Saskatchewan First Act

The NDP finally steps away from the political abyss (they also voted unanimously to support legal gun owners in the latest Trudeau gun grab) – and the left are losing their junk.

But maybe not as much as they are in Alberta. Heh.

29 Replies to “Saskatchewan First Act”

  1. Haven’t read the sovereignty act but it must be great for the Alberta people judging by who’s doing all the wailing. Rachel Notley and her boss Jagmeet Singh are against it of course. The cbc, the Toronto star, Joe ceci, Warren Kinsella, Charlie Angus Janis Irwin, Brian Mason, and so on. Didn’t check, but I bet Charles Adler is against it too.

    It’s great to hear all these people all of a sudden grow a concern for democracy just 8 months after dear leader was freezing bank accounts and trampling little old ladies with RCMP horses.

    I’m not sure how much the sovereignty act itself will be able to do, as I’m sure the courts will squash a lot, but it looks like it’s ruffling all the right feathers.

    Game on. Go Danielle!!!

      1. The thugs were all dressed in black with no identifying markers, so really we don’t know who was called in to violently break up the protest — maybe Americans or UN forces.

  2. Anything that causes liberals to completely lose their minds has to be great!

    Now if they can just stay the course, and ban Justine from the province…they wouldn’t even have to call him out by name; just ban dictators from entering the premises.

  3. // the left are losing their junk. //

    If Trudeau has presented a bill allowing the cabinet to pass laws without having a legislative vote …

    1. Trudeau just does what he wants, doesn’t even bother asking parliament.
      The same media grandstanders justifying his use of EMA now cry fowl that alberta will forcefully tell that POS to FO.

      1. Franchise

        Bang on. Long long Overdue for a Premier to asset herself and tell Ottaw to GF themselves.

        Loving it..!!

  4. Well done forcing the NDP’s hand. They read the tea leaves and knew voting NO was piss poor optics.
    If there ever was a time to put a sizeable air gap between the Provincial NDP and the Feds…now’s the time.

    “Those that cannot remember their history are condemned to repeat it”.
    Ugh!! Can we have a moratorium on that quote…it’s gotten to the point where it’s as meaningful as a “water is wet” declaration.

  5. The national media works gratuitously for Rachel Notley. They despise Smith, Liberty, the Oil Patch and Alberta. It’s a national crusade and reason 9367 that Alberta, Saskatchewan, and most of BC and Manitoba should secede.

  6. Yeah, the media hysteria about Smith is something to behold.
    They are masturbating the feeble minds. Sad part is that it works.
    It’s a 100% full frontal assault against Smith.
    Most plebeians know about the bill is what the media filters through, final result, hate is on.
    In the big scheme of things, the bill is rather simple, spelling out that if it does not concern the federal government, they should bud out.
    Q’bec is doing it all the time and the media cartel agrees.

  7. Rhetoric aside…
    Can someone please explain to me HOW the Alberta First Sovereignty act is:
    – Anti Democratic
    – Dictatorial (where does it say in the legislation tabled that the cabinet can review previous legislation without house approval, for example?)

    I truly am trying to understand the left’s criticism of this legislation while turning a blind eye to Trudeau’s blatant authoritarianism. How can they look at themselves in the mirror? Just where do they get off? How can they justify these claims, and why is all the lefty politicians and media seem to lockstep this narrative in unison?

    I’ve learned many times over, for a long time now, NEVER trust a lefty to tell you the truth, so is there any validity to these claims, or are they simply making stuff up, as they have so many times before, and getting caught doing it?

    I trust that the UnMe’s or Allan S’s around here will have some explanation. I welcome their input into this conversation… that is… if they have something worthwhile to contribute, and not just resort to the typical lefty talking points.

    And finally, Danielle Smith may have been elected by less than 1% of Albertans, but her party surely wasn’t. If the turd had a mandate to trash the constitution, then don’t give me any of that “1%” crap. I ain’t buying that at all.

    1. i watched m
      endacious mendicino flap his lips about a proof point that was needed to pass this new add on to the banned fire arms list . he did the regular lie about assault style rifles and mass killings then ran out of bullshit and scurried away..like the scummy rat he is.. i don’t know who the reporter was but it was on CBC, so good on her.

    2. It concentrates way too much power in cabinet: “In the event that the Alberta assembly passes one of these defensive resolutions, cabinet receives the unilateral delegated power to amend Alberta statutes, rewrite regulations, and issue orders as necessary, on the fly, to deal with the situation. Such resolutions expire automatically after two years but can be extended to four. The right to judicial review of decisions made under Bill 1 has a 30-day limit, and the law’s text specifies, rather cheekily, that “the standard of review to be applied by the court is that of patent unreasonableness”.”

      https://nationalpost.com/opinion/danielle-smiths-unnecessary-political-power-grab

      This would be unwise even if for the non-trivial possibility that Nutley could win re-election. She could use this legislation against a hypothetical CPC government for a bonus.

      1. Ok, valid points. Although the way Smith and her government describes the process it is intended to defend against the federal government’s overreach into provincial jurisdictions. Smith says that these powers that the Albertan government wants to give itself is not intended to circumvent the Alberta legislature.
        I believe her intentions are noble, but the legislation itself appears on the surface not to be well thought out. (“The road to hell…” and that sort of stuff) If the last three years of living under Trudeau’s nightmare has taught me anything, it’s to NEVER trust a government that seeks to grant itself undemocratic powers and to ask for your trust that it would never abuse those new powers.
        Trudeau’s mandates (masks and vaccines), the EA, and bills C-4, C-11, and C-21, are prime examples of a government gone wild… drunk with power, so I’d have to hold Danielle Smith to that exact same standard.

        Now having said all that, it would not be the first time people on the left made a coherent and convincing argument that I had accepted, only to realize that they have lied, either by omitting certain facts, or by outright deception, so I’m going to reserve judgement until I hear from the other side.

  8. A provincial NDP Party IS a member of the Federal NDP Party, and they’re always whipped, voting as a block.
    The vote by the Saskatchewan NDP is very, very surprising. Impressive. Well done, Scott Moe.

    1. “A provincial NDP Party IS a member of the Federal NDP Party…

      Yes. Not many know that they are, in fact, one and the same entity.

  9. Don’t forget that Jagmeet is a supporter of sovereignty for Quebec, if that is what Quebeckers want:

    “The federal New Democratic Party has long played footsie with Quebec separatists, but recent statements by the new leader, Jagmeet Singh, suggest that the party has become more audacious in its advances.

    The fluently bilingual Mr. Singh last week told reporters in Alma, Quebec, that, if a majority of Quebeckers voted to secede from Canada in a third referendum, he would “respect the decision of the people, without fail and without a doubt.”

    “[The right of self-determination] is so fundamental, and if people choose their future, I am completely in agreement with their decision,” he said.”

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/globe-editorial-which-side-is-the-ndp-on-in-quebec/article36589589/

    And Jagmeet has also encouraged Quebec separatists to join the NDP:

    “NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said his party is happy to welcome Quebec sovereigntists into its ranks, as the seemingly dormant independence question resurfaced on the campaign trail Monday.”

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/federal-election-2019/quebec-sovereignty-emerges-on-campaign-trail-amid-ndp-green-rivalry-1.4595075

    1. “Don’t forget that Jagmeet is a supporter of sovereignty for Quebec, if that is what Quebeckers want”

      And here I was, thinking we had absolutely nothing in common ….

  10. In the Twitter feed, Jabba the Hut (aka Sarah Hoffman) is claiming Ms. Smith only has 1% of the vote.

  11. // Rhetoric aside… [heh]
    Can someone please explain to me HOW the Alberta First Sovereignty [Within a United Canada] act is:
    – Anti Democratic
    – Dictatorial //

    Read Section 4: Powers of the Lieutenant Governor in Council
    https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_30/session_4/20221129_bill-001.pdf
    The Lieutenant Governor In Council is just the Cabinet “advising” the Lt.Gov. to pass a law.
    It’s normally done to make board appointments and the like.

    But first the Legislature must “approve a resolution” and then the Cabinet can go to town.
    This bit. or perhaps the whole act, has been called an “enabling” or “Henry VIII” act giving the executive free rein.
    See this: https://twitter.com/GenevaTradeLaw/status/1597747316454494208

    Interesting that not much is about the Saskatchewan Act [here or in the MSP] which is much longer
    and includes such zingers as:
    90S.1(1) Saskatchewan has autonomy with respect to all of the matters falling
    under its exclusive legislative jurisdiction pursuant to this Act

    1. This legalese is the reason I never become a lawyer. I still can’t make the connection how Section 4 is supposed to make Danielle Smith a wannabe dictator, or how it is interpreted as a Henry VIII clause.

      Somebody is going to have to break out a legalese/english dictionary if I’m going to have any hope in understanding this jargon.

      I apologize in advance for my ignorance, but I really am trying to understand the issue here.

      1. // a Henry VIII clause //

        in 1414, Henry V acknowledged that the approval of Parliament was necessary to make all new laws.
        This was a major limitation of the powers of the Sovereign, and various monarchs resisted this with greater or lesser success.

        Henry VIII, in particular, sought various ways to bypass or limit Parliament’s authority.
        One of the things Henry VIII did was cause to be passed the Statute of Proclamations (An Act that Proclamations made by the King shall be obeyed). The effect of this was that proclamations had the same legal force as Acts of Parliament.
        This power, today known as a “Henry VIII clause”, meant that the King, by proclamation, could make or amend laws, without having to consult or obtain the approval of Parliament.

        This greatly curtailed the supremacy of Parliament, and ultimately came to a head in 1649 [heh] with Parliament regaining supremacy, although things weren’t really settled until the Bill of Rights was enacted in 1689.
        https://tinyurl.com/Came-to-a-Head

  12. The Alberta media is decidedly left wing. They don’t like Danielle Smith. Chief among the Smith detractors are Corus radio, Smith’s old employer. She was their ‘star’ as recently as a year and a half ago. Smith knows the media well and will not patronize them. She knows what they are up to.

Navigation