Free Alberta

Larry shared a photo

March 2, 2021 7:36 am

6

Randy W

Don't feel alone, we got one of those idiots in the White House.

March 2, 2021

Bahav alam

March 5, 2021 2:19 am

Free business Domain https://bit.ly/3uV5DDc

Best Web Hosting 2021 - Domains - WordPress - Bluehost

bit.ly

Bluehost is one of the largest website hosting providers and powers millions of websites. Learn more about our secure and reliable hosting services today!

Be the first person to like this.

Larry shared a photo

March 4, 2021 1:21 pm

It's time for the great Alberta disappointment to leave and return back to Oakville. Alberta is done with Easterners wanting to tell us how to live. We are building our "Pillars of Separation".

4

Larry shared a photo

February 8, 2021 11:58 pm

6

Larry

February 13, 2021 8:59 am

As fast as I can make it in no particular order. Justin, failure in business, failure in family, pedophile; Floats around Europe as a Nomad living on daddy's money. Gains dead-end employment as a part... View More

4

Larry shared a photo

February 16, 2021 11:15 pm

6

Garth McElree

LOL.

March 1, 2021

Larry

Love my Photoshop

March 1, 2021

Larry shared a photo

February 8, 2021 8:08 am

OPEN ALBERTA TOMORROW! Your house of lies and liars is coming down around you Kenney. Your strong-arm methods to keep the industry silent by threatening jobs and reputations are being exposed. http... View More

2

Larry

February 1, 2021 1:11 pm

The progression to Alberta's separation. To condense a long answer as much as possible and still deal with the question many details will be set aside in this answer. I'll denote with an asterisk (*... View MoreThe progression to Alberta's separation. To condense a long answer as much as possible and still deal with the question many details will be set aside in this answer. I'll denote with an asterisk (*) where more details could be mentioned. Abiding by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada the separation of Alberta from the constitution would begin with a *referendum put to the citizens of Alberta. The Supreme Court of Canada outlined how the referendum must be put to the people. The court also announced in its decision leading to the *Clarity Act that a majority of voters must by a majority vote yes. Immediately one can see that the Clarity Act is anything but clear. The court never gave their definition of what they would recognize as a majority. It's widely acknowledged that 50% plus 1 would not constitute a majority and that is important for other topic reasons. To decipher the above I'll assume the number 65% for what could be considered acceptable by the court and now employ that number and restate the first sentence. A majority of not less than 65% of voters must by not less than 65% vote yes for Alberta secession Assuming the vote is successful the province would have the authority to table their referendum in the House Of Commons, (HOC), and begin negotiations. However, there is no constitutional guidance nor is there an existing law that states the HOC has to hear the motion nor is there a defined timeline. Providing the HOC agreed to table the referendum, the government with all the provinces, and including the First Nations would be required in good faith to enter into negotiations to amend the Canadian Constitution. Approval by the HOC including the Senate and a minimum of 7 provinces totaling no less than 50% of the national population would be required to proceed with the amendment process. This is why I painstakingly have developed a positive alliance with Quebec the past few years. Foremost topics that would require approval would be provincial borders taking into account for First Nations land to remain in Canada. Additional issues for negotiation conceivably would include the national debt and accounting for federal lands and property. Loans, federal grants, and guarantees would become part of the negotiations. How would Alberta administer existing federal programs? How would Alberta guarantee the Charter Of Rights? Alberta would need to address the Native treaties with the federal government, not just Alberta. Smaller issues such as the use of the Canadian dollar and Canadian passports would be discussed. Alberta may have to concede land with the argument being if the country is divisible so is Alberta.

View Less

1

Larry

February 1, 2021 1:12 pm

Is the Statute of Westminster 1931 our loophole to freedom? I have seen many posts that claim Alberta either never signed into the confederation or was never brought into confederation with the con... View MoreIs the Statute of Westminster 1931 our loophole to freedom? I have seen many posts that claim Alberta either never signed into the confederation or was never brought into confederation with the consent of the people. Before clinging to the tenet Alberta has never been part of the confederation one needs to understand the various recognized and accepted legal definitions of consent. They encompass implied consent, expressed consent, informed consent, and unanimous consent. To understand the differences of consent this is an explanation; Informed consent can be implied from a nodding of the head, or by showing up at an agreed-upon time. Consent does not necessarily need to be in writing although that would be most prudent. Implied consent occurs through the actions or conduct of another rather than direct communication through words. Implied consent is an assumption of permission or acceptance to do something that is inferred from actions. Ergo the challenge to the Statute of Westminster 1931 is this; Assuming the overwhelming argument is correct where Alberta or any other province or territory gave neither expressed, informed, or unanimous consent, there remains implied consent, which is strongly recognized up to the Supreme Court, and it remains entrenched in the discordance for this debate. The objection to this recurring argument is that from the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the base for this claim, until 1982 and the signing of the Constitution Act, Alberta carried on as part of Canada. The province has lived, abided, and upheld Canadian laws, customs, (including fighting as Canada in the second world war), partaking in Canadian elections, and paid taxes to federal Canada for 51 years. Alberta then acted as a participating signatory and signed into the 1982 Constitution Act as part of Canada. Those claiming Alberta has a loophole to escape confederation by referring to the Statute of Westminster are sadly misinformed. On April 17, 1982, when Alberta, acting as a willing and informed signatory, (therefore accepting it as part of Canada), signed the Constitution Act and thusly displayed its utmost belief and hence acceptance Alberta was indeed part of the confederation. For the past additional 37 years since participating as a signatory, Alberta has continued to function within and as part of the confederation

View Less

2

Christopher Peterson

Considering the recent fraudulent installment of Joe Biden, Americans are primarily concerned about the U.S.A. right now. We now have the equivalent of Hitler claiming to be our president but, this time the genocide is aimed at American Patriots. We are not concerned with Canada right now.

February 1, 2021

Donna Mess

Well, all things in the states affect Canada Sir Christopher Peterson do they not?

February 1, 2021 Edited

Larry

February 1, 2021 1:08 pm

Equalization and the formula How it's calculated, how it's paid. In 1957 Canada created the equalization program. The foundation of the idea was a way for the federal government to transfer funds to p... View MoreEqualization and the formula How it's calculated, how it's paid. In 1957 Canada created the equalization program. The foundation of the idea was a way for the federal government to transfer funds to provinces to ensure every Canadian would receive comparable services at comparable rates of taxation. In 1982 the equalization program was enshrined in the Constitution. This will clear the misconception for many how Equalization is paid. Equalization is financed entirely from the government of Canada's general revenues that are raised through federal taxes on all Canadians. Essentially the federal government collects your taxes and deposits it into a general revenue account. *Alberta does not write a cheque to Ottawa* If you take anything away from this post let it be that. Conversely, the formula for the equalization payout is somewhat complex and may cause more confusion than it answers. The calculation is the difference between the two numbers. Letting E denote a provincial government’s equalization entitlement per capita, it is calculated as: E = S - F where S (the standard) is the estimated potential revenue a group of reference provinces could raise if they applied a set of given (or “standard”) tax rates to specified revenue sources within a provincial jurisdiction; and F, (the province’s fiscal capacity) is the estimated potential revenue the provincial the government could raise if it imposed the same set of standard tax rates to the same specified revenue sources within its jurisdiction. Both are expressed on a per capita basis. The reference group of provinces varies, from being comprised of the top two provinces, all 10, and five (British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec). Once those choices are made, the calculation is straightforward in principle. If the province in question lags the reference-group standard (i.e., F < S), then it is said to have a weak fiscal capacity and is entitled to an equalization grant from the federal government equal to E, the gap between S and F, for each person residing there. Contrariwise, if a provincial government’s revenue-raising capacity exceeds the standard (F > S), then it receives no equalization entitlement. With revenue sources so comprehensively included, this method of equalization grant calculation is known as the representative tax system (RTS). The system is flawed as it allows a selection of industries to be either included or excluded in the formula. An example is the James bay Hydro project in Quebec which produces tremendous amounts of electricity and is a revenue stream for Quebec. It was allowed to be excluded from the formula. Many argue the enormous wealth of natural gas Quebec owns and could develop should also be included

View Less

1

Christopher Peterson

Larry, Canada is not our concern right now.

February 1, 2021