The National Telegraph: Journalist (and host) Wyatt Claypool is joined by OneBC leader Dallas Brodie (MLA) and law professor Bruce Pardy to explore the real-world impacts of UNDRIP and DRIPA on British Columbia’s property rights, governance, and everyday British Columbians (who are subject to an overwhelming number of regulations—173,000—compared to other provinces). The conversation highlights growing concerns over secret negotiations, bureaucratic overreach, and policies that appear to prioritize one group while eroding individual rights—especially private property ownership. The Pender Harbour and Area Residents Association (PHARA) is actively challenging DRIPA in court, arguing that it is unconstitutional and has harmed access to essential infrastructure like docks. The experience of B.C. serves as a potent case in point to Alberta’s independence movement, and why a free Alberta should reject the idea that legal rights depend on lineage.

Tea & Coffee with Jay and Paula: A recent Stay Free Alberta town hall in Water Valley marked the launch of a petition asking residents if they agree that Alberta should cease to be part of Canada and become an independent state. The event saw an impressive turnout, with 349 attendees in a town of just 225 people. The real challenge lies not with gathering signatures but the subsequent vote and how the government may respond, particularly given a recent amendment allowing them to ignore a successful referendum. The conversation highlights a lawsuit from the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation aimed at halting the petition process. Prof. Bruce Pardy warns of ongoing legal challenges and significant resistance to the independence movement regardless of a referendum outcome, including potential claims that a national vote is necessary, complicating the path forward for Alberta's aspirations. Prof. Pardy discusses the legal hurdles the Canadian government could muster to block potential independence, including the “750 rule,” which requires seven provinces representing 50% of the population to agree to constitutional amendments. The conversation emphasizes the need for critical thinking regarding media representation at this time (the example of legal actions taken by the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation is but one example of biased reporting by traditional media outlets). 

The Lavigne Show: Host Jason Lavigne leads the charge on Alberta’s legal future, alongside law professor Bruce Pardy and Alberta’s Minister of Justice Mickey Amery, as they delve into the implications of Bill 14 for Alberta’s independence referendum and the intricate dance between federal and provincial powers, particularly in the realm of criminal law and self-defense. The government’s gun buyback program is criticized for unfairly targeting law-abiding citizens instead of addressing actual sources of crime. As the conversation opens up to address the independence referendum process, Prof. Pardy raises alarms about provisions that could allow the government to dismiss referendum results if deemed unconstitutional. The discussion underscores the complexities of Alberta’s legal landscape amid recent developments, the potential for a new partnership with Indigenous groups, and the looming question of whether a future government could derail the independence process, highlighting the tumultuous road ahead for Alberta’s aspirations of self-determination.

Professor Bruce Pardy in conversation with real estate development expert Daniel Foch: Prof. Pardy lays bare the complexities of Aboriginal title versus fee simple ownership in Canada. While some Indigenous leaders may claim they are not seeking to displace homeowners, the legal reality is that Aboriginal title could supersede existing property rights, creating a precarious situation for landowners. The B.C. government’s recent agreements with Indigenous groups have created a legal quagmire. These agreements, now constitutionally protected under Section 35, make it nearly impossible for future governments to reverse them, solidifying a situation that many see as a manufactured crisis. Real estate professionals are advised to tread carefully, as lenders and title insurers are becoming increasingly wary of properties in disputed areas. The uncertainty surrounding land titles means that buyers and sellers could face significant risks. What to do? Explore this evolving landscape with Prof. Pardy and stay informed.

Bruce Pardy on the MOU, Aboriginal Title, and What Alberta Missed! Will the push for recognition of Indigenous rights lead to a fracturing of the rule of law and societal cohesion? The current legal framework treats Indigenous peoples as a distinct group with special rights. Prof. Pardy looks at how this undermines the principle of equality before the law and why recognizing different identities perpetuates divisions, which he argues is a fundamental error in addressing land claims and rights. The culture in Canada has evolved into a new, mixed identity, he says, and the law should reflect this reality rather than cling to outdated notions of separate peoples. Prof. Pardy joins entrepreneur and former political candidate, Nadine Wellwood, to engage in a jam-packed conversation on a range of topics, from the Cowichan Tribes’ Aboriginal title ruling in Richmond, B.C., to Alberta's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Canadian federal government, and much more.

Off-Grid with Curtis Stone and guest Professor Bruce Pardy: This conversation is a clarion call for a fundamental reevaluation of how we safeguard freedom: a radical rethink of governance. Prof. Pardy discusses the ideas he presented in his new constitutional framework for an independent Alberta. Ideas that could shift the future of governance for the entire country—although Alberta is the only contender potentially bold enough to take on the challenge of reimagining the status quo. Starting from a blank slate, Prof. Pardy defines what true freedom means and how to achieve it, from capping public service salaries and limiting time in office to upending the “star chamber” that currently dominates the Supreme Court of Canada and the singular political ideology it amplifies over balanced discourse. The opportunity for greatness is on the table and the roadmap is unleashed here.

The Lavigne Show | Tea & Coffee with Paula & Jay featuring special guest Professor Bruce Pardy: The province’s new Justice Statutes Amendment Act, known as Bill 14, if passed would repeal a contentious section of Alberta’s Citizens Initiative Act, removing a significant court obstacle to independence. The bill, while seemingly positive, contains troubling provisions that grant the government increased control over referendum questions, shifting power away from the courts and the Chief Electoral Officer to Justice Minister Mickey Amery, who is also the attorney general, to modify them at will. Amery introduced Bill 14 to Alberta’s political and legal landscape on Dec. 4. Prof. Pardy highlights three central concerns with the proposed bill including its effective silencing of discussion on the future of Aboriginal rights in the context of independence. While the government would be able to sidestep constitutional challenges related to independence, it simultaneously restricts Albertans from expressing their views on critical issues, leaving Prof. Pardy to conclude: “We are still in a conundrum regarding where this government stands on Alberta independence.” The discussion also explores Canada’s single-payer healthcare system. Prof. Pardy contends that its elimination is a bare necessity for an independent Alberta: “Whenever you have government services, regardless of what they are, funded by tax dollars in the public interest, that’s socialism....If you’re determined to keep what you have, this claim that you want to be free is really not true.”

WATCH HERE

The Political Orphans with guest Professor Bruce Pardy: Do we want the state in our heads ruling over our most profound convictions? The legislative assault on faith is part of a broader social justice agenda that seeks to dismantle traditional power structures, replacing religious belief with state authority and undermining individual autonomy. Canada is on a perilous path toward a climate of censorship reminiscent of totalitarian regimes. The urgency for action is clear: without a significant shift in public awareness and political will, we risk losing our civil liberties and freedom of expression forever. Is that shift likely? No. Our best bet, argues Prof. Pardy, is Alberta succeeding in its bid for independence. Alberta represents the disruption Canada needs to take on the current political landscape and uproot the managerial state that has taken hold across the country and, soon, our sacred selves.

WATCH HERE

The Shaun Newman Podcast: Guests Caylan Ford, founder of the Alberta Classical Academy, and law professor Bruce Pardy spar once more in a lively debate on the concept of the “common good”. How can the common good exist and be compatible with real freedom? Prof. Pardy argues the common good is subjective, much like beauty, and varies from person to person, making it a moving target influenced by societal values and individual beliefs. He suggests that while some government actions, like defending borders, are necessary, there is no universally accepted common good that everyone agrees on. Caylan counters that for society to function harmoniously, there must be shared values and a collective purpose. Ultimately, they grapple with the question of who decides what is The Good and how to enforce it, highlighting the ongoing struggle for definition when every claim to The Good is the imposition of one particular vision. 

Could Your Home Be Taken?

Leaders on the Frontier with David Leis: The British Columbia Supreme Court’s ruling in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada has exposed a profound clash in Canadian law. Exploring the implications of that decision, Prof. Bruce Pardy asserts Aboriginal title—a communal, inalienable right—cannot peacefully coexist with individual fee-simple ownership. With hundreds of Richmond, B.C., properties suddenly sitting on recognized Indigenous title (including submerged lands), mortgages are stalling and sales are freezing. While mass evictions are unlikely, Prof. Pardy argues the logic of the decision may eventually force governments to expropriate private land to honour Aboriginal title, and—because ordinary property rights were left out of the 1982 Charter—compensation is not constitutionally guaranteed. A decades-long judicial expansion of Aboriginal rights has now collided with the reality of suburban Canada. Prof. Pardy predicts a public backlash that could force a national reckoning with reconciliation itself.

WATCH HERE

The Critical Compass podcast: Prof. Bruce Pardy sheds light on the significant hurdles facing Alberta’s quest for independence, spotlighting the legal and political challenges embedded in the Citizen Initiative Act and the Referendum Act. At the heart of the issue are Alberta’s own self-imposed restrictions, which hinder the province’s ability to pursue independence. Provisions within the Citizen Initiative Act limit the ability to propose referendum questions that could conflict with certain sections of the Constitution Act, 1982, particularly those concerning Aboriginal and treaty rights. This connection to the existing Canadian constitutional framework complicates Alberta’s negotiations for independence. Nevertheless, Prof. Pardy remains optimistic, asserting that the independence movement presents a unique opportunity not only for Alberta but for all of Canada. He urges continued public engagement and dialogue, framing these obstacles as “bumps in the road” rather than insurmountable barriers. With a call to action, Prof. Pardy emphasizes the importance of navigating these challenges to unlock Alberta’s potential for greatness.

The Notwithstanding Clause and the Alberta Teachers’ Strike | Shaun Newman podcast: Guests Caylan Ford, founder of the Alberta Classical Academy, and law professor Bruce Pardy discuss the implications of the notwithstanding clause in Canadian law, with particular context to the recent teacher strikes in Alberta. Prof. Pardy argues the Alberta government is justified in using the clause—a legitimate part of the Canadian Charter that allows legislatures to assert their authority over judicial decisions. He believes that courts have overstepped their bounds and that governments should frequently utilize this clause to maintain legislative supremacy. Ford agrees but expresses concern about the emotional distress among teachers, who feel their rights are being undermined. The discussion highlights the tension between judicial and legislative powers, with both speakers advocating for a more robust use of the notwithstanding clause to protect democratic governance. They also critique the Supreme Court’s role in interpreting the Charter, particularly regarding the right to strike, which was only recognized in 2015. Judicial activism, they say, has led to the current situation where the government feels compelled to invoke the notwithstanding clause, underscoring the need for a balance of power between the legislature and judiciary, as well as reforms that prioritize legislative authority and accountability to the electorate.

Brave New Normal with host Jason James: In a compelling and wide-ranging discussion, law professor Bruce Pardy delves into the Canadian government’s increasing tendency to manage society through a series of new bills—C-2, C-5, C-8, C-9, and C-12—legislation that reflects a broader philosophy of state control, placing power in the hands of bureaucrats, officials, and technocrats rather than adhering to established legal principles. In the example of Bill C-9 (the “Combatting Hate Act,”), Prof. Pardy asserts the shift from rule of law to the “rule of emotion” creates a subjective legal framework that could lead to a dangerous precedent of criminalizing feelings rather than actions. He warns that the increasing complexity of laws and regulations is indicative of a society in decline, where the government becomes the only answer to its own overreach, pointing to the early 1980s as the point at which Canadians began to view themselves as vulnerable individuals reliant on state protection, and the resulting complacency and lack of personal agency that besets the nation now. This mindset has been the result of a series of legislative measures that further entrench government control over citizens’ lives. What's needed, he says, is nothing short of a cultural transformation to combat the “cultural disease” that Canadians have fallen prey to. In other words: Grow Up, Canada.

A Major Hurdle in Alberta’s Path to Independence: Prof. Bruce Pardy has identified a significant legal obstacle to Alberta’s independence referendum: a provision in the province’s Citizen Initiative Act that prohibits any proposal from contravening sections 1 to 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and current Aboriginal and treaty rights. This means that any attempt to separate from Canada and create a new constitution would likely violate this provision, as independence inherently involves leaving behind the existing constitutional framework. Joining Tea & Coffee hosts Paula and Jay Lavigne, Prof. Pardy explores this conundrum further to discuss what the term “contravene” means, along with potential outcomes as the Alberta Court of King’s Bench considers a proposed referendum question from the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP) about Alberta becoming a sovereign country. Prof. Pardy warns that if the referendum retains existing Aboriginal rights and the Charter, it could undermine the goal of establishing a new governance framework. To truly pursue independence, Prof. Pardy insists the Alberta government must repeal the restrictive sections in both the Citizen Initiative Act and the Referendum Act. He believes these provisions hinder Albertans’ ability to make genuine choices about their governance and calls for a clearer understanding of the legal landscape to facilitate a successful referendum process.

Trudeau Gone, but Free Speech Still under Attack?

‘Not “Sorry”’ | Juno News with host Alexander Brown: A compelling discussion about the ongoing threats to free speech under Prime Minister Mark Carney. A prominent critic of legal progressivism and the managerial state, Prof. Bruce Pardy discusses the shift from legal equality to equity in Canada, where laws are increasingly designed to treat individuals differently to achieve group outcomes. This trend, he argues, undermines the rule of law and creates a hierarchy of rights based on identity rather than individual merit, fostering societal division. Prof. Pardy points to Carney’s past rhetoric, which he believes foreshadowed the invocation of the Emergencies Act during the Ottawa trucker protest and raises concerns about the potential for politically motivated prosecutions under new legislation such as Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, introduced in September 2025, which aims to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crimes, and access to religious or cultural spaces. Prof. Pardy warns the bill lowers the threshold for what constitutes “hatred,” leaving it open to subjective interpretation and potentially expanding the policing of online and public discourse. Additionally, the bill’s provisions targeting protests could allow individuals to be prosecuted for creating a “state of fear” without any actual threats of violence, raising alarms about the potential policing of political expression and dissent. 

WATCH HERE

Natasha Montreal: Law professor Bruce Pardy joins independent journalist Natasha Graham to explore the potential outcomes of Bill C-8 (formally titled An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts) and Bill C-9 (“The Combatting Hate” act, an amendment to the Criminal Code to address hate-motivated behavior). Prof. Pardy warns the amendments will lead to selective enforcement of the law based on the priorities and ideological bias of the decision-makers in power, leading to unknown outcomes and the inability to identify lines that should not be crossed — because those lines are open to arbitrary determination — as opposed to the rule of law. Ultimately, the fundamental assumptions underpinning this legislation are at the root of the threat to free speech and civil liberties. Prof. Pardy notes that in the past, when conservatives held power, they also censored speech, focusing on obscenity and heresy. It was the left in the 1960s that championed free speech, but the situation has now reversed. He cautions that accepting the notion of state power to regulate speech is perilous, as it paves the way for future leaders with differing views to misuse that power against you, which is the current reality. That power should not be a tool in the hands of bias, either Left or Right.

“A lot of people want to stay inside a Canada that is an imaginary country inside their heads. It's not the real one. ...The reason to leave is that Canada has become something else. Canada has become a manager.” ~ Prof. Bruce Pardy

As Alberta contemplates separation, the need for a fundamental shift is obvious. To avoid creating a smaller version of Canada, Albertans must seize on the opportunity to purge a managerial model of governance and reevaluate the relationship between citizens and the state. Prof. Bruce Pardy joins Real Citizen hosts Jeremy Prest and David Craig to discuss the release of his proposed constitutional framework for freedom and prosperity in an independent Alberta. Other topics on the table: • Why Canada restricts free speech more than the U.S. • The failures of internal reform and judicial overreach. • What Alberta’s independence could look like under a minimal government model. • The real challenges of funding healthcare, schools, and public goods without taxation. • Redefining freedom as the absence of state coercion.

WATCH HERE

00:00:00 - Intro 00:01:24 - notwithstanding, free speech, Carney, Palestine 00:02:48 - Satirical post framing foreign policy and speech 00:04:05 - Guest: Prof. Bruce Pardy 00:05:34 - Thesis: Don't become little Canada 00:09:10 - Alberta debate: equalization and cost of living 00:13:40 - Why order over liberty - managerial state 00:15:24 - Free speech vs hate speech - Canada vs US 00:17:02 - Where is the line - harm as violence creep 00:22:01 - Canada in 3 steps - 1867, 1931, 1982 00:27:19 - The POGG default leads to an all powerful state 00:31:42 - Fix - flip the default - enumerated powers 00:34:58 - Only three powers - peace, courts, defense 00:36:16 - Implications - no public health or schools - no expropriation 00:38:49 - No tax principle - funding roads questioned 00:40:29 - Edge case - helmet laws under non coercion 00:41:19 - Edge case - DUI - prospective vs actual harm 00:41:50 - When state force is allowed - self defense stopping force external defense 00:48:28 - Warning - taxation power will be abused 01:21:16 - Legal personhood rethink - humans only - corporations rethought 01:32:33 - Term limits - blocking a ruling class.

Brave New Normal with host Jason James: Law professor Bruce Pardy continues to explore the world he has envisioned through the creation of a new constitution for an independent Alberta. In this conversation, Prof. Pardy walks us back to Canada’s origin story of deference to authority and how that beginning has shaped Canadians’ sense of self by comparison to the American origin story: liberty through rebellion. As the discussion travels across time to the society we have today—the inherent uncertainty of the country’s legal system and its uneven application of the law, the concentration of power in a small group, the government’s approach to managing the population, its problems and past grievances—two questions emerge for Albertans: The What and The Who. The latter is the one that counts; not the perpetual Canadian conundrum of “who are we?” but Who has the power to decide and control everything else. Prof. Pardy’s proposed constitutional framework for Alberta dispenses with the back and forth of rule by elites, rule by the mob, and combinations of both, to place the individual at the center of power. Yet another conundrum emerges: the outcome if everyone is granted “the ability to rule themselves in an absolute way” is inevitably “violence,” he concedes. How do you empower the state to keep the peace but not so much that it is enabled to interfere and tell the people what to do? It’s tricky, the professor admits, but it’s possible through one law that governs each and every one in the new world of independence. A brave, new normal indeed.

Tea & Coffee w/ Paula & Jay | The Lavigne Show: Prof. Bruce Pardy joins hosts Jason and Paula Lavigne to unpack his proposed constitution for a free and independent Alberta. This conversation is available as either a two-hour walk-through of the proposal in full or in two parts. Part One covers the proposal’s sections 1-6. Part Two covers sections 7-13.

Sections Covered:

1. Force and Threats of Force Prohibited

2. Using Force to Enforce the Rule Against Force

3. The Meaning of “force and threats of force”

The state’s sole mandate: enforce ‘no force’—powerful enough to protect liberty, restrained enough to never breach it.

4. Citizens Subject to No Other Laws

The state must remain neutral, prohibited from discriminating between individuals, while private citizens retain unrestricted freedom to associate, employ, or act—so long as their choices don’t impose force on others.

5. Flipping the Default

A state powerless by default—authorized solely to enforce prohibitions on force, adjudicate disputes, and repel external threats—renders Bill of Rights obsolete, as individual liberty flows inherently from the state’s inability to govern conduct beyond these narrow mandates, even under claims of ‘emergency’ or ‘public good.’

6. Term Limits: Amateur Public Servants

A six-year lifetime cap on all public service—from elected roles to bureaucrats—prevents careerist entrenchment (and enrichment) to ensure governance serves the people, not institutional self-interest.

WATCH PART ONE HERE or VIEW THE TWO-HOUR VERSION OF THE DISCUSSION IN FULL HERE

*****

Tea & Coffee w/ Paula & Jay | The Lavigne Show: Prof. Bruce Pardy joins hosts Jason and Paula Lavigne to unpack the second half of his proposed constitution for a free and independent Alberta.

Sections Covered:

7. Branches of the State and Elections

The proposed constitutional framework for Alberta emphasizes strict separation of powers and limited government, modelled partly on the U.S. system but adapted to prevent centralization. Key elements include: Bicameral Legislature: A House (population-based) and Senate (territory-based, with 50 equal-sized regions) to balance urban/rural influence, ensuring neither dominates policy. Term Limits: A president elected every three years (max two terms) and a six-year lifetime cap on all public roles to deter careerism, paired with median salaries to reduce corruption incentives. No Veto/Pardon Powers: Rejects executive overreach, ensuring legislatures pass laws without presidential interference and maintaining rule of law without exceptions. Amateur Governance: Short terms and restricted responsibilities for officials, focusing state functions on core duties (e.g., defense, infrastructure) while leaving innovation to the private sector.

8. Disempowering Judges

A simplified two-tier structure: elected trial and appeals courts (no Supreme Court) to prevent centralized judicial overreach. Judges, including non-lawyers, would serve six-year maximum terms, breaking the legal profession’s monopoly and fostering accountability. Tribunals—quasi-courts controlled by the executive—are abolished to eliminate bureaucratic “star chambers.” By allowing citizens (e.g., doctors, engineers) to serve as judges without legal credentials, the model prioritizes practical wisdom over technocratic gatekeeping, democratizing access to justice.

9. Only Human Beings are Legal Persons

The recognition of only human beings as legal entities to dismantle liability shields and curb corporate political influence. By requiring individuals to act in their own name, accountability is direct, preventing evasion through shell companies or asset transfers.

10. Citizenship

Framing citizenship as a commitment to Alberta’s sovereignty, not just residency.

11. Separation of Powers

A strict separation of powers to prevent government overreach, distinguishing roles among the three branches (Legislature, Executive, Judiciary).

12. “Crown Land” and Other Transitions

Dismantling state control over land and eliminating special Indigenous rights, prioritizing individual equality and private ownership.

13. Amendment

Key measures include a stringent amendment process requiring 2/3 legislative approval and a citizen referendum, ensuring stability while preventing overreach. The constitution omits a “notwithstanding clause,” safeguarding inviolable rights like free speech and property ownership. Power shifts from centralized governance to individuals and communities, abolishing state-controlled services (healthcare, education) in favour of private and mutual-aid initiatives.

WATCH PART TWO HERE

“It is not the role of government, I think, for the government to make policy about most things. If they are, they are not leaving you to your own life.” ~ Bruce Pardy

Entrepreneur and former political candidate, Nadine Wellwood, and law professor Bruce Pardy compare their most recent work on Alberta independence (Nadine’s book Alberta Rising and Bruce’s proposed constitution for a new nation) and their shared emphasis on principles over policies to limit government power. They argue that foundational principles (e.g., individual sovereignty, minimal state intervention) inherently restrict overreach without endless policies. By rejecting policy-making as a gateway to centralized control, they advocate for a governance model where citizens retain authority through core ideals—not bureaucratic rules—framing independence as both a break from Canada and a rebirth of principled self-rule.

The Lavigne Show: Bruce Pardy on Alberta Self-Determination. What if true freedom isn’t a choice between oligarchs and populists, but a radical redesign of governance itself? Queen’s University legal scholar and freedom architect Bruce Pardy sits down with host Jason Lavigne to dissect Alberta’s existential gambit: can a province shackle the state to resurrect individual sovereignty? Professor Pardy’s thesis: to escape Canada’s “bad choice” loop of elite capture or mob rule, Alberta must draft a constitution that treats state power like uranium—useful only when contained. There are “no better alternatives at the moment than the path Alberta is on,” warns professor Pardy. Stay the course and seize the chance to reimagine the future: develop a framework that champions freedom through the dispersion of power across the spectrum to reduce the threat of the state.

WATCH HERE

In Lay Terms with host Peyman Askari: Where Should Alberta’s Independence Movement Go?

Liberty is not just an economic argument. Independence is inside-out, spirit-wide change.

Law professor Bruce Pardy and family law lawyer Katherine Kowalchuk urge Alberta’s independence movement to transcend mere economic separation from Ottawa to address the deeper systemic and cultural failures that will continue to dog the new nation if left neglected. True freedom, they say, requires purging Canada’s collectivist governance within the province itself.

For meaningful change, Alberta must dismantle state coercion in education, healthcare, and social policy; prioritizing instead personal responsibility and equal legal rights over identity-based entitlements, anchored in a shared understanding of right and wrong.

Leaders on the Frontier: Aboriginal title is a prior and senior right to fee simple title interest in Canada. That's the takeaway. The Cowichan decision has exposed a constitutional crisis where Indigenous title claims, legal precedents, and policies like DRIPA destabilize property norms. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, enshrines Indigenous rights but excludes private property rights. The reality is a legal hierarchy where Aboriginal title claims can override private ownership. This leaves homeowners and investors vulnerable to expropriation or compensation demands if Indigenous title is established over their land. Without political courage to reconcile collective rights with individual protections, Canada risks economic decline, capital flight, and deepening social division.

“The first stage is for Canadians or a critical mass of them to say section 35 was a mistake and we don't believe anymore in the idea that there are different peoples in Canada. There’s just people.” ~ Prof. Bruce Pardy

Guests lawyer Bruce Hallsor and law professor Bruce Pardy unpack the historic B.C. Supreme Court ruling on Aug. 7 granting descendants of the Cowichan Nation title to lands surrounding a historic fishing village in Richmond, B.C. [See also: B.C. Aboriginal Agreements Empower Soft Tyranny of Legal Incoherence and Canadians’ Legal Rights Should Not Depend on Lineage — Indigenous or Otherwise].

The Burden of Self Defence, Tea & Coffee With Paula & Jay | The Lavigne Show: Canadian homeowners face a precarious legal tightrope when defending their property: ambiguous standards of “reasonable force” and judicial discretion leave even well-intentioned acts of self-defence vulnerable to criminal charges, financial devastation, or reputational harm if authorities deem their response disproportionate to the threat. Reinstating “Castle Doctrine” or “Castle-like” principles could reduce ambiguity but conflicts with Canada’s emphasis on minimizing lethal force. This fascinating discussion looks at how the law (and the interpretation of the law) in tandem with the state, police enforcement, and legacy media has undermined the concept of individual autonomy and property rights to serve the shift towards collectivism, where even an intruder might be considered more in harmony with this ideology than a homeowner defending life and limb, their property and family.

Guests: lawyer Maxime Bernier of the People’s Party of Canada, David Sabine (the Airdrie-Cochrane Libertarian Party candidate), and law professor Bruce Pardy (who reveals that Canada’s Criminal Code did have sections that reflected the Castle Doctrine but these sections were repealed, ironically, by the Harper government (in a compromise bid to strengthen gun ownership rights).

The conversation on property rights and self-defence begins at the 26:48 mark.

WATCH HERE

In Lay Terms: “Escape or Leverage?” Amid Ottawa’s relentless march toward hyper-centralized governance, a seismic question now dominates Canada’s political landscape: Could Alberta’s separation be the last, defiant stand against a suffocating federalist agenda?

For this episode of “In Lay Terms,” host Peyman Askari sits down with prominent legal scholar Prof. Bruce Pardy and James Lindsay, renowned political commentator and strategist, to dissect the high-stakes gamble of Alberta’s battle for the soul of a nation — and a blueprint for self-determination.

00:00 Intro 00:42 What Do Albertans Want 03:00 What Should Alberta Do 12:41 Referendum as an Ends, not a Means 26:50 Loyalism and the Founding of Canada 32:22 The Risk of Being Too British 36:15 A Middle Finger to Ottawa 48:05 A Threat to US Security 57:20 The Possibility of Splitting British Columbia 1:02:55 Alberta 1:14:12 Nova Scotia Forest Fines and British Columba Land Grabs 1:20:20 The Response From Ottawa 1:26:28 Will the US Help Alberta? 1:36:00 End

WATCH HERE

Wildrose Coffee Room with Prof. Bruce Pardy and host Danny Hozack: An independent Alberta will need to confront Canada’s broken frameworks in its bid to reclaim autonomy from Canada’s “Laurentian elite,” and that means avoiding the replication of federal structures and ensuring reforms empower individual freedoms over bureaucratic control. Prioritizing a 50%+ referendum threshold is the immediate goal at hand. What lies ahead is uncharted territory. Prof. Pardy unpacks the challenges of post-independence transition planning and the future of uncompromising self-determination that awaits Albertans: the opportunity of several lifetimes to determine their own destiny.

WATCH HERE

Juno News: In this episode of Disrupted, host Melanie Bennet is joined by Catherine Kronas, an elected parent council member at a school board in Ontario, who was suspended after respectfully objecting to the board’s imposition of land acknowledgements during school council meetings. Catherine believes the mandatory acknowledgements constitute compelled speech and a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Catherine notes there is no school board policy mandating the inclusion and “the sentiments implied by the land acknowledgement are political in nature, highly controversial, and therefore divisive and inappropriate within a government institution.” Law professor Bruce Pardy joins the discussion to break down the constitutional and free speech implications of Catherine’s case. The conversation also highlights the broader implications of compelled speech, and whether institutions can dictate the opinions of individuals and restrict their ability to express dissenting views—a heightened concern in a landscape where ideological infiltration of institutions poses a threat to freedom of conscience and expression.

The Real Citizen Podcast: There is a possibility that Alberta through independence could not only save itself and disrupt the current state of the country, but also become a new beacon of freedom in the process. By establishing a nation that embodies the true ideals of liberty, Alberta could rediscover the foundational principles of Western civilization. Joining Real Citizen hosts, Jeremy Prest and David Craig, constitutional scholar Prof. Bruce Pardy explores the implications of Alberta’s potential departure from Canada and the uncertainty of separation, albeit in a country facing an uncertain future at the current rate of decline. Does Alberta have the unilateral right to separate? No. But it doesn’t need permission from Ottawa either. These questions and more are on the table for discussion.

The Critical Compass Podcast with Professor Bruce Pardy. Alberta’s independence is not merely an eruption of regional discontent but a revolutionary bid. The movement’s success hinges on uniting diverse factions (individualists vs. collectivists, grassroots initiatives vs. institutional approaches) and leveraging this fleeting political moment to redefine governance, rejecting Canada’s grift-based legacy for a liberty-centered future. Prof. Pardy warns that addressing policy grievances (such as pipeline projects and emissions caps) without constitutional reform offers only temporary relief, leaving systemic issues intact. A failed referendum risks entrenching the status quo, while success could catalyze parallel movements in provinces like Saskatchewan. The current surge in dialogue, though unprecedented, underscores both the fragility and transformative potential of Alberta’s bid for autonomy. The path forward demands Albertans trade perceived security for radical self-determination, risking short-term instability for long-term sovereignty.

WATCH HERE

Collectivism in a New Alberta

The Critical Compass podcast with Prof. Bruce Pardy of Rights Probe. In this discussion, the question of Alberta independence is framed as a “contest between individualism and collectivism”. Empowering individuals entails personal responsibility, which represents a significant shift in mindset from the collectivist-based framework of Canada. For the independence movement to gain majority support, it must appeal to a broad audience, including those on the Left inclined to the embrace of collectivism. A key point raised is the issue of single-payer public healthcare, a collectivist and socialist program. Prof. Pardy argues that if Albertans truly desire freedom and independence, they must abandon this system which contradicts their aspirations for individual rights and freedoms. Ultimately, he says, the success of the independence movement hinges on whether enough Albertans embrace the principles of self-sufficiency and independence to move away from collectivist thinking. If they remain "stuck" on central planning and collectivist thinking, the movement is “going nowhere,” he warns.

WATCH HERE

Grey Matter Podcast with host Leighton Grey. Guests Professor Bruce Pardy, Mitch Sylvestre and Dr. Dennis Modry of the Alberta Prosperity Project, and broadcast producer Michael Klassen.

The Canada in our imaginary: “I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge shall uphold for myself and all mankind.” [John Diefenbaker]. “The aspiration that I have heard from Albertans mirrors that statement…from Diefenbaker. That’s the kind of land they want to live in. That’s the kind of province they want to live in. It’s the kind of country they want to live in. But that is not the Canada they live in right now.” [Prof. Pardy]

A fascinating discussion exploring the challenges and ideological considerations surrounding Alberta’s potential independence, including negotiating the terms of secession in the event of a successful referendum. A key point raised is the necessity of clearly defining what freedom for Alberta means. Prof. Pardy argues that while many attribute Alberta’s issues to “bad” federal policies, the problems run deeper, rooted in the Canadian character and the structure of the country’s government (problems that also need to be excised from Alberta). Quoting Lawrence Solomon, he notes that Canada, in reality, operates more like a system of “grifts,” where provinces joined Confederation not for a noble vision but to receive federal subsidies.

WATCH HERE

Special Rights in a New Alberta

“When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” [Thomas Sowell]

The Critical Compass: In a debate on Alberta independence with Prof. Bruce Pardy, critic Jeff Rath argued that the Professor’s proposal to end Indigenous “special status” would strip rights from 300,000 Indigenous Albertans, casting it as a political non-starter. The goal is not to remove rights, asserts Prof. Pardy, but to ensure equality under the law by converting communal reserve lands into individually owned titles, granting Indigenous people the same property rights (e.g., selling, leasing) as other Canadians. The reserve system, he argues, perpetuates harm and conflicts with the vision of a free, equitable Alberta.

WATCH HERE

The Real Citizen Podcast with Prof. Bruce Pardy: During the American Revolution, Canadians rejected George Washington’s call to join the rebellion, opting instead to remain British subjects—a choice reflecting deference to authority over individual freedom. This legacy, Prof. Pardy argues, is enshrined in Canada’s constitutional focus on “peace, order, and good government” (centralized governance) versus the U.S. commitment to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The national character this choice created—a preference for stability over risk—is reflected in the current tension provoked by Alberta’s independence movement: the conflict between centralized authority and regional self-determination. What does a genuine self-determination require? Prof. Pardy advocates for a radical reboot. Albertans, he says, must reject Canada’s centralized, redistributionist model in favour of a night-watchman state (no socialized healthcare, bureaucratic grift, and unequal legal statuses for Indigenous communities).

Shaun Newman Podcast: In this heated discussion on Alberta’s potential secession from Canada, legal scholar Prof. Bruce Pardy (Queen’s University) and Indigenous rights lawyer Jeff Rath (Alberta Prosperity Project co-founder) clash over the future of Indigenous treaty rights in an independent Alberta. Rath dismisses Prof. Pardy’s argument to abolish collective rights as legally reckless and culturally tone-deaf, stressing treaty rights are binding constitutional obligations, not arbitrary distinctions. He warns that erasing these rights would alienate 300,000 Indigenous Albertans, fracture unity critical for independence, and ignore 150 years of legal precedent. Prof. Pardy agrees that his proposal does “fly in the face of history … the Constitution … [and] what many Canadians think” in terms of a “separate and distinct peoples” but, he says, that doesn’t make the current Indigenous rights framework …. “right; it’s actually quite wrong.” Prof. Pardy describes the status quo as a “grift” benefiting leaders, bureaucrats, and consultants (the “Aboriginal industry”), while disenfranchising rank-and-file Indigenous people and non-Indigenous citizens. Pardy likens his vision to historical assimilation (e.g., Norman-Saxon integration in Britain), asserting equality under law requires erasing group-based privileges. He urges Albertans to “think big” in reimagining their destiny and to “get rid of those things that are Canadian and don't work,” which begins with “a legal system that treats everybody the same way.” Listen in!

Shaun Newman Podcast: Prof. Bruce Pardy continues the conversation he sparked earlier in the month when he proposed a hypothetical independent Alberta should also separate itself from special status for Aboriginal people, arguing Aboriginal rights undermine the principle of legal equality by granting race-based privileges. This discussion walks further out to explore tensions between Canada’s constitutional Indigenous rights framework and ideals of universal legal equality, challenging mainstream norms around reconciliation and sovereignty. Prof. Pardy urges doing away with the Indian Act and redistributing reserve lands as private property to individual Indigenous people. The Act, he says, benefits primarily tribal elites, consultants, non-Indigenous institutions, and a flawed status quo, creating a “gravy train” of taxpayer funds while failing to uplift most Indigenous individuals. The conversation underscores a clash between corrective justice (addressing colonialism) and universal legal equality, with Prof. Pardy advocating for a future where individual agency, not group identity, defines rights—a vision he asserts would foster unity in an independent Alberta and the chance to redefine governance beyond Canada’s legacy systems. The opportunity for a radical overhaul extends to a new constitution that draws on the U.S. system for inspiration, minimalist government (a complete rejection of the “managerial state”), and economic freedom (retaining wealth locally). On that note, Prof. Pardy cites the cash transaction limits through Bill C-2 as a prime example of government overreach in the form of invasive surveillance masquerading as anti-money laundering efforts.

The Candice Malcolm Show: Pledging to uphold existing Indigenous treaty rights in an independent Alberta is a mistake, argues Prof. Bruce Pardy. Maintaining group-specific rights, he says, contradicts the principle of “blind justice”—a legal framework that treats all citizens as equal regardless of ancestry. A recent article by the professor contends that while Canada’s constitution entrenches Aboriginal rights, a newly sovereign Alberta should reject such distinctions and establish a “clean slate” legal system granting uniform rights to all individuals. Perpetuating special statuses, asserts Prof. Pardy, even for historically marginalized groups, undermines equality under the rule of law, which he deems essential for a truly free society. This stance stems from observing Canada’s fractured federalism, where competing rights claims fuel political dysfunction. Alberta’s independence must prioritize individual equality over collective entitlements to avoid replicating systemic inequities.

Alberta Independence: Legal Truths, Treaty Myths & the Case to Leave Canada. One of Canada’s boldest legal minds breaks down why Alberta independence through referendum is the necessary catalyst to disrupt Canada’s broken constitutional and federal structure. Prof. Bruce Pardy argues that Canada’s structural flaws, deep-rooted vested interests and federal imbalance, render meaningful reform impossible without existential crisis. Urging Alberta to prioritize a referendum over policy negotiations to leverage its departure as a political threat, Prof. Pardy warns short-term concessions—like Premier Smith’s nine demands for federal policy reversals—risk entrenching Canada’s broken system. A decisive referendum, he says, could shift power dynamics, forcing Ottawa to either concede irreplaceable losses or provoke a domino effect of provincial defiance—ultimately challenging Canada’s complacent “romanticized” self-image and prioritizing Alberta’s sovereignty as the only viable trigger for confronting systemic collapse.

Should Alberta Separate from Canada? In conversation with host Harrison Faulkner, Prof. Bruce Pardy frames the separatist movement as a necessary rupture from Canada’s centralized governance, arguing temporary policy fixes (such as pipelines) won’t resolve structural flaws. He envisions an independent Alberta as a low-tax, free-market alternative, contrasting it with Canada’s “managed socialism.” While polls show most Albertans oppose separation, Prof. Pardy insists the movement is a response to Ottawa’s repeated dismissal of Western concerns. Federal proposals, including Prime Minister Carney’s decarbonized oil pipelines, are superficial, he says. Only independence can address systemic issues like Senate inequity and federal overreach. Alberta’s pursuit of federal reform has been one of futility, he notes. The answer lies in unlocking prosperity through radical governance redesign: in other words, separation.

Leaders on the Frontier: Is the “Building One Canadian Economy” initiative in Saskatoon on June 2 a reason for new hope or little more than a photo op? Guests law professor Bruce Pardy and Canadian businessman and former politician, Dan McTeague, join host David Leis to unpack the issues on the table, ranging from Mark Carney’s framing of Canada as an “energy superpower” (when his energy agenda is net-zero) to the menace of foreign interference and Canada’s directly or indirectly compromised elites. Can the country be fixed? Prof. Pardy looks to Alberta’s bid for independence as the hope for Canada the Saskatoon summit could not provide: a radical reset to escape entrenched issues that doesn’t rely on government solutions. The departure of Alberta, he asserts, could trigger a domino effect, forcing Canada to confront its complacency and decline, and address the fundamental crisis the country is facing (or rather, looking away from).

Leaders on the Frontier: Alberta’s push for independence, driven by decades of federal neglect and anti-energy policies (Trudeau’s emissions caps, pipeline cancellations et al.), has reached a tipping point. With 30% of Albertans open to separation, Premier Danielle Smith’s astute alignment with separatist petitions—while not outright endorsing them—signals a strategic challenge to Ottawa (she is effectively serving as Opposition to the Liberal government at the current time). Unlike Quebec’s past sovereignty movements, Alberta faces hostility from Eastern Canada for daring to demand respect and the right to sell its own product, exposing a double standard in national unity debates. Listen in as Prof. Bruce Pardy and guests, along with host David Leis, explore Canada’s fragile unity and the pathways forward. In the words of one viewer: “If Alberta was its own country right now, would we accept the current deal to join Canada?” What do you think? And is Alberta Canada’s best shot for saving itself?

The Candice Malcolm Show: What Would an Independent Alberta Really Look Like? Alberta’s separatist movement is a nationalist counter to Canada’s globalist progressivism, rooted in irreconcilable ideological divides, argues Prof. Bruce Pardy. While legally viable, independence faces practical and philosophical hurdles, underscoring a broader crisis of Canadian identity and federal legitimacy. Prof. Pardy posits that secession could trigger national upheaval, forcing Ottawa to confront systemic inequities. But, at this point, can Canada’s socialist-progressive trajectory be reversed?

Deconstructing Canada: The modern state has abandoned its role as a guardian of freedom to take on the mantle of managerial overlord. What would limiting the state to its core function—protecting liberty—look like? Could we as citizens cope without the Nanny State? Are we able to see that many of our societal problems are exacerbated, not solved, by state intervention? Why do we look to the state as savior? Prof. Bruce Pardy discusses the “night-watchman” concept of minimal state intervention and a host of other issues with Peyman Askari, host of the In Lay Terms podcast and PPC candidate for West Vancouver.