offer of co-ownership, which is what I suspect that’s about.

Please don’t anyone ever tell me again Carney is sensitive to the perils of climate change.

Hopefully the pipeline will never get built because it requires private financing. And it should be made clear that neither government is to offer loan guarantees or buy equity in the pipeline, like Jason Kenney did with Keystone XL.

Apart from the environmental consequences of this decision the government should be ashamed for insulting Canadians’ intelligence in this way.

Oh please. The concern is about competition, not security.

And we should remember it was Jason Kenney who did this, not Danielle Smith. They are all the same.

The author tries hard to excuse Peter Lougheed but the fact is that it was his idea to begin with. If he thought it should require a two thirds majority then he should have fought to have that written into the Constitution. Opinions are irrelevant. The fact is that the Notwithstanding Clause exists because the premiers wanted politicians to be the ultimate arbiters of what rights and freedoms should be and not the courts. It is doing exactly what it was intended to do. I know of no other country that has a Constitution and gives politicians the ability to ignore it. I am tired of being told it’s up to voters to correct this sort of thing. No, it isn’t, for several reasons. Even if we vote down a government that abuses the Notwithstanding Clause, it will still be there and there is absolutely no guarantee it won’t be abused in the future. The Notwithstanding Clause has to be eliminated by a constitutional amendment, permanently. And that is the politicians’ responsibility, not the voters’.

Itś corruption pure and simple. They are knowingly lining the pockets of their associates with ou r tax money.

Hey, now that we have this obscene energy-wasting capability, let’s see what other ways there are to generate equally obscene profits!

Any NDP leadership candidate “might be the answer to the banker Mark Carney”.

No, they should just not be allowed to prevent their children from being vaccinated.

The conventiongoers are shills for corporations that have captured the government. Lets not kid ourselves. This is not about understanding science.

Ban them in front of schools or universities? It’s surprising how difficult the concept of freedom of expression is for some.

I am a longtime user of Linux and I am pretty normal. All the Linux users I know are also pretty normal. If there’s a Linux user that is not normal, it’s not because of Linux.

To someone who might benefit from dropping Windows for Linux, I would argue that it’s free, it’s much simpler, no one will try to sell you anything, you can let it do software updates in the background and you won’t be abetting genocide. Or billionaires.

Right, whereas Charles is morality incarnate.

When the government refuses to negotiate in good faith and instead imposes a contract unilaterally killing collective bargaining with the notwithstanding clause, you bet it’s cut and dried.

No, they get people who are willing to work for less and in worse conditions in the jobs the teachers are quitting. It’s exactly what they want.

I don’t disagree, but one thing is back to work legislation and quite another to kill collective bargainng altogether and impose a contract unilaterally invoking the notwithstanding clause.