Brave New Normal with host Jason James:

Guest law professor Bruce Pardy lays it on the line:

Albertans aren’t Canadian. That’s not an insult—it’s a compliment. Being Canadian has become a liability, argues Prof. Pardy. The Canadian model, he says, can’t be reformed. Its constitution and interests make it impossible. Alberta already has the world’s third-largest oil reserves, the highest per-capita wealth in Canada, and working institutions. It has subsidized Confederation by hundreds of billions. In Prof. Pardy’s estimate, “There is no scenario that I can imagine where Alberta as an independent country doesn't do exceedingly well.” 

From the PPC State of Our Nation 2026 Gala:

“Canada is essentially impossible to reform inside the model in which it operates. By leaving the country, Alberta could help save it—and, for that matter ... could save Western civilization itself.”

Professor Bruce Pardy on why Canada is a train wreck that Canadians can’t vote, litigate, or policy our way out of in 2026. But Alberta has a shot—and it’s one shot—for breaking a dysfunctional path-dependent system that prioritizes entrenched interests, redistribution, and managerial control over genuine freedom and prosperity. 

Rewatch: Prof. Pardy takes the floor at the 1:18:34 mark: see video here.

Bruce Pardy on Alberta’s Referendum: Independence & Canada’s “Professional Ruling Class” 

Prof. Bruce Pardy describes Alberta’s referendum Question 10 as an early-warning mechanism rather than a direct independence vote, noting that political actors expect the “remain” option to prevail easily. A surprise result for Option 2, he argues, would reveal that support for independence is stronger and more genuine than the establishment has assumed—comparable to the Brexit shock—keeping the issue alive and compelling the government to advance toward a formal process instead of allowing it to fade.

The paradox of the state: “You can't be free with it, or without it.” Liberty requires a state. How do you resolve the paradox? Law professor Bruce Pardy proposes four features that might work. [Recorded at the Capitalism & Morality Calgary 2026 conference hosted by Fergus Hodgson & Econ Americas].

Grey Matter with host Leighton Grey: Politician and lawyer Grant Abraham argues that Canada’s crisis is a moral and civilizational one rooted in the loss of Judeo-Christian values and nationhood. Bruce Pardy argues the core problem is constitutional design that gives government too much power, and that a free country requires flipping the default so the state can do almost nothing except protect individual liberty. They agree the current Canadian (and Alberta) government is the main threat to liberty and prosperity, that Alberta independence is the most realistic path to a reset, and that Danielle Smith’s approach is an obstacle. They differ on how to describe the threat, whether God belongs in the constitution, and what “freedom” and “compassion” require of the state.

Alberta Separatism: What Would Freedom Actually Look Like?

Bridge City News: What does freedom mean and what will it take for an independent Alberta to turn the page and chart a new era? Law professor and Articles of Freedom author Bruce Pardy reminds us that most of the rules that bind Albertans today already come from Edmonton, not Ottawa. Hand the same unlimited power to a new capital and you get the same managerial state with a different flag. What will it take to actually turn the page?

Start over—or stay managed. A new era is within reach.

“If you are in a situation that you know is untenable, if the status quo is unacceptable and you're being treated by your own country in a way that you can’t accept, then there really is no other option.” ~ Bruce Pardy

Prof. Bruce Pardy joins The Lavigne Show to talk constitutions that actually bite, one politicians can’t ignore. 

Ontario’s Bruce Pardy is heading to Alberta!

Queen’s law professor and Articles of Freedom author Bruce Pardy joins Jason Lavigne for a province-wide book tour and workshops on a constitution built so no future government can dishonor it. Concise principles. Architecture that flips the default from state power to individual liberty. Minimal government that keeps the peace — and stays out of everything else.

Pardy (an Ontario outsider looking in) argues Alberta feels most clearly that Canada isn’t working. The status quo is locked in by powerful interests. Only a political earthquake — Alberta independence — has a real shot at shaking it. He hopes that by saving itself, Alberta might even save the country.

Alberta Constitution and Systems Series: What if a constitution started from the opposite premise—that the state may do nothing except keep the peace, run courts, and hold the border? On this episode of At Home with Holmes, law professor Bruce Pardy makes that case and writer-commentator Matthew Ehret tests it: is “common good” a license to override, or the only language we have for defence, fraud that isn’t a fistfight, and the cartels already in place? Listen in before the next referendum writes the rules for you.

Is Canada holding Alberta back? Professor Bruce Pardy is blunt: “The rest of Canada is dragging it down.” But independence isn’t freedom if Edmonton just replaces Ottawa. On Sovereign Voice with podcaster Nadine Wellwood, Pardy argues for flipping the default—government gets only specifically defined powers, not open-ended control over your life. Building something different is the real question. Would Alberta create a freer country—or rebuild the system it wanted to escape?

The Real Citizen podcast with guest Bruce Pardy: Professor Pardy identifies Canada’s core problems as inevitable, built into the country’s basic design and culture from the start—not temporary policy mistakes or bad luck. The issues, he contends, are internal and constitutional: a system centered on government monopoly control, protected industries, and defining itself against the United States. This setup blocks competitive vitality, and the honest reflection and adaptability needed to fix things. Alberta separatism offers a rare potential disruption to Canada’s crown-driven, cartel-like system of governance and established powers, but how can it succeed when the independence movement is being systematically undermined by entrenched political interests (including Alberta’s leadership) and stymied by  a deliberately weak, delayed referendum process with multiple off-ramps?

Modern Censorship Doesn’t Work the Way You Think

Natasha Montreal podcast: In this conversation, law professor Bruce Pardy breaks down the ways in which governments are quietly tightening the screws on what we can say—through regulators, administrative bodies, professional colleges, and vague laws like Bill C-9. He digs into compelled speech, the real limits of free expression, and how the growing regulatory state can choke off freedom without ever outright banning it.

Bill C-34 Is Just A Symptom Of A Much Bigger Problem

Bruce Pardy joins Nico Lagan to discuss Bill C-34, the Digital Safety Act, the proposed Digital Safety Commission of Canada, and the apparatus behind it. What starts as a conversation about online safety, harmful content, age verification and internet regulation becomes a deeper discussion about unelected commissions, delegated authority, bureaucratic power, the managerial state, COVID, censorship, Alberta independence, and whether Canadians are fighting the wrong battle. The real issue may not be one bill.

WATCH

The Lavigne Show with guests Bruce Pardy, Dennis Kalma, & Matthew Rowley

What if our constitutions got it completely backwards?

Instead of starting with “government exists for the common good/general welfare” (aka unlimited power with a few polite exceptions), what if we flipped it?

Government should be powerless… EXCEPT for:  

• Resolve disputes  
• Protect the country’s borders and security
• Anything not on the list - Not their job

Bruce Pardy nails it: We have to design constitutions assuming that the people running the state will eventually be the wrong people — ambitious, self-interested, or just mediocre. Not saints. Not visionaries. So give them almost nothing to work with.

No Independence Without Revolution

Bruce Pardy and Brave New Normal host Jason James

The 10th question on the Oct. 19 provincial referendum is a double-barreled trap favoring the status quo. Liberation requires rejecting the trap entirely and embracing the disruption inherent in breaking from a dysfunctional federation. Without that mindset shift, says Professor Pardy, the status quo persists. 

If you want change, “you want disruption because you know the situation that you’re in is not working. If your objective is to keep things mostly the same, then what is the point of this?” ~ Bruce Pardy

What does that mean for Alberta independence? 

No political saviors. Success historically comes from organized, persistent citizen action that forces or replaces reluctant elites, not hoping current ones will deliver despite their statements and actions. Albertans must shed Canadian risk-aversion and preference for middle-ground “naive” federalism. 

Can Albertans unpack the Canada they carry in their psyches in order to pack up and leave?

WATCH

“If you are a free person, if you live in a free country, then your property is an extension of that liberty.” ~ Bruce Pardy

Canada keeps drifting ... away from a free society toward one where the state and competing claims increasingly interfere with what you “own.” Once more of us understand that property is an extension of personal liberty and the foundation of a free economy and society, the pushback becomes real. Leaders of the Frontier host, David Leis, in conversation with Professor Bruce Pardy.

Do Canadians Really Own Their Property?

Law professor Bruce Pardy, in a recent interview with Bridge City News, explores the “category error” in Canadian law.

WATCH

Danielle Smith, Killing Alberta Independence? Bruce Pardy on the 10th Question: The referendum setup scheduled for October creates a double standard: Remain wins once and it’s over; Leave must win twice. Where does that put the momentum for a new Alberta? Professor Pardy walks through the current reality with podcaster Nadine Wellwood.

WATCH

The Canadian Real Estate Investor — host Daniel Foch in conversation with Bruce Pardy. Canadian law remains dangerously unclear on how Aboriginal title intersects with private fee simple ownership, leaving landowners, investors, and Indigenous groups in limbo. The Supreme Court of Canada recently declined to hear an appeal by the Wolastoqey Nation regarding Aboriginal title on privately held lands in New Brunswick. Contrary to some headlines, it neither endorsed nor rejected the lower court’s view that private owners likely wouldn’t lose their land outright if Aboriginal title is proven—instead, Indigenous groups would seek compensation from the Crown. As a non-binding provincial decision without a full trial on title, it resolves little. Courts have built extensive Aboriginal title jurisprudence yet dodged the core conflict: both systems claim exclusive control over the same land. In British Columbia, modern agreements granting title or governance powers over areas with private property have created overlapping authorities without clear priority rules, eroding market confidence and investment. Governments exacerbate the problem by publicly championing private property while embedding UNDRIP and expanding Section 35 collective rights, which establish distinct categories of citizenship with unequal entitlements. Ultimately, argues law professor Bruce Pardy, this two-tier constitutional approach clashes with equal individual rights and fuels endless disputes. The result is a growing crisis of confidence in Canada’s property rights regime—economic drag, political tension, and unresolved reconciliation trade-offs—with courts and politicians failing to deliver clarity.

The J.D. Irving, Limited et al. v. Wolastoqey Nation Case

Leaders on the Frontier: The New Brunswick Aboriginal lands case is a landmark legal challenge where six Wolastoqey First Nations sought Aboriginal title to more than half of the province’s land along the Saint John River watershed, including lands owned by seven private companies. The private owners successfully moved to be struck from the claim, arguing no direct cause of action against them (their lands were acquired under Crown grants and fee simple title). The initial judge released the companies as defendants but explicitly allowed the First Nations to continue claiming Aboriginal title against the Crown for those same private lands. First Nations sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but the SCC dismissed the leave application with no reasons provided. This is the core peculiarity: initially celebrated as the SCC “upholding property rights" is an overreading. Dismissing leave does not endorse the lower decision, affirm private property’s priority, or create binding nationwide precedent. It simply means the SCC declined to hear this specific, procedurally messy appeal. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal ruling stands as the last binding word on this case, but it leaves the bigger clash unresolved. And what a clash it is: Law professor Bruce Pardy walks through the deeper challenges in balancing historic claims with modern property law and equal citizenship. The New Brunswick case, in its procedural quirks and limited resolution, perfectly illustrates the need for fundamental clarity rather than kicking the can down the road. Is Canada courageous enough to confront entrenched ideas and institutions that lead to stagnation, reduced investment, and social division? 

The Deck is Stacked

Tea & Coffee with Paula & Jay (The Lavigne Show): Alberta faces a stark reality—is it possible to become independent if your premier is determined to stop it? Is the October question a procedural dead end dressed up as progress? Law professor Bruce Pardy examines the controversial 10th question scheduled for the upcoming referendum, comparing it to a Brexit-style vote in which voters were asked only whether they wanted a future vote on leaving—a vote that political elites could then delay or bury. What should Premier Danielle Smith have done instead? According to Pardy, she should have announced a clear independence referendum for spring 2027 on its own ballot, begun consultations immediately to reduce the risk of court challenges, and taken ownership of the process. Instead, he argues, the government has created confusion, complexity, and multiple escape hatches for the anti-independence side. That leaves Albertans facing a difficult question: what path forward will actually lead to a decision on independence?

Does Indigenous Land Title Override Your Property?

Bridge City News: This message cannot be emphasized enough: Canadians do not truly own their land outright. Property, explains law professor Bruce Pardy, is merely a collection of legal rights—and those rights exist only as long as governments and courts choose to uphold them. 

A growing power struggle between Indigenous title claims and private ownership has left Canadians unsure who ultimately controls the land beneath their feet as the country drifts further into constitutional uncertainty. Challenging the philosophical core of Canada’s modern legal framework on Indigenous rights, Prof. Pardy argues that Canada abandoned the principle of equal treatment under the law and opened the door to permanent legal conflict and social division when it assigned different legal rights based on ancestry and identity. The result is a steady dismantling of the centuries-old principle that a person’s home is their private domain, free from outside interference. Not in Canada.

“This independence movement in Alberta is really like a moment in time that doesn’t come up very often in the life of civilizations. Alberta has the potential to… correct the path of Western civilization… If it is missed, it won’t come back again for a long time.” ~ Bruce Pardy

Nat & The Guy: Rather than reforming a captured system—doomed to fail like “Lucy and the football”—law professor Bruce Pardy proposes a radically streamlined constitution for an independent Alberta that flips the default: the state can do nothingexcept keep the peace, resolve disputes through courts, and defend the territory. Everything else—healthcare, education, welfare, regulation—must emerge from voluntary cooperation, markets, and responsible citizens. By structurally disempowering the state to ensure it isn’t worth “capturing,” Prof. Pardy’s vision calls the bluff on “freedom” rhetoric. Confronting hard questions like corporate personhood and the illusion of nanny-state compassion, the goal is to restore genuine political independence rooted in individual responsibility, voluntary community engagement, and the market provision of services as a defense against the state overreach that has derailed the West. The question for Albertans is whether they’re prepared to embrace that liberty, with all its attendant responsibilities, or if the insidious comfort of the managerial state will drain the moment of its revolutionary pulse.

The Decision to Quash Alberta’s Secession Referendum Process

Tea & Coffee with Paula & Jay (The Lavigne Show): Professor Bruce Pardy breaks down the decision by Justice Shaina Leonard to halt — for now — the grassroots push that collected signatures from tens of thousands of Albertans eager to force the question of separation onto the ballot.

This is the second major judicial roadblock under the Citizen Initiative Act. The latest ruling is more revealing — not because of any grand conspiracy, but because it perfectly illustrates how institutions and officials instinctively default to preserving the status quo when Alberta independence is on the table. The decision also exposes deeper problems with the CIA itself.

The bottom line, says Prof. Pardy: The CIA process was never necessary! The Premier and the provincial government already possess the clear legal authority to place an independence question on the ballot at any time, on their own initiative. They have simply chosen not to. Instead, they have directed citizens to jump through the hoops of a flawed statute that the government itself refuses to fix or bypass. That choice has now produced exactly the outcome critics warned about: two successive court defeats, months of delay, and another public demonstration that the system is stacked against even asking the question.

The petition drive has provided the clear evidence that hundreds of thousands of Albertans want the chance to weigh in on independence. The signatures gathered give the government more than enough political cover to act: Albertans deserve their say. Danielle Smith and her cabinet could schedule a clear, constitutionally robust referendum question for a date after October 19 — timing that would better satisfy the Clarity Act’s requirements and the Supreme Court’s guidance on secession referendums. The ball is squarely in the Premier’s court. 

Alberta deserves a bold new beginning as a truly free nation, and Bruce Pardy’s visionary “Articles of Freedom” provides the radical constitutional blueprint to make it happen. 

C2C Journal | Author Interview Series | Articles of Freedom with Bruce Pardy: Instead of inheriting Canada’s failing managerial state—with its unlimited government power, activist courts that twist rights, entrenched special interests, and divisive identity-based privileges—an independent Alberta should start from the opposite premise: the state is powerless except for the narrow, explicit duties granted to it, primarily to prevent force and fraud while keeping the peace. Bruce Pardy elaborates on his vision for a new constitution for an independent Alberta, identifying 13 key provisions that he believes should form the foundation of its architecture. Central to his argument is the principle that freedom means the absence of coercion, whether from individuals or the government. He emphasizes that the state should not use force against its citizens except to enforce laws that protect individuals from coercion by others. This approach would eliminate laws that impose regulations on personal behavior, such as mandatory helmet laws for cyclists, speech restrictions, or endless regulations that micromanage lives. Courts would be disempowered through elected judges with limited terms, preventing judicial tyranny, while every person is treated as an equal individual under blind justice, rejecting race-based Aboriginal rights that contradict genuine liberty and have failed the very people they claim to help.

Nadine Wellwood with guest Bruce Pardy: Property is Rights! Prof. Pardy delves into the intricate nature of property law in Canada, illuminating a fundamental yet often misunderstood concept: property is not merely a tangible object but a set of rights. This distinction is crucial for understanding the legal framework governing ownership. While Canadians may hold a “fee simple” title, which is the most extensive estate in terms of land, it’s important to recognize that this title is not absolute. Prof. Pardy emphasizes that the state retains the power to revoke property rights at will, provided it follows proper legislative procedures. This precarious legal landscape allows for the infringement of property rights through expropriation, regulation, and taxation, all justified under the guise of serving the public good. Prof. Pardy argues that rights, such as property and contract rights, are essential for maintaining individual sovereignty because they allow people to make decisions about their lives and resources. Reframing the discussion around governance, legitimacy, and individual rights, he calls for a critical reevaluation of how society defines and protects personal freedoms in the face of collective pressures.

Topics Covered: Do you really own your property in Canada? • What “fee simple” actually means • The Crown, land, and legal hierarchy • Property rights vs contract rights • Why the “common good” can undermine liberty • Democracy vs individual freedom • State legitimacy and why the system persists • Alberta independence and constitutional reset • Treaties, UNDRIP, and equal application of the law.

WATCH HERE

Tea & Coffee with Paula & Jay, and guest Bruce Pardy: The Ontario Court of Appeal’s dismissal of Dan Hartman’s lawsuit over the death of his son Sean, 33 days after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, highlights a profound irony in public health governance. While the government aggressively projected itself during the pandemic as the ultimate guarantor of public safety—urging, pressuring, and in many cases mandating vaccination as a civic duty and life-saving measure—it can simultaneously assert in court that it owes no specific duty of care to individuals harmed by those very policies. The Appeal court’s ruling rests on the legal doctrine that broad public health decisions are shielded from liability, akin to policy choices like resource allocation, so the state cannot be held accountable even for tragic individual outcomes. To effect meaningful change, says law professor Bruce Pardy, there must be a broader societal and legal discourse that questions the foundational premises of governmental authority in public health decision-making. 

“Your Land,” a conference on “Property Rights, Land Use, and Constitutional Authority in Canada,” April 11. Hosted by Upper Canada Land Titles and Patent Research Initiative.

At the heart of our constitutional rights lies a profound truth: your life and property are fundamentally yours, not the state’s. These rights were designed to empower individuals, granting them the autonomy to determine the use of their property without interference from the collective good. So, what happened? Law professor Bruce Pardy traces the historical journey of rights and governance to where we find ourselves now: overshadowed by a narrative that prioritizes the collective over the personal, undermining the very freedoms that were meant to liberate us from tyranny. A reevaluation is necessary; we must envision a new constitution that truly safeguards individual liberties, ensuring that the power of the state does not eclipse the sanctity of personal ownership and freedom.

WATCH HERE [Bruce Pardy appears at the 3:49:27 mark]

Related Reading: Canada’s Constitutional Mistake: How the Rule of Law Gave Way to the Managerial State

Blendr News: Canada is not merely mismanaged; it has been fundamentally rebuilt into an authoritarian, declining system characterized by “anarcho-tyranny,” argues law professor Bruce Pardy. In an expansive conversation with host Liam DeBoer, Prof. Pardy charts the country’s shift from the impartial rule of law to a selective “rule by law” that prioritizes bureaucratic control, progressive ideology, and group-based equity over individual rights, equality, and freedom. Overrun by cartel-like protected industries, captured institutions, and human rights codes that weaponize discrimination claims, Canada faces irreversible decline. Yet, not enough Canadians see the extent of the rot, preferring instead to accept or even demand expanding state intervention. What took root in Canada to drive this outcome? If a course change isn’t possible without radical reform, where will change come from, and how can Canadians who reject the status quo resist the country’s crisis of dysfunction?

The Supreme Court Will Just Make Stuff up to Subvert the Notwithstanding Clause

NP Full Comment Podcast | Brian Lilley in conversation with Professor Bruce Pardy.

“The dispute over the Notwithstanding Clause reflects two bad choices, be ruled by courts or be ruled by legislatures. In Canada, neither institution tends to protect individual freedoms.” ~ Bruce Pardy

If you think the Supreme Court will hesitate to rewrite the Constitution—just because Ottawa wants it to handcuff Section 33—you haven’t been paying attention. As Bruce Pardy tells Brian Lilley: It doesn’t matter that the notwithstanding clause explicitly lets Parliament override certain rulings, or that it was essential to passing the Charter in the first place. Canadian constitutional “law” has one rule: there are no rules. For decades, activist justices have invented interpretations and “Charter values” to match their left-wing politics. Our Constitution is perfectly designed to let that continue—forever. The Supreme Court will just make stuff up.

LISTEN HERE

Free Speech Is for Losers: A Conversation with Bruce Pardy

The Liberty Exchange: In this episode, Jonathan Fortier talks with Professor Bruce Pardy about the assaults on free speech in Canada, the U.K. and Europe. These moves to censor and control speech, especially online content, are ominous indicators of multiple assaults on free expression and political liberty more generally. Professor Pardy outlines the various developments, the legal implications, and argues that our liberty won’t be reclaimed if we continue to outsource our problem solving to the state.

LISTEN HERE

Aboriginal Title Could Go To Supreme Court — Is Your Home Safe?

Professor Bruce Pardy joins Daniel Foch to unpack the fundamental shift that could destabilize British Columbia’s economy and erode property rights nationwide.

00:00 Land Claims Update 00:48 Courts and Section 35 02:04 Cowichan vs New Brunswick 03:04 UNDRIP and Secret Deals 05:14 Musqueam Agreement Fallout 08:01 Haida Gwaii Title Confusion 11:40 Taxpayer vs Homeowner Costs 14:37 Appeals and Supreme Court Stakes 17:22 Constitutionalizing UNDRIP Titles 19:13 Taxes and Coexisting Titles 22:11 Government Secrecy and Public Trust 26:41 How We Got Here UNDRIP Timeline 28:29 What Homeowners Can Do 33:39 Jurisdiction Duty to Consult Veto 35:52 No Compensation and Wrap Up

Can A Separate & Independent Alberta Build a Free Society? 

A powerful discussion on true freedom for an independent Alberta, centered on the vision for a radically limited government.

Professor Bruce Pardy argues current systems (in Canada and even the U.S.) start with an all-powerful state and carve out weak exceptions (like “rights” that courts dilute). His proposal flips this completely: the state has no powers except a few strictly defined ones.

KEY LIGHTS FOR FREEDOM
• Freedom = No Coercion (the bedrock rule)
• Flip the Default on State Power (“the state can do nothing except...”)
• Strip Away the Managerial State
• Self-Defense and Armed Citizens
• Escape Canada and PURGE Canada from Alberta
• The Constitution as the “Dictator” (assume bad actors in power; the constitution must work in spite of them)

Host Nadine Wellwood in conversation with Professor Bruce Pardy and Dr. A.W. Barber.

Could Alberta Really Separate From Canada?

Danielle Smith’s omnibus referendum is designed to make sure “the independence vote is lost.” And even “if by some miracle” it’s not, it’s “being done in a form that is going to obscure the clarity of the question.”

Law professor Bruce Pardy joins Bridge City News to unpack Danielle Smith’s referendum planned for October 19. The format, he says, will split Albertans not the country ...

Key Takeaways

» The Fix Is In – Smith’s multi-question ballot is designed to confuse voters and give Ottawa an easy out.
» False Promises – Constitutional “fixes” (Senate abolition, etc.) went nowhere before (e.g., equalization referendum ignored); they’re a distraction.
» Clarity Matters – Supreme Court & Clarity Act demand a clear question and majority; bundling kills that.
» Alberta has the power for a straight independence vote – no hoops, no dilution!

Streamed on Saturday, February 28. Hosted by Jason Lavigne and Melanie Bennet. Panelists: Professor Bruce Pardy, Leighton Grey, Mia Hughes, and Shawn Buckley. Video available below.

A heated panel discussion on the escalating conflict between parental rights and state intervention in children’s lives, especially concerning gender transition, medical decisions like puberty blockers, and school policies.

The conversation explores recent developments, including the ruling by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal against former trustee Barry Neufeld (fining him heavily for statements opposing gender ideology in schools), as well as Canada’s Bill C-4 for allegedly criminalizing non-affirming counseling while promoting medical transition, along with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s use of the notwithstanding clause to restrict puberty blockers for minors. Panelists debate when the state should step in to safeguard children from potentially irreversible treatments or parental errors, versus when it oversteps by imposing gender-affirming ideologies, restricting free speech, and/or eroding human rights frameworks. Should politicized human rights tribunals and codes be reformed or abolished to end state-funded gender medicine for youth? Given the cyclical nature of change, will younger generations drive a return to more traditional values, or will the current downward trajectory continue, intensifying dependency on government management of societal issues?

WATCH HERE

Tea & Coffee with Jay and Paula: Law professor Bruce Pardy joins the conversation to discuss Premier Danielle Smith's planned province-wide referendum on immigration and constitutional reforms, including potentially the big one: should Alberta separate from Canada? Emphasizing the Clarity Act and its core principle—voters must know exactly what they're being asked—Prof. Pardy fears adding Alberta independence to a list of questions "muddies the waters." He warns federalists will pounce on any possibility for ambiguity. Alberta doesn't have to play this game. If they want to keep things straightforward, they could hold a separate referendum just on independence and cut through the uncertainty. Smith chose not to and that has "implications, I'm afraid," says Bruce. 

WATCH HERE [Begins 31:14]

From Steal to Secession AM with Professor Wall.Law professor Bruce Pardy and Calgary-based lawyer Katherine Kowalchuk explore the steps to and beyond a referendum vote for Albertan independence. Charged with a sense of urgency, they emphasize the importance of conversations now with family, friends and co-workers about the questions that will shape the future. The discussion looks at concerns within the community, such as who is speaking for whom, whether a Danielle Smith administration will carry a mandate for freedom forward, the imperative to break away from the Canada inside Alberta, and how to begin again with a brand-new design for governance.

Prof. Pardy urges Albertans to “when you’re making your way through this moment, don’t be Canadian about it. Don’t think like Canadians. You are different ... Break out! Do it your own way.”

WATCH HERE

In Lay Terms with host Peyman Askari: In this episode, Professor Bruce Pardy walks through several sections of hisgroundbreaking proposal for a new constitution for Alberta, which includes eliminating state-sanctioned professions and embracing a free-market approach to credentialing. Grounded in a deep understanding of constitutional principles, the professor’s road map also tackles the pervasive influence of corporations, which are often seen as extensions of state power. In the new society of Alberta, individuals engage directly in contracts without the need for corporate entities, liberating citizens from the constraints of intellectual property laws that stifle innovation. This bold vision extends to citizenship rules, advocating for a system that prioritizes the rights of Alberta’s citizens and their families, while limiting government overreach in immigration and population policies, including reproduction. Tune in to continue the journey of imagining what true empowerment looks like for citizens unshackled by state control.

Entrepreneur and former political candidate, Nadine Wellwood, in conversation with law professor Bruce Pardy.

According to the 1998 Supreme Court “Secession Reference,” there are no predetermined legal conclusions regarding Alberta’s potential independence, meaning all issues are open for negotiation. Independence presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a new governance structure that corrects past wrongs, including the choice to continue existing Aboriginal rights or create a new framework. But a limitation imposed by the Alberta government, which has amended the Alberta Referendum Act to state that no referendum result can alter Aboriginal rights as guaranteed under Section 35 of the constitution, raises concerns about the government’s preemptive stance on these rights before the referendum occurs. In an independent Alberta, who will lead these negotiations? The current leadership could influence the outcomes significantly. If Alberta does not recognize its ability to make independent choices, the effort to separate from Canada may be futile, argues Prof. Pardy.

Divided into two parts, the discussion delves into the meaning of true freedom, which Prof. Pardy argues is characterized as protection from coercion or force by others, including the government. What would rights look like in such a society — where power derives from the people — and how would the legal system apply to minimize complexity, prohibit force yet allow maximum individual choice? View the second part of this conversation here.

Related Reading:An Independent Alberta Must Have a Constitution, In an Independent Alberta, Aboriginal Rights Should Not Exist, Virtue-Signalling Devotion to Reconciliation Will Not End Well, Confronting State Power.

Canada Broke the Law! Now What?

Leaders on the Frontier, hosted by David Leis, with guests Professor Bruce Pardy, Josh Dehaas of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and Ray McGinnis (author of Unjustified). The panel examines the implications of the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold a two-year ruling that found the Trudeau government unreasonably invoked the Emergencies Act to clear the 2022 Freedom Convoy. While this is a positive outcome for freedoms and individual rights in Canada, the court’s decision does not ensure accountability for the government’s actions; political motivations could lead to similar abuses of power. The Emergencies Act was designed to address the misuse of the War Measures Act by imposing specific legislative limitations. Yet, as Prof. Pardy warns, these limitations are not constitutionally binding, meaning a future parliament could amend the act to remove them. If the Federal Court of Appeal delivered a serious decision without serious consequences, where does Canada go from here? For starters, David Leis suggests that hundreds of thousands of Canadians asking their financial institutions, “Would you debank me if the government asked you to?” could shift complacency and give the managerial state a jolt. For a deeper dive into how fast we’re sinking on that score, see Canada is an Imaginary Country (Alberta’s New Constitution), Exiting Canada's Tyranny and Redefining Freedom, and Dear Americans, Canada Is Run by Powerful Cartels.

WATCH HERE

Giving Away B.C.

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.

WATCH HERE