The Pardy School of Law
How the law works, and how it doesn’t.
Collectivism in a New Alberta
The Critical Compass podcast with Prof. Bruce Pardy of Rights Probe. In this discussion, the question of Alberta independence is framed as a “contest between individualism and collectivism”. Empowering individuals entails personal responsibility, which represents a significant shift in mindset from the collectivist-based framework of Canada. For the independence movement to gain majority support, it must appeal to a broad audience, including those on the Left inclined to the embrace of collectivism. A key point raised is the issue of single-payer public healthcare, a collectivist and socialist program. Prof. Pardy argues that if Albertans truly desire freedom and independence, they must abandon this system which contradicts their aspirations for individual rights and freedoms. Ultimately, he says, the success of the independence movement hinges on whether enough Albertans embrace the principles of self-sufficiency and independence to move away from collectivist thinking. If they remain "stuck" on central planning and collectivist thinking, the movement is “going nowhere,” he warns.
Special Rights in a New Alberta
“When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” [Thomas Sowell]
The Critical Compass: In a debate on Alberta independence with Prof. Bruce Pardy, critic Jeff Wrath argued that the Professor’s proposal to end Indigenous “special status” would strip rights from 300,000 Indigenous Albertans, casting it as a political non-starter. The goal is not to remove rights, asserts Prof. Pardy, but to ensure equality under the law by converting communal reserve lands into individually owned titles, granting Indigenous people the same property rights (e.g., selling, leasing) as other Canadians. The reserve system, he argues, perpetuates harm and conflicts with the vision of a free, equitable Alberta.
The Real Citizen Podcast with Prof. Bruce Pardy: During the American Revolution, Canadians rejected George Washington’s call to join the rebellion, opting instead to remain British subjects—a choice reflecting deference to authority over individual freedom. This legacy, Prof. Pardy argues, is enshrined in Canada’s constitutional focus on “peace, order, and good government” (centralized governance) versus the U.S. commitment to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The national character this choice created—a preference for stability over risk—is reflected in the current tension provoked by Alberta’s independence movement: the conflict between centralized authority and regional self-determination. What does a genuine self-determination require? Prof. Pardy advocates for a radical reboot. Albertans, he says, must reject Canada’s centralized, redistributionist model in favour of a night-watchman state (no socialized healthcare, bureaucratic grift, and unequal legal statuses for Indigenous communities).
Shaun Newman Podcast: In this heated discussion on Alberta’s potential secession from Canada, legal scholar Prof. Bruce Pardy (Queen’s University) and Indigenous rights lawyer Jeff Wrath (Alberta Prosperity Project co-founder) clash over the future of Indigenous treaty rights in an independent Alberta. Wrath dismisses Prof. Pardy’s argument to abolish collective rights as legally reckless and culturally tone-deaf, stressing treaty rights are binding constitutional obligations, not arbitrary distinctions. He warns that erasing these rights would alienate 300,000 Indigenous Albertans, fracture unity critical for independence, and ignore 150 years of legal precedent. Prof. Pardy agrees that his proposal does “fly in the face of history … the Constitution … [and] what many Canadians think” in terms of a “separate and distinct peoples” but, he says, that doesn’t make the current Indigenous rights framework …. “right; it’s actually quite wrong.” Prof. Pardy describes the status quo as a “grift” benefiting leaders, bureaucrats, and consultants (the “Aboriginal industry”), while disenfranchising rank-and-file Indigenous people and non-Indigenous citizens. Pardy likens his vision to historical assimilation (e.g., Norman-Saxon integration in Britain), asserting equality under law requires erasing group-based privileges. He urges Albertans to “think big” in reimagining their destiny and to “get rid of those things that are Canadian and don't work,” which begins with “a legal system that treats everybody the same way.” Listen in!
Shaun Newman Podcast: Prof. Bruce Pardy continues the conversation he sparked earlier in the month when he proposed a hypothetical independent Alberta should also separate itself from special status for Aboriginal people, arguing Aboriginal rights undermine the principle of legal equality by granting race-based privileges. This discussion walks further out to explore tensions between Canada’s constitutional Indigenous rights framework and ideals of universal legal equality, challenging mainstream norms around reconciliation and sovereignty. Prof. Pardy urges doing away with the Indian Act and redistributing reserve lands as private property to individual Indigenous people. The Act, he says, benefits primarily tribal elites, consultants, non-Indigenous institutions, and a flawed status quo, creating a “gravy train” of taxpayer funds while failing to uplift most Indigenous individuals. The conversation underscores a clash between corrective justice (addressing colonialism) and universal legal equality, with Prof. Pardy advocating for a future where individual agency, not group identity, defines rights—a vision he asserts would foster unity in an independent Alberta and the chance to redefine governance beyond Canada’s legacy systems. The opportunity for a radical overhaul extends to a new constitution that draws on the U.S. system for inspiration, minimalist government (a complete rejection of the “managerial state”), and economic freedom (retaining wealth locally). On that note, Prof. Pardy cites the cash transaction limits through Bill C-2 as a prime example of government overreach in the form of invasive surveillance masquerading as anti-money laundering efforts.
The Candice Malcolm Show: Pledging to uphold existing Indigenous treaty rights in an independent Alberta is a mistake, argues Prof. Bruce Pardy. Maintaining group-specific rights, he says, contradicts the principle of “blind justice”—a legal framework that treats all citizens as equal regardless of ancestry. A recent article by the professor contends that while Canada’s constitution entrenches Aboriginal rights, a newly sovereign Alberta should reject such distinctions and establish a “clean slate” legal system granting uniform rights to all individuals. Perpetuating special statuses, asserts Prof. Pardy, even for historically marginalized groups, undermines equality under the rule of law, which he deems essential for a truly free society. This stance stems from observing Canada’s fractured federalism, where competing rights claims fuel political dysfunction. Alberta’s independence must prioritize individual equality over collective entitlements to avoid replicating systemic inequities.
Alberta Independence: Legal Truths, Treaty Myths & the Case to Leave Canada. One of Canada’s boldest legal minds breaks down why Alberta independence through referendum is the necessary catalyst to disrupt Canada’s broken constitutional and federal structure. Prof. Bruce Pardy argues that Canada’s structural flaws, deep-rooted vested interests and federal imbalance, render meaningful reform impossible without existential crisis. Urging Alberta to prioritize a referendum over policy negotiations to leverage its departure as a political threat, Prof. Pardy warns short-term concessions—like Premier Smith’s nine demands for federal policy reversals—risk entrenching Canada’s broken system. A decisive referendum, he says, could shift power dynamics, forcing Ottawa to either concede irreplaceable losses or provoke a domino effect of provincial defiance—ultimately challenging Canada’s complacent “romanticized” self-image and prioritizing Alberta’s sovereignty as the only viable trigger for confronting systemic collapse.
Should Alberta Separate from Canada? In conversation with host Harrison Faulkner, Prof. Bruce Pardy frames the separatist movement as a necessary rupture from Canada’s centralized governance, arguing temporary policy fixes (such as pipelines) won’t resolve structural flaws. He envisions an independent Alberta as a low-tax, free-market alternative, contrasting it with Canada’s “managed socialism.” While polls show most Albertans oppose separation, Prof. Pardy insists the movement is a response to Ottawa’s repeated dismissal of Western concerns. Federal proposals, including Prime Minister Carney’s decarbonized oil pipelines, are superficial, he says. Only independence can address systemic issues like Senate inequity and federal overreach. Alberta’s pursuit of federal reform has been one of futility, he notes. The answer lies in unlocking prosperity through radical governance redesign: in other words, separation.
Leaders on the Frontier: Is the “Building One Canadian Economy” initiative in Saskatoon on June 2 a reason for new hope or little more than a photo op? Guests law professor Bruce Pardy and Canadian businessman and former politician, Dan McTeague, join host David Leis to unpack the issues on the table, ranging from Mark Carney’s framing of Canada as an “energy superpower” (when his energy agenda is net-zero) to the menace of foreign interference and Canada’s directly or indirectly compromised elites. Can the country be fixed? Prof. Pardy looks to Alberta’s bid for independence as the hope for Canada the Saskatoon summit could not provide: a radical reset to escape entrenched issues that doesn’t rely on government solutions. The departure of Alberta, he asserts, could trigger a domino effect, forcing Canada to confront its complacency and decline, and address the fundamental crisis the country is facing (or rather, looking away from).
Leaders on the Frontier: Alberta’s push for independence, driven by decades of federal neglect and anti-energy policies (Trudeau’s emissions caps, pipeline cancellations et al.), has reached a tipping point. With 30% of Albertans open to separation, Premier Danielle Smith’s astute alignment with separatist petitions—while not outright endorsing them—signals a strategic challenge to Ottawa (she is effectively serving as Opposition to the Liberal government at the current time). Unlike Quebec’s past sovereignty movements, Alberta faces hostility from Eastern Canada for daring to demand respect and the right to sell its own product, exposing a double standard in national unity debates. Listen in as Prof. Bruce Pardy and guests, along with host David Leis, explore Canada’s fragile unity and the pathways forward. In the words of one viewer: “If Alberta was its own country right now, would we accept the current deal to join Canada?” What do you think? And is Alberta Canada’s best shot for saving itself?
The Candice Malcolm Show: What Would an Independent Alberta Really Look Like? Alberta’s separatist movement is a nationalist counter to Canada’s globalist progressivism, rooted in irreconcilable ideological divides, argues Prof. Bruce Pardy. While legally viable, independence faces practical and philosophical hurdles, underscoring a broader crisis of Canadian identity and federal legitimacy. Prof. Pardy posits that secession could trigger national upheaval, forcing Ottawa to confront systemic inequities. But, at this point, can Canada’s socialist-progressive trajectory be reversed?
Deconstructing Canada: The modern state has abandoned its role as a guardian of freedom to take on the mantle of managerial overlord. What would limiting the state to its core function—protecting liberty—look like? Could we as citizens cope without the Nanny State? Are we able to see that many of our societal problems are exacerbated, not solved, by state intervention? Why do we look to the state as savior? Prof. Bruce Pardy discusses the “night-watchman” concept of minimal state intervention and a host of other issues with Peyman Askari, host of the In Lay Terms podcast and PPC candidate for West Vancouver.
The Real Citizen Podcast: Canada is a country in crisis that long predates Donald Trump’s provocations. The Trump disruption, however, has ignited fundamental conversations that are overdue and immensely valuable. For example, when we're not defining ourselves in opposition to America, who are we? What does “Canadian” mean? Prof. Bruce Pardy breaks down what has broken down in Canada and why Alberta is the country’s “best shot” for disrupting the status quo: a managerial state that has transformed Canada from a rule-of-law system to its opposite, rule by law.
American Thinker: 51st State
The Lavigne Show: Host Paula Lavigne unites two leading Canadian voices, Lawrence Solomon (renowned columnist and environmental policy critic) and Bruce Pardy (law professor and constitutional scholar), to explore Albertan independence and themes related to Canadian sovereignty, productivity, and potential political realignments. Canada’s productivity, and its reliance on the U.S. market, suggests that Canadians have an inflated sense of entitlement to our neighbour’s lucrative market. The conversation shifts to the idea that Canada would be better off as part of the United States, although this is unlikely to happen as a unified entity. The possibility of Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador joining the U.S. is discussed, drawing parallels to the controversial admissions of Hawaii and Alaska. The analogy that Alberta is caught in a “bad marriage” is examined. Has the time come to admit the marriage has failed? President Donald Trump has presented Alberta with an opportunity to move on, but with a limited time window. Concerns about Canadian security in the Northwest Territories due to interest from China and Russia may force a reckoning for all of Canada, whether we’re ready or not.
Related Reading: “If Trump Wants Canada, Here’s How He Gets It,” by Lawrence Solomon.
Exploring Political Labels and Libertarian Philosophy
Concepts: Host Shawn Whatley and guest Professor Bruce Pardy explore the real meanings behind Canadian political party labels. They discuss the misconceptions around conservatism and liberalism in Canada, the implications of socialized medicine, and the differences between classical liberalism, libertarianism and true conservatism. Challenging the conventional political philosophy, Prof. Pardy examines the role of state force, the capacity of individual freedom for “just people,” and the potential for Alberta’s independence. The discussion critically assesses the authenticity of Canada’s political spectrum and proposes a more liberty-driven society and what a society that manages itself without state coercion might look like.
Refer to the “roadmap” below as the conversation flows from one topic to another:
00:00 Introduction: The Misleading Names of Canadian Political Parties 00:29 Guest Introduction: Bruce Pardy 00:57 Defining Conservatism in Canadian Politics 01:30 The Role of Socialized Medicine in Conservatism 03:30 Classical Liberalism vs. Conservatism 05:03 Libertarianism and the Use of Force 10:21 Government Propaganda and the Use of Tax Dollars 17:56 Libertarianism vs. Anarchism 23:26 The Role of Cultural Norms in Libertarianism 39:00 The Legitimacy of Laws and Libertarian Principles 41:39 Introduction to Alberta's Independence 42:26 Historical Context and Political Grievances 43:33 The Idea of Alberta as the 51st State 44:44 Representation and Senate Reform 45:44 Quebec's Role in Canadian Politics 51:07 Philosophical Reflections on Liberty and Beauty 55:14 The Rule of Law and Judicial Power 01:04:25 Libertarianism and Rights Probe 01:19:02 Concluding Thoughts on Governance and Liberty.
Can Canada Be Changed Through the Current Framework?
Shaun Newman Podcast
Host Shaun Newman examines the prorogation of the Canadian Parliament with guests Professor Bruce Pardy and James Manson (one of the lead Council lawyers in the court challenge to Justin Trudeau’s move to suspend Parliament). The conversation takes flight from a tweet Prof. Pardy posted on the prorogation decision earlier in the month [see here]. According to Prof. Pardy, “it’s not that the decision is wrong.” The problem, he says, is that this is how our governance system works. “Therefore, fixing the problem does not just mean rooting out bad apples. It means overhauling the constitutional architecture of the country.”
Alberta Statehood
Can Albertans think outside the traditional Canadian perspectives and become the “freest place on earth?” A conversation on the potential of Alberta to become an independent state, country, or the 51st state of the USA. Some of the immediate steps Alberta could take to strengthen its current position include following the Quebec model for collecting taxes, an independent pension plan for the province, as well as the creation of its own police force. In the larger quest for independence, would healthcare ultimately prove a dealbreaker for Albertans? Does the best option for the province lie south of the border, where an already robust republican form of government provides the calibre of checks and balances the Canadian Westminster system does not? Is reform of Canada an option? According to Prof. Bruce Pardy, the hope of reform “in any kind of fundamental way” is minimal given the many vested interests committed to the status quo. “The best shot,” he says, “is for Alberta to save itself,” and by doing so, “save Canada”.
Charting Alberta’s Independence and Canada’s Post-Monarch Future
The Trump tariff threat combined with years of grassroots’ dissatisfaction with Canada’s political climate has set the stage for change. The possibility of reorganizing or rethinking Canada’s governance structure is increasingly part of the national conversation, particularly the potential for Alberta to become independent. What would that process look like? In terms of leadership, host Jason Lavigne points to the prospect of an unelected head of government (Mark Carney if he becomes the new leader of the Liberal Party) joining the unelected head of state (King Charles). An alternative to that is a government by the people, for the people—the mission of the Not My King initiative, launched in Canada by Lavigne, to address the legal steps required to change Canada from a constitutional monarchy to a democratic one. Does the taste for change extend this far? Is the momentum for something different an opportunity we need to seize on now? “Yes,” says professor Bruce Pardy.
The Fix Is In: How the Liberals Are Rigging the System
Juno News Podcast: Host Candice Malcolm looks at the disqualification of Liberal leadership candidate Ruby Dhalla, who learned she was dropped from the race during a live CBC interview. The day before, a senior Liberal strategist appeared on CBC and told viewers she hoped the Liberals would find “a legitimate reason to disqualify Dhalla” because of the threat she posed to frontrunner Mark Carney and that she would turn the debates into “a circus.” How did the CBC come to know before Ruby Dhalla herself did about her disqualification? Why would contentious conversation during the debate pose a threat to Carney? Isn’t that what debates are for?
Law professor Bruce Pardy is invited to discuss the mirage of democracy in Canada and the serious challenges with the country’s political system, how anti-Americanism and President Trump’s rhetoric is helping the Liberal Party, and Canada’s current temperature reading: serious trouble.
State Singularity Is Dominating All Aspects of Our Lives
The News Forum | Canadian Innovators: Host Catherine Swift is joined by law professor Bruce Pardy to discuss the concept of “state singularity”. A metaphor, borrowed from physics, Prof. Pardy describes “state singularity” as the moment when the state and society become indistinguishable. In this increasingly eminent scenario, it becomes difficult to differentiate between the actions of the state and the society it governs. We can see how the influence of the state has come to dominate all aspects of life, business, and public policy, leaving little room for voluntary organizations to function effectively. In the context of “Canadian Innovators,” the expansion of state power makes it challenging to open and run businesses, as the state, under the guise of caring for society, imposes numerous regulations and controls. Entrepreneurs, who should be seen as leaders to “better pastures,” are instead treated as enemies to be contained. This conversation is spread over two bite-sized parts.
A National Citizens Inquiry Roundtable Discussion
The proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child,” has expanded in the modern context to become an ideology that’s been politicized. We assume if there’s value in the idea of a village raising children (safe, structured, nurturing environments), there must be value in the governmental and educational infrastructure of a so-called village that makes decisions about our children.
The state in tandem with the legal system believe they have a legitimate role in making decisions about our children—their upbringing, including medical care; overreaching into every aspect of their lives. The village has taken over. But a sacred bond exists between children and parents that doesn’t between children and governments. How do parents move beyond the control matrix to get back to parenting?
Roundtable Guests:
Bruce Pardy, Professor of law at Queen’s University and executive director of Rights Probe
Dr. Julie Ponesse, PhD in ethics and ancient philosophy. Author.
Paul Jaffe, B.C.-based lawyer
Host: Shawn Buckley
First Freedoms Foundation
The Constitutional Right to Property in the Fifty First State
Although property rights were considered during the creation of the Charter of Rights led by Pierre E. Trudeau, they were ultimately dismissed. Section 35 was instead added to the Constitution Act of 1982, which recognized existing aboriginal and treaty rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has since expanded these rights, with a recent New Brunswick court suggesting that aboriginal rights could supersede private property rights, raising serious implications for the future.
Professor Pardy discusses these developments and questions whether Canadians would be better off under the U.S. Constitution, which provides stronger protections for property rights, compared to the current Canadian Constitution. This raises a provocative debate about the constitutional framework in Canada and its implications for property and aboriginal rights.
WATCH THE CONVERSATION IN FULL HERE
Related Reading
In Canada, Aboriginal Title Has Become a Constitutional Threat
Canadian Libertarian | X Spaces
True Liberty Requires Evolution Not Revolution
“The Canon of Classical Liberalism—The Liberty Angle”
An expansive conversation between Professor Bruce Pardy and Canadian Libertarian host, Bennett Hunter. Initially, this conversation was prompted by an X exchange between Prof. Pardy and host Hunter on the three foundational concepts in classical liberalism—natural rights, rationality, and objective truth. Prof. Pardy argues these philosophical concepts are not strong enough to support political liberty. Political liberty, he says, is fundamentally the absence of coercion. The alternative to liberty is violence, including state violence. Therefore, liberty should be the default, and those advocating for coercion must justify their stance.
Prof. Pardy also looks at moral ambiguity in law and the philosophical discourse surrounding it. People give law "too much credit for something it is not," he says. The law is "a social system of making political decisions that appear to be something other than they are."
LISTEN TO THE CONVERSATION IN FULL HERE
Related Viewing & Reading
Canada’s Constitutional Mistake: How the Rule of Law Gave Way to the Managerial State
Breaking Free from Political Polarization with Classical Liberalism
The Lavigne Show | January 23 via X Spaces
Is it time to remove the Monarchy in Canada?
In this episode of The Lavigne Show, Bruce Pardy, a law professor and freedom advocate, and Matthew Ehret, a historical and geopolitical analyst, discuss the implications of Justin Trudeau’s prorogation of Parliament and its potential legal consequences.
For Prof. Pardy, the prorogation is a distraction from the main event: the opportunity presented by the suspension of Parliament to explore a different future for Canada in the form of a republican system of government.
Recommending we seize the moment and correct the mistake our forefathers made, Prof. Pardy provides a constitutional perspective on the stakes involved, emphasizing that the issue goes beyond mere parliamentary procedure. Matthew Ehret discusses global historical and geopolitical trends, highlighting how Canada’s monarchy debate fits into broader movements towards republican governance.
The Liberty Exchange: In conversation with Professor Bruce Pardy, host Jonathan Fortier examines the erosion of key libertarian principles through the lens of the pandemic experience. Prof. Pardy credits the one upside of Covid-19 as the moment when the coercive role of the administrative state finally revealed itself. That rupture marked a turning point for the freedom movement as the government and elite organizations imposed unprecedented restrictions on civil liberties, with mainstream professionals largely supporting these measures. The trucker protests in Canada brought these issues to widespread attention, showing ordinary citizens resisting government overreach—a public vote of no confidence the government found threatening to its legitimacy. A strong voice throughout the trucker protests in Ottawa, Prof. Pardy reveals a number of takeaways from that time, including the clarity pandemic restrictions offered up. It was no longer possible to ignore the expansion of the administrative state and its invisible coercion through regulations, subsidies and various means to limit meaningful choices for the individual. The overarching problem lies not just in bad policies, argues Prof. Pardy, but in the power of authorities to make such policies in the first place. [For more on this, see Canada’s Constitutional Mistake: How the Rule of Law Gave Way to the Managerial State].
Becoming the 51st State
Canada: A User’s Guide and Owner's Manual with Randy Hillier on X Spaces: Joining the United States could be advantageous for Canadians, asserts Professor Bruce Pardy. The U.S. Constitution offers a better framework as a constitutional republic than Canada’s Westminster system for addressing and resolving national issues, he argues. Prof. Pardy recommends Canada view President Trump’s call for annexation as an opportunity to resolve flaws in the U.S. Constitution as a negotiating lever for Canadian provinces to join the U.S. as states. Diminishing the powers of the administrative state as a condition of entry is also a benefit the new Trump leadership would likely have enthusiasm for, he says. Given Canada's smaller size and dependence on the U.S., threatening retaliatory tariffs is “intellectually laughable,” he says, especially when it could harm the country’s leading exports and western provinces. Joining Prof. Pardy in conversation along with host Randy Hillier: veterans and activists White Wabbit Warrior and Marty Speyer.
Left vs. Right: Making Sense of the Political Ecosystem
Nadine Ness, founder of Saskatchewan’s Unified Grassroots, a group concerned with civil liberties formed during Covid, invites Professor Bruce Pardy to explain changes in the political ecosystem that her group [and many of us] have grappled with but have not been able to articulate. To that end, Prof. Pardy shares his “horseshoe spectrum” of the various political labels; labels we assume we understand that do not align with our experience of these political identities. In reality, this landscape, explains Prof. Pardy, is populated by three main political persuasions beyond left vs right: Collectivist left (progressives and socialists) vs Collectivist right (conservatives) vs Individualists (classical liberals and libertarians).
In the horseshoe model, the political spectrum is represented as a string pulled into a horseshoe shape. The ends of the string, representing the far-left and far-right, come close together at the bottom of the horseshoe. This visualization suggests that both extremes share a focus on group values and dynamics, despite their differing ideologies.
The horseshoe is divided by an imaginary line, with individualists above the line and collectivists below. At the top of the horseshoe are classical liberals and libertarians, who prioritize individual liberty and choice. Below the line are the collectivist left (progressives and socialists) and the collectivist right (conservatives), who emphasize group solidarity and common values.
From this illuminated landscape of alignments, differences and deep divides to getting rid of the Bank of Canada, the discussion becomes a journey that calls into close focus our political system and institutions that have collectively become the managerial state, warping our fundamental understanding of the rule of law. As Prof. Pardy warns: “Instead of protecting liberty, the state has become its leading threat.” If we are not at the point of transformation (firing our administrative state), we can for now embrace the process of clarity. Enjoy the view.
There are still people who value civil liberties in this country.