Alberta’s Future: 3 Constitutional Models
Presented by the Alberta Women’s Independence Network and hosted by Jason Lavigne of The Lavigne Show. This event was broadcast live on Monday, May 11. A recording is available below to view.
The Three Models: An exploration of what a constitution for an independent Alberta could look like through the lens of three unique perspectives.
Highlights
Far from abstract theory, the discussion offered a rare deep dive into the extraordinary opportunity Alberta independence presents: a constitutional blank slate where all things are possible.
Matthew Rowley (president of Renew Alberta) eschewed a blank slate and instead advocated for a reformed Westminster constitutional monarchy where the legislature holds supremacy but remains accountable to the people through ongoing responsibility, alongside an independent judiciary, first-past-the-post elections, a nonpartisan public service, and the Crown’s non-political reserve power. He argues that Alberta should return to the pre-Charter BNA Act model, making necessary tweaks for modern realities, asserting that this approach minimizes risk, preserves stability, and aligns with Alberta’s cultural context. In other words, ordered liberty through separation from Ottawa without discarding a proven framework.
Dennis Kalma (a former corporate executive and co-author of The Value of Freedom, a fiscal plan for an independent Alberta) presented a thoughtful middle path: a constitutional republic with enumerated powers, binding referenda, term limits, and an innovative elected oversight branch. This approach balances structure with popular sovereignty—guardrails without wholesale reinvention. Government legitimacy is derived from the people only via an explicit, written constitution.
Bruce Pardy (law professor and executive director of Rights Probe) pitched an uncompromising Freedom Model. At its core: the state begins with zero inherent authority except for narrowly defined essentials—keeping the peace, resolving disputes, and defending borders. Everything else defaults to individual liberty. No vague “general welfare” clauses. No creeping nanny-state expansion.
The panel repeatedly returned to preventing the government overreach seen during the COVID era. While others leaned on referenda or Crown reserve powers, Pardy cut to the heart of the matter: diffuse power structurally so that tyranny has nowhere to take root. He warned that even referenda risk “mob rule” without deeper jurisdictional limits—a point that resonated deeply and prompted thoughtful counterpoints.
Debates on courts, government size, amendments, and the Crown vs. republic question followed. Pardy’s emphasis on a “cold turkey” radical reset during the independence window—before vested interests could entrench themselves—emerged as a particularly stimulating insight.
Audience engagement was energetic, with many leaning toward bold liberty-oriented solutions while acknowledging the cultural work needed to make them reality.
