Part Three - Separation, Buck Creek Town Hall

Question and answers portion

Here is where the question and answer portion of the town hall starts. 51:54 Q&A

https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1LyxBXopPYrGN?s=09

So we read/heard the points of separating from Nadine Wellwood and Bruce Pardy. Here’s where they answer audience questions on how it might look and why separation would be good for Alberta, Canada and the Western Hemisphere (Spoiler Alert - It includes the benefits of the Monroe Document.)

Preamble:

51:54 Jason Lavigne: Flipping the default from all powerful government to not powerful government. (Here Bruce touches his head by his eyes and scratches: see below for what it might mean. When we scratch our head using one or more fingers anywhere on the top, back or the side of our head, it signals the emotional state of confusion. Watch any student trying to solve a difficult problem and you’re likely to observe this gesture.)

You don’t have to assign rights, you have them already. They need the right to govern you.

Questions:

Danielle Smith’s response to separation

Question: Can you elaborate from speech last night: Your talk about Danielle Smith that was quite interesting last night.

53:51 Nadine: One of the challenges we face is we have to purge Canada out of Alberta. That’s not going to be easy to do because currently we have a government that doesn’t necessarily support Alberta independence. She thinks Alberta should be sovereign within a united Canada. I attended a premier’s dinner in August. She was asked point blank in a room of 200 people. I was sitting close to her. She was asked, “If Alberta achieves a yes on a referendum, would you get behind that, would you support that?”

Her response was, my job is to make sure you don’t get there. Now read into that, because it wasn’t well if Albertans want to proceed down the path of greater independence, you know we will come back we can reconsider see how the independence movement… there was none of that.

Her job was to make sure it doesn’t get there. So we’ve got some big challenges ahead of us as to who is going to negotiate on our behalf when we achieve, because we will achieve that “Yes” vote on the referendum.

Who’s going to be the one that is going to go to Ottawa to achieve that?

And Bruce I am going to let you elaborate because you do a really good job about the risks after the “yes on the referendum.” (some paraphrasing)

Legislative Angle to Separation: Bill 14

55:29 Bruce: Forgive me for getting into the weeds for a few minutes. There’s a legislative angle to this I think you need to know about. You may be aware of the original APP question when they proposed it was referred to the court and it was referred to the court because of a section in the initiative. That section says essentially you cannot propose an referendum initiative that is contravening sections 1 - 35.1 of the constitution. You might think it means… garbled. But that’s not what it means, what it meant was that section means you are not allowed to propose a referendum on separation. Why? Because a referendum on separation will result in a repudiation of the constitution. Garbled Now the good news is the Alberta government brought forward a bill, Bill 14 to repeal that section. That was great because that removes that problem. The very same piece legislation of last the last section, the last section adds a section to the referendum act. It used to say, you can hold a referendum and the government of the day, that referendum will be binding to carry out the mandate. This new section says except if the referendum will result in contravention of sections 1 - 35 of the current constitution. What that means is that the referendum on independence in fact and in law, now is not binding on the government. The government can decide if it wants to carry out the mandate if in the event of a yes vote.

So here’s the scenario that might occur. It’s just a might, nobody knows exactly. But what might occur is especially in the case of a close yes, the government of the day might decide that it takes the mandate from the referendum and goes to negotiate with Ottawa, makes some kind of a deal, like gets policy concessions of some kind, comes back and says “Good News folks, garbled here… We took your mandate from the referendum, and we used it to, garbled here …. And that’s the end of the story. Garbled again…

So we owe you for the pipeline that won’t be built. Once you have negotiated using the mandate from the referendum, garbled… the mandate is done. But you can’t just keep going back. If your government representatives come back and say, “Good news folks, we finished those negotiations, we have a deal.” Then you’re not going to be able to say we don’t like the deal, go back and do it again, because the mandate MAY be over. (Notice he says “may” here, but the rest of it is warning the audience that once it is negotitiated it is done.)

So there’s going to be some very important moments after the referendum when it’s going to be an inside Alberta battle over who it is and what they intend to do using the good result on the referendum.

59:40 Jason: And to back Bruce on that, I had Bruce Pardy and the Honourable Mickey Amery on my show. Amery wrote Bill 14, and Bruce asked this exact question, and Mickey Amery confirmed that Bruce’s interpretation is correct. We did highlight at that episode that Amery himself doesn’t consider it an independence referendum contravening. He doesn’t because there’s a procedure through the Supreme Court and the Clarity Act. However, the decision stays with Premier Danielle Smith. I had her on a couple of weeks after that, and in two different ways I asked her that exact same question; her response was, get the signatures, we’ll talk after that. So tune into the Lavigne show May 3rd when she will return, and she will have to answer that question.

Referendum:

100:26 Bruce: And that’s one reason why it’s so important to get a good result on the referendum. Right? Because if you get 50 +1 then that’s technically a win but then there’s a split right? But if for example you got 60, then your government wouldn’t dare because they think if we go against that, then we will lose the next election. So this all very much a political set of considerations.

1:00:59 Question: Good discussion, thanks. So, one of the questions that I do have, it’s not going to be a light switch if it’s a yes. It’s not going to be Oh look at us, we are free to go, we’re going to become our own state. It’s not going to be a light switch, it’s going to be a dimmer switch. So my question to you is, what does our governance look like? What is in our constitution? We’re going to have laws.There has to be that, whether it’s for speeding and of course we have some silly ones, but for speeding, for assaults or whatever, like you mentioned. So there has to be that type of law. What is your or the group’s projection on what our constitution will entail and coming down from the constitution how will we be governed? Like I am pretty sure Wetaskiwin is going to stay a county. Will we have those sort of things? And that’s what my question is, explain to us our constitution and what will happen. How the constitution is going to provide governance and how the people will have control over the governments.

What is it going to look like?

1:02:13 Bruce: Right, this is an excellent question and many people are asking this kind of a question which is, “What’s it going to look like?” It’s a fair question, but the honest answer is nobody knows exactly, because that answer is going to be formulated by people in Alberta and they’re not going to all agree.

• One question is going to be; Who are those people going to be?

• How do we pick who the people are going to be to be able to do that task? That in itself is a good question. The answers partly going to be in large part, who is in political power at the time that this happens. They are going to have the first shot at identifying the people who have the power to formulate what will become your new constitution.

Now here’s what I hope happens. I hope you will, you will get to participate in some kind of Constitutional Convention and these questions will be put on the table in a transparent way. I’ve written a constitution that I think, that I would like to see Alberta adopt:

• https://www.rightsprobe.org/read/articles-of-freedom-what-the-constitution-of-an-independent-alberta-should-look-like

It’s just an idea. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be adopted. There are a whole lot of other people who want a different thing. That’s part of the reason why I am suggesting to you that it’s not a good idea to adopt what you already have or a variation of the existing one.

But a lot of people from Alberta want to do that. THEY DO WANT TO DO THAT. They want to give you an Alberta that is mostly unchanged.

Why is that, well, partly political. They want to win the referendum, I understand that. But in order (they think) to persuade people on the fence in the middle they’re trying to assure those people, Don’t worry, nothing really will change. And as I said earlier if that’s the result why bother. What are you trying to do? So you’ll hear this kind of a message.

Don’t worry,

• You’ll still have your Canadian passport.

• You’ll still have your CPP.

• We’ll still have our single payer public healthcare system.

• Public Education system will still be the same and so on and so on and so forth.

• The treaties will be honoured.

All of those things need to change. All of them need to change.

Now, how you get to the change, how you get to the change, is a very political process. And therefore, it’s a process that nobody can actually determine ahead of time what’s going to happen. I sometimes compare it to this, imagine before 1776. The residents of the one of the 13 colonies said to the Revolutionaries. Well, I might support the revolution. I am no real fan of the King, but I need to know first what kind of a country is America going to be? You know what’s going to happen in the future. Of course, nobody knew. Nobody knew.

What you are doing is making a leap. You know the situation you are in now will not do. And you are looking for something else. And you are going to have to work out what that is altogether. And there are going to be disagreements. But what you are engaged in here is nothing less than a political revolution. I don’t mean a revolution in a violence sense, I mean a political revolution. And the outcome is uncertain. But the thing that you do know is this gives you the potential to create a society that works in a way, that is way better than what you have right now.

Let me go one step further. It is possible that Alberta could save Western Civilization itself. Right?

Because you know what kind of a state all the western countries are in. The thing is unravelling. And here in Alberta if you have the majority of the people who have determined to be free in the genuine sense you can put together a constitution, a governing that shows the rest of the Western World the way it is suppose to be done. You can be the new America. When I say you can be the new America I don’t mean that you will join America, I mean you can be the NEW AMERICA. You can be the country that says we need to do this differently. And then create a new way of doing it.

Why it’s important to include as many Albertans in the conversation as the separatists can.

1:07:20 Nadine: If I can just add one thing to that. Well, two things, one is we have to include as many Albertans into this conversation as we can. Everybody in this room is pretty much in agreement. But there’s a lot of people you know slightly left of center who are not sure. So we have to find a way to open the dialogue with them. Um and one of the ways that I found best to do that was, because nobody wants to be preached at, right? Nobody wants to be I am going to tell you what to do. That’s why we’re here. Cause nobody wants to be told what to do.

Starting the Conversation.

So how do you start conversation with those people. How do you start the dialogue and Jason has been kind enough to go around. I wrote a book called “Alberta Rising.” It’s available on Amazon and sadly we don’t have any books because Paula did such an amazing job of selling them out last night. Um but I do have a book and the purpose of the book was written because it talks about many of the ideas that Bruce and I have talked about. Licensing and registration, taxation, public health, education, there are places and it gives examples around the world that are doing it so much better. But its really about getting people to think. So here’s how I use the book. I give it to somebody and I say take it, garbled… I am going to come back for coffee in one week. Tell me what you disagree with. Now you’ve given them some information and the ability to prepare in advance for your conversation (reminds of JW or Mormon visits). Often times they don’t know where to start. Like if I gave you a blank sheet of paper and said, hey tell me what the new Alberta is going to look like. (Here’s where we try to sell our book, multiple copies so we can leave it with people and then go back to collect it and have coffee.)

Most of us would be like, Ohhhh I have no idea. Right? But sometimes having that little outline where to start helps. And then it gives them the ability to …garbled.

The next one is - this is the warning because be careful, Alberta, to include the voices that disagree with us. Because even inside this movement we have some pretty loud voices as to how the new Alberta should look.

Treaties

1:09:38 Treaties is a big one. There’s a camp that says we should have treaties, there’s a camp that says we shouldn’t have treaties. But if you agree with one rule of law that applies to every citizen equally we cannot have treaties. And it was actually Leighton Grey, LLP https://gwsllp.ca/leighton-grey/, who does an amazing job and because he starts his speeches with I am Indian # …… and he speaks to it. He goes if you truly do not like the indigenous population keep things the way they are. We are not doing them a service. The Indian Act does not give them freedom, it has enslaved them. And we have an entire aboriginal industry now that props up this again special interest. Right? And the government has the power so you have these interest groups that lobby so that they can feed from the trough.

1:10:33 Bruce: And that industry serves two constituencies, Aboriginal Elites and the bureaucracies, and officials, lawyers, and so on that support them. It does not support or serve the interests of the rank-and-file indigenous people. It is just the elites and the bureaucracies. Those are the two powers that insist that the system carry on.

What Alberta separatists want.

Question: More of a statement than a question. Talking about constitutional things, and 250 years after the Declaration of Independence and America was founded, here we are sounding our own. Two of the things I want to see in our constitution, one, I am keeping my bible, two, I am keeping my AR-15, and three, I am keeping my paycheck. Lots of clapping and cheering.

1:11:35 Nadine: I don’t think you’re getting any disagreement from anybody in here.

Clarity Act.

Question: Hi, this is a question for Bruce, and it’s regarding the application of the Clarity Act. After, and if there is a yes vote, I have three questions. First of all, what/who determines and what determines what is a sufficient mandate? Is it 60%, 70%, 80%? Secondly, can the federal government use the debate over the interpretation of the Clarity Act as a stalling tactic? And third, in the event that there’s a difference in how the Provincial Government interprets the Clarity Act and the Federal Government interprets the Clarity Act, who has ultimate authority and jurisdiction, and is there any legal literature already established, and if not, what would be your legal opinion on what would happen?

1:12:43 Bruce: Alright, great question, so this all begins with a Supreme Court of Canada judgement, made in 1998, about Quebec. And that judgment says that a province can indeed separate from Canada if it holds a referendum and the majority of people support it. That gives the province the mandate to negotiate; it doesn’t give them the unilateral right to leave. But ..garbled … the federal … and the rest … unilateral right to stop them. What that triggers is the mandate to negotiate the terms of leaving. The Supreme Court emphasizes this; those negotiations are political in nature, not primarily legal. In other words, don’t come running back to us if they’re not going the way you want, because the court is not going to get involved. The Clarity Act is the Federal Government’s expression of what it believes the Supreme Court of Canada decision means. It has set out its own criteria for the question and the process so as to sign the Federal Government onto the process in a “inadvertent” ?? way.

So it would be beneficial to satisfy the requirements of the Clarity Act; on the other hand, the Clarity Act is Federal. It is the Federal Government’s essential legislated opinion about what the thresholds and requirements are. All of this lays out a path, and the courts have said over and over again, yes, there is a path. This can be done. However, at the same time, it might be establishing expectations that are unrealistic. Here’s what it looks like, it looks like. Step 1, step 2, step 3, you negotiate, and you’re gone. You shake the people’s hands, and you leave. It’s probably not going to happen that way, because there are so many vested interests in Canada that will be threatened by Alberta’s departure. In fact, you might go so far as to say that Confederation the way it is right now, might not be viable without Alberta. And so the people who oppose this, you should expect them to pull out all the stops and try to defeat it by hook or by crook. And the thresholds and the requirements that have been set remember were set for Quebec and there is no guarantee that along the way on this adventure that you might not get the powers that be try to change the goal posts on you. Like, oh well, that was the case in 1998, but now we require you to do x. I don’t know that, but I wouldn’t be surprised either. So don’t lose sight of the fact that what you are embarking on is a political revolution and you’re going to get a lot of pushback. And you must be prepared for the powers that oppose you to try and undermine the legitimacy of what it is you’re trying to do. So there are steps to take, and the court will not have a primary supervisory role over it. It’s going to be a political process. And after that, who knows what’s going to happen?

Where will the pushback to separation come from?

1:16:42 Nadine: And so, the only thing I am going to add to that is if you think the pushback is only going to come from Ottawa or from Canada, think again. The British Imperial System we’re founded upon is going to push back. The EU will push back. China will push back. Garbled… A number of different events and obstacles that will be put in our path. And this is where I keep telling people, be courageous because courage is contagious. Then not only that confidence builds more confidence. (I feel like I’m at an Amway meeting) So be prepared, expect the bad news, expect the setbacks, but do not let that discourage you because we know they’re going to do these things.

Danielle Smith, when we talked about the Alberta Pension Plan, what did she do? She put a bill in the path of achieving that goal that says we now have to have a referendum. Why if you are trying to accomplish a goal, would you put an obstacle in your own path? So we are going to have our own government put obstacles in our path. Do not get discouraged. Expect it go, Awww, here we go, we knew this was coming, and let’s keep moving forward.

Constitutional Amendment Formula.

1:18:23 Jason: So Bruce, some people suggest that a Constitutional Amendment Formula, the 7/50 rule, will apply and can block Alberta’s departure. Can you expand on that?

Bruce: Sure, so this is an amendment, a special amendment to the constitution for Albertans to leave which is not contemplated in the written constitution Our written constitution does not say, oh by the way if a province wants to leave here are the things it has to do. So this is a.. Change to the constitution that happens outside the written text. And that’s why the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision from 1998 is so important because it basically lays out the legitimacy and possibility of doing just that. So the 7/50 won’t directly apply in the sense that once you have the mandate to negotiate those negotiations will take place. Maybe you’ll reach a deal or maybe you won’t. But it is the content of that negotiation that will determine what happens next and not the normal 7/50 process itself.

1:19:28 Nadine: Fun question for everybody. How many people in here think that Quebec is terrified that we get there first. .

1:19:41 Jason: I assure you if we leave, they will leave too because the bank account is going to get very dry.

You could save Western civilization, and you should do that.

1:19:44 Bruce: And let’s go further, let’s go further, here’s the thing folks. If you succeed in this, what do I mean you could save yourselves, and you should do that. You could save Western civilization, and you should do that. You might also end up saving the country. Not because you have a responsibility to do that, but because you’ll do that inadvertently, right? So one thing that might happen is that Alberta’s leaving will start a cascade. A chain reaction, right? So once you’re on the way out, Saskatchewan might say well don’t leave without us, we want to come to. And Quebec has got it’s own thing going. Suddenly, you literally have a country that is all split up and not viable. And we either end up as a whole bunch of little countries that are on our own, which is fine. Or you might get a moment finally, inside this country where they actually have to look at themselves in a mirror and confront the fundamental flaws in the way the country is built. Right now, you are a distant province of the Laurentian Empire. Right? That’s the thing that has to change, and if it doesn’t change in Canada as a whole, then the country will go down, but it is the thing that you can trigger. You can trigger the saving of this country.

We’ve got a lot of lessons we can learn from. What Quebec did and we really need to be finding out what they did not do right and what they didn’t do wrong.

1:21:10 Question: There’s a part two to my question. Part two being we’ll go back two years to the Meech Lake accord, we’ll go back about three - four years before that. We’ve got a lot of lessons we can learn from. What Quebec did and we really need to be finding out what they did not do right and what they didn’t do wrong. What they didn’t do right. WE should be looking at that same aspect. There are a lot of people in this room that are younger than me. And just to let you know what happened there. When Quebec decided it was going to separate it went through the referendum process, and elections went through. There was a Parti Québécois that opened up its doors and all of a sudden Quebec was on its way out we’re all leaving and then the Meech Lake Accord happened. We don’t want you to go, but here’s what we want to do. Which was unfortunate for Canada. I’ll be honest. So my question here is are we going to learn from what they’re doing and use that as a, I don’t want to use Tort Law but what they’ve done. Say hey you did it here as well in Canada, regardless of what was passed by exemptor.

1:22:21 Bruce: Can I ask you a question in return? Technically, politically, what mistakes do you think Quebec may have made that we could learn from? How would you do it differently?

1:22:32 Questionner: Their approach back to negotiations that you look at it now, Alberta gives Quebec $18 billion/year, (yeah) and that’s a lot of money. That’s you know a lot of money.

1:22:43 Bruce: Yeah

Question: So what we would do there, or what I think they did wrong was they should have said, we’re going, we’re leaving. We have resources, Good bye.

Bruce: Oh yes.

Question: Now don’t get me wrong, Quebec is just kind of robbing from Alberta but they also robbed from Newfoundland.

Why did Quebec get so close to approving the referendum, but just lost it a little bit. How do we make sure that’s not the result here?

Bruce: Well so, I think we’re asking two different questions here. Right? So I think it makes sense to say alright, why did Quebec get so close to approving the referendum, but just lost it a little bit. How do we make sure that’s not the result here? The other question I think is not that, Quebec lost narrowly its referendum, it did very well, you’re kind of describing the equalization payments it gets. It would be a mistake for Alberta to expect the same treatment if you narrowly lose the referendum. Right? Quebec, Quebec is the favourite child of Confederation. Everybody wants it to stay. But if you try to leave and you fail, now you’re in Ottawa’s bad books for sure if you’re not already. A close result that is also a loss. It’s not a statement, at least it’s not a statement other than this: the powers that be in Ottawa any kind of a loss will be interpreted and framed as “Look everything is fine.” We’ll carry on the way we are because they voted no. Okay? You have to win, there is no good “no” vote. (I missed the second question, I think)

With Alberta the majority of our trade goes south. Not east/west. So we are Alberta, Saskatchewan somewhat more closely aligned with our southern neighbour.

1:24:43 Question: Um I am going to try and think of my question here. So the, I agree like it takes courage to just do the thing. Um and jumping from a burning building takes courage, but it’s also necessary for survival. But it would also be good to kind of have a plan to survive the fall as well. So I guess my question would be kind of a two part. So it’s to do with the United States. So we know the buildings on fire. Many people recognize that and it’s hard to see whose got the plan. Like I get the idea that we have to do this first and then have the constitution and all that. And that may have been a tactic maybe five or ten years ago. That we would have that time. But right specifically now we are dealing with the superpower next door who is in an expansion mode. And it’s pretty obvious that Imperialism is on the rise and that superpower cannot have unrest on its border. And so likely any threat, if it was a yes, even if it was not a yes that clear message of what a plan is to be sovereign, to be independent to have a plan just on a basic level. Just to say the plan big giant downstairs, the plan is to be a trade partner.

This is how that’s going to work. The plan is to have a free democratic society and a constitution that looks like this. That’s the plan. And then you’d get some feedback probably from the United States to say like “Yes or No.” Like we can sugar coat it all we want just to say like the fact is they’re going to make a move and decide how that kind of goes. So my question would be What is the messaging from us, or from who’s running this thing to show that messaging or to send that messaging down to the United States so they give us a second here to sort this thing out? Um, what is their messaging back? Like it’s hard to see that right now in the garbled… so there’s a way we can put forth a constitution before this all happens if we all kind of agree.

1:27:45 Nadine - I’ll start. I’m going to reframe that a little bit. Because with Alberta the majority of our trade goes south. Not east/west. So we are Alberta, Saskatchewan somewhat more closely aligned with our southern neighbour. Now here’s what I think garbled…. Was reorganizing we’re going back to the old days of the Monroe doctrine to the protection of the Western hemisphere. Because the United States is acknowledging that we are going to have different super powers now (So the super powers before were the US, Russia and China, that’s changed?). And we’re going to have to compete. And I have a question for everybody in here and every Canadian do you honestly believe that the United States is going to allow their largest border, which has generally been undefended because we’ve had such good relations with our neighbours to the south. Do you believe they’re going to allow you to allow China to come sell garbled… This is what’s going on with Greenland right? (So China is taking over Greenland?) So we have a decision to make as Canadians, who do our values align with? And this is why I say stop driving the car, looking in the rear view mirror. We have to look forward not to our futures. I know what the average median age in here is. We have to look at this from our children will they have freedom? Will they have prosperity?

When I as a Chartered Investment Manager look at where the markets are going, because everything runs cycles. Yes? Anybody own any silver? Right? It’s running a really nice cycle right now. Its taken a really long time to get there. But, it’s also manipulated for a very long time.

But here’s the thing, which direction is Canada moving in? Everything is about patterns. I look at patterns. Canada is it moving in the right direction? Is it moving towards more freedom? Greater prosperity? No, it’s not. The United States on the other hand and I’ll explain a little bit about what Trump is doing. They’re moving to a soveriegn nation where they take back the control from Globalists and they’re going to make the decisions for their citizens. Do we want to align with that? I would hope so.

(So locking up citizens in concentration camps is making them sovereign? Shipping them to prisons in other countries, stealing their paperwork, IDs and money. Threatening to take over Greenland. Invading Venezuela. Blowing up boats in the Carribean with no evidence or trials. Embargoing Cuba. Threatening to take over Canada. Threatening world wide tariffs. Starting a war in Iran? Taking over the Kennedy Center, closing it down for renovations, destroying the East Wing of the Whitehouse. Stealing the FIFA trophy and taking it back to the Whitehouse. Destroying the Rose Garden.)

Alberta may be the place where this conflict actually becomes concrete.

1:30:34 Bruce - This is why this is going to be a huge fight. It might end up being that Alberta may be the place where this conflict actually becomes concrete. Like, here’s a province that wants to go that way. And the rest of the country wants to go that way. And all the people, and all the countries and all the forces that are infiltrating Canada insisting that we go that way are seeing Alberta, aren’t you suppose to go that way? And it’s not just Ottawa who will be determined to be defeated and it’s not just the managers inside Alberta, they will also not want this to happen. But it will be the China’s of the world.

We can not let this happen. On the other hand as your describing the Americans will be all over this. Like yes this is the way to discourage all garbled… We don’t want to happen, so let’s work with this. Right? But to the garbled… define what’s going to happen ahead of time. Let’s observe another experience, in Quebec there was a political party, a political leader, a political campaign that was the tip of the spear in the endeavour to become independent. You had champions of the idea in office. That is not the case here. Normally you would say that this kind of framing, the formulation, the description of what’s going to happen would be done by the people in power. By your Premier, by your cabinet, by your government. This is what’s going to happen, this is our plan after we go. But they don’t want to do that. They don’t want to own this until they can see the numbers. Right? They want to see where the parade is actually going to go before they get to the front. And that means there is nobody in charge. There is nobody in charge with the authority or the place to say “This is the plan.”

As soon as the petition is received you know the signatures are satisfied, it’s been received by the government at that stage the Government of Alberta has control over the process. They even have control over the question. They can change the question. They can decide when the referendum’s going to be held. And then because of the amendment that I mentioned then they can decide whether or not to carry through with it or not.

So you have an internal political challenge in Alberta, in terms of determining all the questions that were asked.

The Delegation that went to Washington.

1:33:40 Jason - To directly answer your question if there’s been a delegation or anything. I am going to have to bring it up because there’s been several delegations garbled… in response the state department it will recognize the results so go ahead and do that and they gave the same promise to Quebec.

1:34:23 Bruce - Can I just add though so that’s very good news to the extent that it is true, that’s very good news. But in order for the United States to recognize Alberta as an independent nation, you have to have Alberta declare itself as an independent nation and if the powers that be don’t want to do that, then there’s nothing for the US to recognize. Right? So you are still in the same kind of problem. (This is about Sylvestre, Modry and Rath going to the States to talk about money and support. I wonder where they are getting their money now to run these events.)

1:34:30 Jason - Correct and the caveat to that is they are not official, they are not authoritative, they just started a citizen conversation.

It will be lovely to see Donald Trump’s Tweet.

1:34:37 Nadine - It will be lovely to see Donald Trump’s Tweet though the day after going, “Congratulations Alberta on achieving Alberta independence. We look forward to working with you.” (lots of clapping and whistles here) Just a tad bit of pressure.

What’s going on with China, East India and their recent allocation action? And Immigration.

135:17 Jason relaying a question to the front. - Alright so the question from the online audience is What’s going on with China, East India and their recent allocation action?

1:35:33 Nadine - So immigration is an interesting thing because Alberta’s not really Alberta. Albertan anymore. Right? We are pretty much the minority. We’ve had people come in from all over the world with different cultures, different backgrounds. Um I don’t mind that people want to come here from all over the world and be a part of our productive society. But it was actually Milton Friedman who talked about immigration and the threat that immigration created economically. And economically what he said was, immigration at one time especially when America was built because we’re all immigrants, we’re all here from somewhere else. Right? But we came here and we put down roots and we went to work. And there was no legalized plunder because there was no government with any power here to be able to give to you or to give to you.

There was no social welfare net to catch you. You came here, you went to work you made it on your own. Right? And Albertans like it that way. Now east is a little bit different. But now what’s happening, this is why politics and this is why we have such a short window, I believe to get it right. Because…. Garbled… to your point. And people are moving here and many of them are not coming here with jobs and then they’re bringing mom and dad and uncle and auntie from all around the world. And they are dependent upon welfare state. Government is taking from those who are productive and giving to those who are not. Now what’s really interesting and I can give you a stat because this is one worth talking about.

Canada today, about 25% of all Canadian labour is directly employed by government. Directly. Okay. (this includes doctors, nurses, teachers, as well as government employees) Another 25% is NGOs and people who are garbled, but are all supported by the entrepreneur and the men and women who are contributing.

Teachers, Doctors any public employees are not productive citizens. They do not add to the economy.

Now one of the things that I come up against all the time is you get the teachers, the doctors who feel like you’re attacking their value that they add to society. Professors to. Right? But here’s the reality, it’s not a matter of value. They are not productive citizens. Productive means that you are adding to the pot. Every teacher takes out of the pot. And then they look at you and go, but I pay taxes to. But you pay taxes with the dollar I gave you. It is not adding anything to our economy. So this is the problem with government continually growing and growing and growing. And why the productive part of society struggles. Because we have this happening everywhere in the world. We’ve created these welfare systems.

China

With respect to some of that, in China, China has taken over many resources around the world using debt and loans and then when you can’t pay it, they just now own the resources. Carney is over there making deals. What is an investment? An investment means I am going to give you this much money and we want a return on our money right? What Carney is doing, I call extraction. He is selling Canadian resources directly out from underneath Canadians.Garbled. He’s not creating jobs, not creating long term wealth or stability or growth here. They’re doing it in China. So these are the things when we start talking about economics things and policies. You know, again, we have to be really careful about who we align with.

(So apparently by going around the province talking about separation is adding value to our society. Writing and selling a book on separation is adding value to our society. Is it just me, because I am not getting that Drs., Nurses, Healthcare workers, Teachers are adding value to our society and to our lives.)

What is the root problem?

1:40:01 Bruce - And I want to ask this question. What is the root problem? Besides bad government. What’s the root problem? In the Western Hemisphere we do not have a replacement birth rate which is one of the reasons, one of the rationales for having such high levels of immigration. Now for a good while Canada’s immigration system worked pretty well. It was the envy of the world because it selected very highly qualified, entrepreneurial people into the country. That changed during the reign of Trudeau Jr. and now we have all kinds of people who are not in that situation who create the welfare problem you are alluding to. But it is possible to have a good immigration system, but the real problem is that the birthrate problem is a problem that we have created for ourselves. We shouldn’t need to import people from other parts of the world. Garbled. One of the first things to do in this situation is to remove the legal reasons why the birthrate is low. Because there are some. And I won’t go into it, and there are different theories about it. But it is in part a result of government policies again. The government interfering in things that in part mean that people don’t have kids. At least not as many as they would and not as soon as they would. (Canada gives families a year on EI collectively working Canadians pay into this fund, they pay for hospitals for women to have babies, That’s why we have social safety nets.)

Who picks the winners and losers in industry and commerce?

1:41:50 Question: I think we have to somewhat look backwards so we don’t repeat, and I feel that … Well let me ask a question. I am thinking 1930’s Italy, Germany in that light but with the power in the PMO and the picking of winners and losers in industry and in commerce.

1:42:28 Bruce - Yes, absolutely so garbled … real estate. We’re talking about garbled…. Process for a long time. Some say, some say early… depending on … You have constitutions that claimed to be built on the idea of checks and balances, you know, we’re protected by checks and balances. The Legislature supervises the Executive and reviewed by the courts. As long as you have separation of powers the legislature …garbled then you’re safe garbled...

We have these three branches, they are actually cooperating, because they share a vision and the vision is managerial. They all seem to believe that the purpose of government is to manage. And so what happens is this the legislature and this is not just in Canada but very much so in Canada. Legislatures pass statutes. Now we think statutes, they contain the rules. And there are still statues that contain rules. But the other thing these statues do is delegate authority to the executive branch to the ministries, the agencies, the departments, the commissions, to make the rules, the regulations, the guidelines, the directives then they delegate and the managers will decide what the rules are that you are subject to Instead of making the rules in the legislature where everybody can see what the debate is and what the bill is and so on. These are rules that are made in the back room that will be applied to you basically without your knowledge until it happens. Garbled… to make sure the executive doesn’t go beyond its powers. Part of the checks and balances and this garbled… the courts now has deference, deference to the Executive branch. So here’s, I call this the unholy Trinity of the administrative state delegation from the legislature, deference from the courts, leads to the discretion of the deep state to do basically whatever it wants and this checks and balances myth, it has become a myth.

On the economic side the government has determined that it knows better than the free markets.

1:45:23 Nadine: So can I give you a little bit of a real world example? On the economic side the government has determined that it knows better than the free markets. (laughter in the audience) But that’s the managerial state. So the pick and choose the winners and the losers. The government gave $15 billion to Stellantis and what does Stellantis do? Picked up and moved that over to the United States and gave them $13 billion and re-established over there.

The government sets up a pension plan because they think you are incapable of managing your own money. Now here’s a really good one, housing. Mark Carney right now has developed a brand new government department, a brand new government division because he says housing is a problem. It’s not affordable we can’t build enough. Well do you think the government who’s done anything efficient or effective in their life is more effective than the free market? What’s the obstacle? Government, administration, bureaucracy, permits, permissions, timelines. Those are all the problems to housing and the government just made them worse. So that’s the administration vs. the Free Market Economy which should pick the winners and the losers, why? Because who’s the free market? You, you vote with your dollar every dollar you spend is a vote for what you want and every dollar you don’t spend is a vote for what you don’t want. It’s a clear signal to the market either increase supply or decrease. Garbled… oh that was a failed experiment and the consequence is immediate. What does the government do? Every time it fails? Make it bigger. Right? They can’t admit failure so they just make it worse.

This country has become a country of people who do not understand anything. Healthcare.

1:47:17 Bruce: and this country has become a country of people who do not understand anything Garbled… we’re going in the public healthcare system. They hear we’re not going to have any healthcare. And that’s not what we’re talking about at all. What you are doing is changing the nature of the system so that you go buy your own healthcare in a market that provides you with more choice and better prices. But that’s not what people understand so this is the problem. (Like in the US? Where it costs over $10,000 to have a baby. A five day stay in hospital is over $100,000. They charge you for every band-aid, box of kleenex? Or to get an IV if you are dehydrated that’s over $7,000? *Having a baby with employer-sponsored health insurance costs $20,416 in total medical spending, including $2,743 paid out of pocket for pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum care. Adding a child's medical care through age two brings total medical costs to $36,991, with $4,254 paid out of pocket. The reason we have universal healthcare in Canada is because everybody puts money into the system and then when you need it, it’s there.)

Talk about land lock.

1:47:52 Jason: Can we go ahead and talk about land lock?

1:48:03 Bruce: Sure sure do you want to go?

Nadine: I can go first, so everybody wants to believe that Alberta’s land locked and that this is a major problem. a) there are other landlocked countries in the world that do extremely well. Right, this is not a catastrophic failure. And here’s what I always tell people when they ask me that question. What’s to the west of us? There’s this beautiful province called British Columbia which has just fallen in sadly, into the hands of Communism. But what do they have over there? They have this big port in Vancouver. Well where do those goods go? Straight across this land mass called Alberta. Well you don’t want to play ball with us, we don’t have to play ball with you. We will pick up our ball and go home. You want to come across Alberta’s territory, no problem. Whether it’s by air whether it’s by land, obviously not by sea. We’ll just charge you. So now do we not have leverage to negotiate terms with BC?

Do you think Ottawa, garbled…. Right? So they have a choice to make and when people look at me and say we’re landlocked can we find something harder to discuss (garbled). It’s delusional.

1:49:35 Bruce: Yeah I agree. Of course, I think the question should be put this way or the situation should be put this way: You’re landlocked now. You’re always going to be landlocked. The question is do you want to be landlocked as an independent country with the ability to negotiate or whether or not you want to be landlocked as a province in a country that does not want you to succeed?

A reality check into a vision about what a Free and Independent Alberta might look like.

1:50:09 Jason: You mentioned in the past that something that is easy to do and something that is not so easy to do. (This is a throw back to Bruce’s speech before the Q and A)

1:50:11 Bruce: Oh yes! Oh, I like this. So this relates back to being a free country. And there are people who are into a vision about what a Free and Independent Alberta ought to be. Also they are in for a big reality check. Garbled.. Aspects are going to be. I will put it this way. If you want to live in a free society then there are two things that you want. And the first one is easy. And the second one is hard. The first one is you do not want other people to tell you what to do. Right? That is easy to want. The second is you do not want to tell other people what to do. Because that’s what makes a free society. And there are a lot of people who really want to tell other people what to do. So when we are formulating what this new constitution might look like with a new governing system or your new laws. My hope is that we will watch out for the inclination to say - Well, we know what the truth is and therefore all of you will live this way. Because now you are telling people what to do. The mark, the measure of a free society is whether everybody is protected from being coerced and otherwise they can do whatever they want because they are not interfering with you.

1:52:11 Nadine: So don’t be a Karen.

1:52:20 Jason: So thank you very much and give it up to our speakers. One more question get it in there.

What your rights are.

1:52:28 Question: So the question I have freedom is as long as people don’t infringe on your rights? So define, what are your rights? Garbled question

1:52:56 Nadine: I think Bruce made that very clear, we don’t have to define what your rights are. Your right is to not be coerced and to not be forced to do something you do not want to do.

1:53:03 Bruce: So let me make this point. So because of the way our constitution is we have charter of rights and even the US bill of rights is the same way, it lists all your rights. And we think the list is not long enough, we are going to add garbled…. So there must be gaps, there are gaps, there are huge gaps. So let’s add to the rights. But this is a mistake we have freedom of speech, and freedom of association and the right to this, the right to that. And we have all these little bits, but actually these are just instances garbled… the one single thing is you’re suppose to be free. And free means you are not subject to other people and the coercion of the state. Period. So the danger in listing rights is you’re going to miss some. Because you missed some, the state is able to tell you what to do. This is what happened during COVID. They said - you will do this and you will do that. And look there are no rights on this list that say we can’t do that. So we can and that was the legal result. Okay, so I’m trying to get people off the idea that the solution to your freedom is to list a whole bunch of rights, a long list of particular rights. That is not going to work. You have to establish a different architecture so that the default is different and so the default position is that you are free. Period. Garbled

1:55:01 Jason: So on that note I am not going to tell you, not going to force you, but I will invite you to go check out the vendors at the back. Thank you all very much for being here. We really appreciate it. And thank you to Bruce and Nadine, you guys were fantastic. Thanks for coming. Share this out and God Bless.

The Buck Creek Town Hall marked what feels like the culmination of one strand in Alberta’s independence discussions. On one hand, the speakers emphasized inclusivity—inviting everyone into the conversation about Alberta’s future. On the other, they casually dismissed dissenters as “Karens,” which undercuts the message of broad participation.

Their vision for a free and independent Alberta is ambitious and rooted in rugged individualism: user-pay healthcare, minimal government intervention (no rules or laws that infringe on personal freedoms, as long as you don’t infringe on others), full US recognition of Alberta as a sovereign country, and the rejection of treaties or collective rights/responsibilities beyond personal self-reliance.

They even invoked the “Monroe Document” - Donald Trump’s version as a framework for the Western Hemisphere’s future. What could possibly go wrong with that?

On the positive side, there’s clear frustration with Premier Danielle Smith and her approach—many in the room view her policies and actions as insufficient. They accuse her of putting Bills in place to thwart their vision or slow it down.

Nadine and Bruce paint a picture of pure self-sufficiency, but it conveniently overlooks historical realities. In the past, Alberta communities banded together to build hospitals, hire doctors and nurses, and fund equipment and diagnostics. Scaling those efforts to serve 5 million people today—without centralized systems or reliable revenue—would be a massive challenge.

The same applies to education: communities historically collaborated to construct schools, hire teachers, and provide textbooks and curricula. We still need all of that infrastructure and expertise, but can it realistically scale province-wide under a low- or no-tax model?

Recent examples highlight the funding tensions even within Canada. The UCP has intervened in municipal decisions on infrastructure and imposed education property tax increases—averaging about $154 extra per year for Edmonton homeowners (a roughly 13% hike) and $340 more in Calgary. Independence promises often include lower or eliminated taxes, yet essential services demand substantial revenue and with the province projecting a $9.4 billion deficit, oil and gas is not the answer to fund everything the province needs to fund.

In my view, this is pie-in-the-sky thinking. We can’t rewind to the 1800s; modern society depends on scale, interdependence, and infrastructure that rugged individualism alone can’t sustain.

A useful comparison is Brexit: Great Britain was already a fully sovereign nation with established borders, passports, airports, currency, social services, healthcare, and education systems. Even so, the EU divorce brought years of economic disruption, border headaches, and ongoing debates.

Alberta would face far greater hurdles—starting from scratch and negotiating everything: asset/debt division with Canada, trade agreements, currency transition, international recognition, and more. The process would be messy, prolonged, and unlikely to deliver the seamless “freedom” promised. What do you think?

Some other links you may be interested in:

Nadine Wellwood:

• https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/nadine-wellwood-livingstone-macleod-ucp-united-conservative-party-1.6649906

• https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/ucp-disqualifies-nadine-wellwood-nomination-in-livingstone-macleod-wellwood-says-shell-appeal/

• https://www.linkedin.com/in/nadine-wellwood-b4a85947/?originalSubdomain=ca

• https://www.amazon.ca/ALBERTA-RISING-PRINCIPLED-Reclaiming-Redefining/dp/B0FQ36QC14

• https://nadinewellwood.ca/

What’s Destroying BC: Dallas Brodie speaks out on: Sabotage, Provincial Debt, Deficits, & Decline

Bruce Pardy

• https://www.fraserinstitute.org/profile/bruce-pardy

• https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/cm-expert/bruce-pardy/

• https://ca.news.yahoo.com/bruce-pardy-c-9-affront-110018211.html

• https://frontiercentre.org/by/bruce-pardy/

• https://www.westernstandard.news/news/kenney-pardy-debate-alberta-independence/71677

• https://brownstone.org/articles/the-fix-is-in-to-defeat-alberta-independence/

An Independent Alberta?

• https://www.linkedin.com/in/bruce-pardy-aa2367135/?originalSubdomain=ca

Jason Lavigne

https://thelavigneshow.com/

• https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/candidate/jason-lavigne