Rob Anderson on X - "The usual mindless drivel from Canada’s Chief Laurentian elite representative @acoyne Andrew, let me try and spell it out for you yet again.
1. Trudeau waged a sustained economic attack on Alberta with a string of destructive laws and policies that cost Albertans hundreds of billions in investments and hundreds of thousands of jobs while dealing with a cost of living crisis fueled by your buddy, Justin’s, open borders policies and failed Keynesian monetary theories.
2. Trudeau was replaced by Carney and, as part of Energy MOU, retracted or amended the 9 bad laws you refer to.
3. As a result, we have seen tens of billions of new private sector investment announcements in Alberta with much more to be announced shortly. We knuckle draggers in Alberta call this the initial signs of an economic boom (you are forgiven if you have forgotten what that looks like).
4. Premier Smith sees this flood of investment and jobs - stemming from the repeal of most of the terrible legislation under the MOU - as evidence that we can still make Canada work for Alberta and is fighting to make that case to Albertans despite your - and those of your ilk - continuing your feckless attacks on her.
The reason for the block Andrew is I simply don’t value your opinion on the affairs of Alberta. You show your disdain for our province at every opportunity and I don’t need you clogging my feed with your 20x a day posts. But I will instead merely mute you so you can still follow my posts as I don’t wish to hurt your feelings. Have fun on that wonderfully balanced CBC At-Issue panel trying to unpack the important issues distressing Albertans with your fellow Toronto/Montreal panelists."
Meme - "Hey susan m, Today's commentators and politicians are demanding Alberta prove its loyalty to Canada - but their own records tell a different story. First, former environment minister Steven Guilbeault questioned whether Premier Smith is "a reliable partner when it comes to supporting Canada" because she is pursuing a referendum. But political donation records show Gu donated to the Parti Quebecois while it was actively pushing for a third independence referendum. Questioning Smith's loyalty to Canada hits differently when you once bankrolled Quebec separatists. Next, CBC panellist Andrew Coyne now dismisses Alberta's sovereignty referendum as reckless political theatre. But writing in the National Post in 2014, he praised B.C.'s transit tax referendum, called asking voters whether they consent to higher taxes "only democratic,' and celebrated Swiss-style direct democracy as civic modernization. The only thing to have changed is which province is holding the vote. Finally, on CBC's Power & Politics, Quebec correspondent Martin Patriquin described Alberta separatists as people motivated purely by racial resentment over immigration - and nobody on the panel challenged it. Meanwhile, CBC has previously treated Quebec politicians' use of racial slurs as a matter of "academic and journalistic freedoms." One province's political frustration is racism; the other's is a nuanced question of rights. Let's set the record straight. The Alberta Fact Check Team"
Fact check: Calling Alberta independence 'MAGA nihilism' is easier than addressing why Albertans are angry - "Calgary commentator Jen Gerson says the Alberta independence movement is “a kind of religious movement,” driven by “nihilism” and influenced by “broader MAGA” politics. That’s a convenient way to dismiss hundreds of thousands of Albertans without having to grapple with why so many people have lost faith in Confederation in the first place. Here’s the reality. The independence movement didn’t appear because Albertans suddenly woke up one morning and decided to cosplay as Texas Republicans. It grew after decades of pipeline cancellations, equalization fights, federal overreach into provincial jurisdiction, emissions caps targeting Alberta’s economy, and a political system where Quebec is routinely accommodated while Alberta is told to sit down and pay up. Even Gerson herself has repeatedly acknowledged Alberta’s legitimate grievances. In previous writing, she openly admitted Albertans are frustrated by being “condescended to by Eastern pricks,” criticized the federal government’s refusal to meaningfully address Alberta concerns after the 2021 equalization referendum, and acknowledged that failed reform efforts push voters toward “ever-more-radical positions.” That’s not “MAGA nihilism.” That’s what happens when people conclude constitutional reform inside Canada is politically impossible. And contrary to Gerson’s framing, Alberta separatism is not some fringe online cult detached from reality... if Canada’s commentariat keeps responding to those frustrations with sneering psychoanalysis instead of serious engagement, they shouldn’t be shocked when separatist sentiment keeps growing"
Reforming Parliament seat distribution would be more fair: report | National Post - "A new report proposes establishing a 350-seat Parliament in an effort to correct for imbalances in the House of Commons that have long left Ontario, Alberta and B.C. underrepresented compared with other provinces. In the study, the Calgary-based Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy points out that Alberta currently has the lowest representation among provinces in the House, with one member of Parliament for every 134,057 citizens, when compared against 2025 population numbers. British Columbia has one MP per 133,077, while Ontario has one per 132,645. That is well higher than Prince Edward Island (44,820), Quebec (116,816), Saskatchewan (89,351) and other Canadian provinces. “Political representation in Canada at present is not representative of the actual populations in each province”... The report comes as resentments over a range of issues — including a lack of federal representation in the House of Commons and Senate — has fed separatist sentiments in Alberta in particular. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has proposed a referendum in October that will ask, among other things, whether Canada should amend the Canadian constitution to “abolish the unelected federal Senate.”... The imbalance in the House of Commons or Senate is the result of a number of legal provisions, including a clause that stipulates that provinces should not have fewer MPs than they have senators. That, combined with another clause that ensures provinces have no fewer MPs than they had under a pre-set benchmark (which the Liberal government recently updated to 2019 levels), has led to “chronic underrepresentation” among some provinces"
Asher Honickman on X - "One way to achieve rep-by-pop more promptly would be to meaningfully increase the number of MPs. This could also have the salutary benefit of making MPs more independent. The other needed reform is amending the constitutional allocation of senators. The west is chronically underrepresented due to a population distribution more than a century out of date."
Jack Mintz: Tactics divide Albertans on 'stay' or 'leave' - "Although Alberta remains the richest province in Canada, with per capita GDP of $71,000 in 2025, that’s a noticeable deterioration in its standard of living since 2014, when real per capita GDP peaked at $81,100. Though the oil price crash at the end of 2014 hurt the province, prices recovered in later years. But per capita GDP continued to fall as resource development stalled. Albertans and Quebecers are not the only people to have considered separation . Dissolution has been common the world round, with the number of sovereign states rising from 50 in 1945 to about 200 in 2025. Even so, there are benefits from being part of a bigger country. Large countries can more easily share the cost of public goods like defence, the legal system and foreign relations. There can also be better co-ordination of local public goods, including power transmission, transportation and communication networks. Larger markets free of tariffs and non-tariff barriers and with easy labour and capital mobility encourage more competition and economies of scale in trade. On the other hand, smaller countries may be more homogeneous and better able to cater to a population’s political and cultural preferences. One widely quoted 2011 study found that a breakup is more likely when populations are less culturally homogenous and more distant from each other. The dissolution of empires (e.g., the British, Ottoman and Soviet) saw many new countries emerge. After 10 years, the loss in per capita GDP can be striking — 24 per cent on average estimated in a 2019 study. But some breakups have led to long-run prosperity, especially if the new countries have access to large markets and democratize. Norway and Sweden’s breakup in 1907, Malaysia’s expulsion of Singapore in 1965 and the “velvet divorce” of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993 are examples. An independent Alberta presumably would have access to the huge American market. Alberta’s grievances have only grown this past decade . Federal climate policies blocked oil and gas development, fanning frustration. With Ottawa making little effort to clean up its fiscal act, deficit spending and the civil service grew rapidly. Top federal tax rates were hiked , with Albertans bearing the greatest burden. Despite these anti-growth federal policies, Alberta transferred almost $130 billion through the federal budget to other provinces from 2015 to 2024. Last year the give was $19 billion or four per cent of Alberta’s GDP. That’s much more than from any other province. Second-richest Ontario is still receiving equalization payments. Though equalization is only part of that inter-provincial transfer it remains a permanent sore point, with grants now tied to Canada’s GDP growth rate. High taxes and uncontrolled federal spending run contrary to Alberta’s small government philosophy yet Albertans feel powerless to influence federal policies. In this country, unlike Australia, Germany and the United States, provinces do not have a regionally representative body at the federal level, which means they need to protect their own interests. Albertans disagree on how best to get their grievances answered. Rather than leave Canada, Premier Danielle Smith wants more control over immigration, and a separate police force and pension and tax system. She and other “stayers” hope the province can have more control over its destiny within Confederation. But the “grand bargain” to build a “ decarbonized ” oil pipeline to the West Coast comes at substantial cost in the form of higher carbon taxes and a risky and expensive investment in carbon storage. Those who want to leave believe federal policies will never change. Any governing party must draw support from Quebec and Ontario, which have different cultures than Alberta. Perceptions also differ regionally. The same Angus Reid poll mentioned above reports only two per cent of Quebec and Ontario respondents believe Alberta gets less out of Confederation that it pays in."
Judge far too quick to toss out separation petition with 300K signatures | National Post - "in its Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v Alberta decision, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench quashed the province’s secession referendum process. In particular, the judge quashed the chief electoral officer’s decision to allow signatures to be gathered to call for a referendum. Whatever your view on Alberta secession, the decision warrants attention for the readiness of the judge to prohibit a democratic process based on Indigenous rights claims... The duty to consult applies specifically to executive action — meaning actions taken by the operating arms of government to implement laws and policies. In 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada held in the Mikisew Cree case that the duty to consult does not apply to legislative action. In other words, when a provincial legislature or Parliament is working on drafting and passing new laws, legislators do not have to consult with Indigenous communities. Any decision otherwise, the Court held, would interfere too much with the workings of the parliamentary system... In the decision on the secession petition, the judge mechanically applied the duty to consult test used since Haida and ignored that fundamental democratic issues were in play. While referenda do not have the same prominence as Parliament itself, they are a vital means of democratic participation in fundamental decisions to which they are applied. And gathering of signatures to call for a referendum is a vital act of democratic participation. More than 300,000 signatures cannot be thrown in the garbage based on an unreflective application of a legal test to circumstances outside its appropriate sphere. Don’t get me wrong. I think clear legal tests are important, and they help to uphold the rule of law. We cannot have judges operating based on personal policy preferences but must have courts of law. But judges must exercise judgment when the circumstances of a case are fundamentally different. Judges must explain carefully why the rule does or does not apply, referencing deeper principles of the legal system. A simplistic application of rules in inappropriate circumstances shows insufficient application of judgment. This decision is in some ways eerily reminiscent of what happened in the Cowichan decision where a trial judge in British Columbia mechanistically applied the rules of the doctrine of Aboriginal title to the new circumstances of a title claim that included areas of private land. The result has been chaos, as British Columbians wonder what becomes of their systems of property ownership. When judges face the prospect of bringing down a whole system of property ownership or the prospect of interfering in fundamental democratic processes, they must exercise judgment. Those reading the judgments deserve more than a few lines of mechanical test application to believe that the courts are considering all interests and are acting as courts of both law and justice."
Viva Frei on X - "Amazing that an Alberta Court struck down the Albertan separation petition on the basis they didn’t consult with indigenous communities, while Canadian courts simultaneously ignored indigenous groups claiming the federal government couldn’t slaughter the B.C. ostriches because it was on unceded indigenous land. Motivation is the master of reason. And the Canadian government and court system is a hypocritical criminal organization."
Meme - Andy Ujku-Dardania: "Similar chicanery they used against Quebec in 1995. The indigenous oppose Alberta, Quebec or any kind of independence from Canada because they know these movements are largely the effort of White people fed up with the Anti-White prison that is an increasingly brown Canada. Out of spite they want to trap White people into a brown hellscape. They also know that in an independent Alberta they wouldn't get away with the kind of "reparations" guilt tripping they do in Canada. The gravy train would stop and they'd have to work for a living. Be that as it may, Albertans should move ahead with any and all means to attain independence from Ottawa. They'll be much better off without the burden of having to carry both the feather and dot variety of Indians. It's White coded and that's why it's good. Go for it!"
Polymarket: "JUST IN: Canada court blocks Alberta separatists' bid to force an independence vote over failure to consult Indigenous people."
Left wingers only quote "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" when they don't get their way. But if they disagree with your cause, they send the military after you
What they’re saying an independent Alberta would look like - "During the heyday of Quebec separatism in the 1980s and 1990s, the usual line from Quebec nationalists was that Canada is a fine country, it’s just that they don’t want to be part of it. Alberta separatism is different in that the idea is very much to pull down the rafters as they leave. The Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), the leading champion for separation, is closely aligned with a similar secessionist group in Saskatchewan. They’ve also been active in forging links with the Parti Québécois to assist each other’s respective secession plans. Parti Québécois Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon (who is the favourite to become the next Quebec premier) met with APP leaders last year, and announced afterwards that if their referendum succeeded, he would be the first to recognize Alberta independence... While it’s possible to find Quebec sovereigntists who claim that they would be richer as an independent nation, the usual pitch has been that it doesn’t matter. Quebecers might take an economic hit from leaving Canada, but it’s a small price to pay for freedom. As the name suggests, the Alberta Prosperity Project’s singular pitch is that secession will make everybody richer... All this extra wealth would come from two places: Lower taxes and ramped-up oil and gas development... One chronic issue with Alberta’s current oil economy is that virtually all of its exports go to the United States, thus allowing the Americans to leverage their monopsony into paying a lower price. A second international border would make this situation worse, not better... Law professor Bruce Pardy, a longtime proponent for Alberta secession, this week weighed in on the treaty issue with an online post writing that “independence is a repudiation of the existing constitutional order,” including treaty and Aboriginal rights. “Independence means a fresh start, and a chance to fix old ideas that no longer make sense”"
Support for Alberta separatism at a 5-year high: poll - "27 per cent of decided voters in Alberta would vote for the province to separate from Canada. This is a seven point increase from December 2025 and a record-high over the five years Pollara has spent tracking support for independence among Albertans. A further 15 per cent say they might vote to separate as a way to “send a message to Ottawa,” meaning that as many as 42 per cent of voters could be in play for the separatists in an independence referendum... Interestingly, a majority of Albertans who’d vote to separate, 58 per cent, also said they’re proud Canadians."
Unapologetically Albertan Facebook - "In 1995, when Quebec talked about leaving Canada, the country responded with love. Unity rallies. Open arms. “We need you. Please stay.” Today, Alberta raises the same constitutional question — and we’re called traitors. What changed? Quebec challenged Canada’s identity. Alberta challenges Canada’s power and money. Quebec was culturally indispensable. Alberta is economically indispensable. One was wooed. The other is shamed. Same right. Same country. Very different reaction. That’s not about unity. That’s about control."
Michelle Rempel Garner on X: "In defence of frustrated Albertans." / X - "28% of Albertans said they would vote for their province to begin the process of separating from Canada. Two additional findings stand out in the data: support for independence in Alberta is now comparable to that in Quebec (where 31% expressed similar views), and Albertans are more likely than Quebecers to cite historical mistreatment within Confederation as their primary reason for supporting a “yes” vote... the federal Liberal government has patently ignored the core warning we wrote: heed the concerns of frustrated Albertans who are saying they will be treated as equals within Confederation, or they will seek independence... successive Liberal governments have ignored this wisdom with clocklike repetition. For example, Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s National Energy Program in the early 1980s devastated Alberta’s economy, sparking widespread resentment of the federal Liberal government. More recently, under Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, federal legislation such as Bill C-69 (colloquially known in Alberta as the “no more pipelines” bill) effectively kneecapped Alberta’s vital energy sector, while operationalizing a post-national, no-identity vision of Canada. And over the past year, Prime Minister Mark Carney and his caucus have done precious little to change any of this. For example, Bill C-69 remains in place today, and so does the perception among many quarters that the federal Liberal government doesn’t give a flying fudge about addressing the negative impact it’s had on the province’s economy. And so, warnings about separatist-driven instability and lost investment are now met by some with a simple reply: we would rather face instability we control than endure the instability the federal Liberals perpetually create for us. Obviously, it is insane that the federal Liberals and their fellow travellers have let the situation escalate to this point. It’s also a mistake to think that energy policy is the sole driver of the rise in Albertan separatist sentiment. There are many other irritants which contribute to it , too, like the underrepresentation of a modern, populous Alberta in Parliament, and the lack of federal recognition of the importance of Western heritage to Canada (try to find a Western heritage display in the National Art Gallery, for example). But the common denominator among the litany of concerns is that the federal Liberal government does not view the concerns of Albertans as being worth listening to... Albertans understand better than most, as the largest net contributor to equalization, that in order to work, Confederation was always going to be a give and take situation. But a common refrain you will hear in Alberta today is that there seems to have been far more taking than there has been giving. And so, for any Canadian who values national unity, understand that it is deeply counterproductive to disparage the thousands of Albertans who are signing separatist petitions. The wiser course is to take stock of valid concerns and act decisively to address them. A strong Canada has always depended on a strong Alberta, a reality that has never been clearer than it is today. As Canadians face an unstable geopolitical landscape without adequate critical energy infrastructure, Alberta’s role as an economic engine and energy powerhouse is more important to the country than ever before... it’s worth noting that there has never been a national unity crisis under a Conservative government. Having served in the cabinet of former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the working ethos of his leadership was to ensure that no region was pitted against another. At this juncture, Mr. Carney and his caucus would be well served to immediately try this approach for once."
Lorne Gunter: Poll finds many Canadians misunderstand equalization - "Canadians outside the two provinces want both to remain part of Canada. Overwhelmingly. But they want Alberta to remain even more than they want Quebec to — 79 per cent to 71 per cent. Why does this result give me a smile? Because all my life, even before I was an adult, central Canadian media, politicians and academics — the so-called Laurentian elite — have quivered at any mention of separation by Quebec. You want more money? Here it is. More power over your own affairs? Happy to oblige. Special constitutional status? No problem. Just please, please, please don’t go. No Quebec demand has ever been too great. No threat ever seen as disloyal. Meanwhile, every time Alberta suggested equalization payments were unfair. Or immigration should have greater provincial input (as it does in Quebec). Or the province should have the same kind of input into federal judicial appointments Quebec already enjoys. Well, coming from Alberta, that has been seen too much. The province should be ashamed for asking. Its attitude is entirely disloyal to Canadian ideals. So it struck me as funny that after nearly 60 years of elite kowtowing to Quebec and scoffing at Alberta, more ordinary Canadians would rather we stay than Quebec. Notably, the survey found, Quebecers are much more likely to want to block Alberta separatism than the other way around — 72 per cent to 58 per cent... Canadians outside of Alberta and outside of Quebec seem to understand the disproportionate fiscal contribution Alberta makes to the country. To the pollsters’ question, “Are there any provinces you believe receive more than they give as part of Confederation,” only Quebecers thought Alberta was a net recipient. Fifty-nine per cent of Quebecers thought Alberta received more than it contributed, exceeded only by Saskatchewan (68 per cent). The province Quebecers felt got the rawest deal from Confederation? Their own, of course. Only 22 per cent of Quebecers believe Quebec receives more than it pays into the country, despite Quebec being far and away the largest recipient of federal transfers. Far and away. For instance, of the $26.3 billion Ottawa will pay out this year to the “have-not” provinces, nearly 53 per cent ($13.6 billion) will go to Quebec. Of $108.4 billion in total transfers this year (including health, education and social services), $30.2 billion (28 per cent) will go to Quebec despite it having less than 22 per cent of the national population. Yet, Quebecers live under the delusion that somehow their province is being ripped off by the rest of the country. No wonder the argument that they should allow pipelines across their territory in return for all the money they receive falls on deaf ears. They don’t actually believe they are receiving that much. The perception of Alberta’s contribution is not great elsewhere, except in the West. A plurality of Ontarians (37 per cent) believe Alberta receives more than it contributes, while an equal percentage think we give more than we receive."
Meme - Steven Guilbeault: "Imagine one second that the Qc separatist movement reached out to France to help with Qc separatism, people in English Canada would be rightly outraged... This is no different, @Dave Eby is right!"
Readers added context they thought people might want to know: "In 1995 the Quebec separatist movement did just that:"
Dusty Rose on X - "Quebec gets ~$14 BILLION in equalization payments every year, half the national program, while charging the lowest electricity rates in Canada. This Fraser Institute study shows why: by keeping Hydro-Québec prices artificially low, Quebec deliberately reduces its measured “fiscal capacity” and qualifies for way more federal transfers. Alberta? We get $0. We pay massive federal taxes from our incomes and oil/gas sector (which gets fully clawed back in the formula), yet subsidize this system. A modest hydro price increase in Quebec could save Canadian taxpayers billions -- if Ottawa fixed the broken “fixed growth rule.” This is exactly why equalization feels rigged against Alberta. Time to get out of it. #cdnpoli #abpoli #AlbertaIndependence"
Louise Arbour alienates the West - " With every Governor General appointment comes an opportunity. In July 2021, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used it to smooth over an Indigenous relations maelstrom that began swirling in May of that year, when a B.C. First Nation announced that it found 215 “graves” (later corrected to “potential graves”) at the site of the old Kamloops residential school. It’s no coincidence that he settled on the appointment of Mary Simon, a half-Inuk woman, to symbolize his reconciliation efforts and show the community that they had a stake in Canada’s highest offices, too. In 2026 — and billions of reconciliatory dollars later — it’s not the Indigenous who are most unhappy within Confederation but Western Canadians. Between one-fifth and one-third of Albertans favour separation, and the numbers out of Saskatchewan are close. And that’s just the crest of the alienation wave: many more federalist Albertans are frustrated with how they’re treated by Ottawa. Which is why the appointment of a Governor General from out west should have been a top priority. Instead, we’re getting Louise Arbour, the most Laurentian of Laurentian elites, whose resume entries range from Canadian Supreme Court judge to United Nations Eurocrat. At a time like this, especially considering how office appointments have served as olive branches to communities in pain in the past, naming Arbour to the role is profoundly alienating to Western Canada. The last time the region had the pride of putting forth a Governor General was more than 20 years ago, when Ray Hnatyshyn of Saskatchewan held the post. A lawyer, former member of Parliament, and former attorney general of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, he certainly had the practical understanding of the role upon his swearing-in in 1990. He was in office until 1995, serving alongside Mulroney as well as Prime Ministers Kim Campbell and Jean Chrétien. Subsequent Governors General originally came from New Brunswick, Hong Kong, Haiti, Ontario and, twice, Quebec. Of course, representation shouldn’t be the only criterion that determines who should fill the post. In fact, in an ideal world, the Governor General would be selected based on their commitment to service to the Crown, and their constitutional knowledge of the role, which is why we previously recommended appointing someone from the military leadership. Alas, the reality is representation does figure into the appointment, particularly with Liberals, so given the length of the drought since there was a Governor General from the West, it deserved extra consideration. That shouldn’t have been hard for the Liberals to give, seeing how they are the experts in breaking the population down into statistics and increasingly granular sub-categories that come with new entitlements to group privileges as a matter of achieving equity. Liberals have expanded bilingualism requirements throughout public offices and the judiciary to the point of locking out the best candidates from the West (Arbour, of course, is bilingual). Racial and gender expectations have dominated the conversation when it comes to appointments, hires and promotions. It’s their guiding principle. But the goal of Canada was never to create total equity between every sub-dimension of the population. Indeed, the primary balance struck by Confederation was the regional one. House of Commons seats, Senate seats and Supreme Court seats were all allocated to achieve regional representation first; secondary to that in Confederation’s structure were guarantees of religious and linguistic freedom, with a specific mind to protecting English, French and the forms of Christianity practiced by those early Canadians. It would not be an aberration to select a Governor General with regional representation in mind; really, it’s consistent with how the country is constituted. The intense focus on non-regional identity in the role is an anomaly of recent decades, and a distraction from deeper tradition. Regional representation is also already deeply lopsided elsewhere in our country. Ontario and Quebec dominate both houses of Parliament, even though the Senate is supposed to offer regional representation. An Alberta Governor General could have a gone a long way to at least acknowledging this profound imbalance. When Mary Simon was appointed, much fanfare was made about her identity. She spoke of “climate action” and of reconciliation being “a way of life.” She perpetuated the false narrative that actual graves had been found in Kamloops (no radar anomaly on the site was ever confirmed): “I think the day they found those unmarked graves of children that died at residential schools, that was the day the wound really opened up,” she told CBC in the first months of her term. Now that immigration ranks among the top concerns of Canadians, we have Arbour, a longtime believer in a multicultural utopia who favours a radical interpretation of Canada’s refugee obligations and sees major demographic change by way of immigration as an inevitability that is racist to oppose. Her views are standard fare among Laurentians, another signal that alienates the West. We’ve been deprived of a present in which a solemn, tradition-respecting, federalist westerner heads to Rideau Hall for a GG reset. It’s only one entry on the list of reasons for feeling alienated, but boy, is that list getting long."
Shocking anti-white comments of woke Canadian judge who will step into top government position that will see her work closely with King Charles - "In a July 2022 interview, Arbour had been asked about how she would 'rehabilitate' the military when she called for greater diversity within its ranks. In her response, she urged the Canadian Armed Forces to take after advocacy groups, such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission. 'It could also bring in experts from the civil corporate sector or send cadets to civilian universities, where diversity is years ahead of what we'll ever see in military colleges,' Arbour told Canadian publication Maclean's. She added that similar recruitment patterns could supposedly shape an institution, such as the military, before commenting on the armed forces' demographics. 'If you just recruit white boys who like guns but don't like women or anybody who doesn't look like them, you'll perpetuate that culture,' Arbour said."
