Shaun Newman Podcast - #875 Bruce Pardy & Jeff Rath

Episode Date: June 24, 2025

Bruce Pardy is a professor of law at Queen’s University, executive director of Rights Probe, and a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute. A classically liberal legal scholar, he critiques legal progressivism, social justice, and the discretionary administrative state. His work focuses on environmental law, climate change, energy policy, property and tort theory, human rights, university governance, free markets, and the rule of law.Jeffrey R.W. Rath is an Alberta-based lawyer with over 34 years of experience, primarily known for his work in Indigenous rights, treaty law, environmental law, and constitutional litigation. He is a prominent advocate for Alberta separatism, co-founding the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), which pushes for a referendum on Alberta’s independence from Canada.To watch the Full Cornerstone Forum: https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcastGet your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500Silver Gold Bull Links:Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/Email: [e-mail] Grahame: [phone]Bow Valley Credit UnionWebsite: www.BowValleycu.comEmail: [e-mail] Prophet River Links:Use the code “SNP” on all ordersWebsite: store.prophetriver.com/Email: [e-mail]

This is Viva Fry. I'm Dr. Peter McCullough. This is Tom Romago. This is Chuck Pradnik. This is Alex Krenner. Hey, this is Brad Wall. This is J.P. Sears. Hi, this is Frank Paredi.

This is Tammy Peterson. This is Danielle Smith. This is James Lindsay. Hey, this is Brett Kessel, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Tuesday. How's everybody doing today? Well, the number of ounces of silver needed to buy an ounce of gold.

Now 30-year high. Silver is a bargain price when compared to gold. And it's a perfect time to purchase. a portion of your savings with silver. I've been mentioning grad, while we're pretty much at the end of June, I'm not sure, is there any more grads going on? It's probably passed.

But my mother just had her birthday on the longest day of the year. And I'm thinking, you know, another place that you can start with buying a little bit of silver is any of those occasions, birthdays, obviously graduations. I mentioned closer to Christmas,

stockings, Anyways, there's just a few different ideas of where putting a little bit of sound money into a person's hand or into a present may spur some conversations that might be well worth having. And Silver Gold Bull has a wide variety of best value of silver for every budget. You can simply text or email Graham for details. Whether you're a seasoned investor or a new to precious metals, Graham will work with you to answer your questions and recommend the best products to meet your investing goals. Of course, all the details are down in the show notes. and he can answer any details around this feature, any other questions you may have around buying, selling,

storing, or using your retirement accounts to invest in precious metals. If you're on silvergoldbould.ca or dot com, just make sure to reference the Sean Newman podcast. Profit River, another idea for, well, different special occasions is, well, firearms, everything to do with them here in Canada. And they have their brand new website.

It got launched a month ago. It's got a whole bunch of new features, plus they've made it easier for all you customers to use. And a reminder, anytime you're buying anything, whether it's in person over the phone online, to use SMP in the coupon code, and you can get into the monthly draws for all of you find listeners out there. And anywhere in Canada, so they are the major retailer of firearms, optics, and accessories. They serve all of Canada. Just go to profitriver.com. Rect Power Products.

They've been committed to excellence in the power sport industry for over 20 years. And if you haven't stopped into the west side of Lloyd Minster, into their showroom, you know, at this time of year, you could look at golf carts. You could also be looking at the Lund fishing boats. They got side-by-sides, quads, snowmobiles, lawnmowers, on and on it goes. They got a ton of products out there. And it's a beautiful showroom. They're open Monday through Saturday.

If you head out that way, tell Ryan the manager there that I sent you. And, you know, any purchase there, you can get an SMP knife. It's, well, the first on this show, I got one sitting here, and it is pretty freaking cool. And you can just go to rectech power products.com to see everything they have. But certainly if you're going through Lloyd Minster, stop in on the west side and take a look at their showroom. Planetcom, when you're busy running a growing business, trying to stay on top of the ever-changing world of information technology, well, it can be overwhelming to say the least,

and they want to take care of that for you, leaving you to do your thing while they do theirs. For over 22 years, PlanetCom has been there to boost your productivity by proactively managing every aspect of your IT infrastructure, both in-house and in the cloud, and it ensures you do not get tangled up in technology to get anything done. That's what they do, and if you want to see some of their work,

go to the Sean Newman Podcast.com, and you can see everything that Planetcom, can do for you. And planetcom. dot CA is where you want to find them at. Subsack free to subscribe to. And we've been trying to do weekly reviews. There's, you know, the full Cornerstone Forum for, well, free members, you get parts of it.

For paid members, you get the full thing. And it's one way to support the podcast as just an individual. You also get some behind-the-scenes things on maybe, say, the new studio. You got the, my first, I don't know, I say my first. but my first foray into writing on the Godfather, I just thought it was important. It's all there. So if you're wanting a little bit more of the podcast,

sign up to Substack for free. And I know all about blowing people's emails up. I'm sure people on Substack are wishing I'd put out just a smidge more content. We'll be thinking about some different things here over the month of July as I take some time to be with the wife and kids. And that's what's coming here in July. Next week it starts Monday, Wednesday, and then throwback Thursdays. and no Tuesday and Friday's.

Tews will be on with a different co-host, guest co-host for the month of July as I recalibrate, grab some time with Mel and the kids. Looking forward to that. So if you're wondering what's happening in July, that is the big thing, I guess, is Monday, Wednesday, throwback Thursday, and twos with guest hosts on the mashup.

If you're listening or watching on Spotify, Apple, YouTube Rumble, X, make sure to subscribe, make sure to leave a review. to hit that retweet button and get it out to some different people. All right, let's get on to that tale of the tape. The first is a professor of law at Queens University, executive director of rights probe and a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute. The second is an Alberta-based lawyer with over 30 years of experience

primarily known for his work in indigenous rights and treaty law. He's also a co-founder of the Alberta Prosperity Project. I'm talking about Bruce Party and Jeff Rath. So buckle up, here we go. Well, welcome to the Sean Newman podcast today. I'm joined by both lawyers, well, Bruce Party and Jeff Rath. So, folks, this is off of a conversation that I had a week ago. And while I followed up with it, and thanks gentlemen for hopping on to do this.

Yeah, great, great to be here. Sean, thank you. Yeah, you're welcome, Sean. Thanks for having us on. Now, I don't want to oversimplify, but this is what I wrote down. And then I'll let you both hop in and you guys can discuss. Jeff, if I was summarizing what you'd said that I thought was well put when you were on with Mitch, and forgive me, I'm spacing on a name right now, but the APP, basically, Mitch Sylvester, you mean, yeah.

Yes, yep. And Dennis Moldry, Dennis was the one I was forgetting. Basically, what I'd summarized was if Alberta went independent, you had basically said that indigenous nations will have, will be better, off because they will get to fully participate in the economy of the province. Roughly, I'm oversimplifying, but that was kind of one of the points I took out of it. And then on the flip side, Bruce, you'd come on probably a month later, but it was just last week. Basically, if you start out a country or an independent state with separate and distinct people, law, well, you have a problem right from

the start where you'd have two entities and how would you break that down on the law? I might be oversimplifying. I hope I'm not. I want to let both of you talk about this. That's why I brought you on. And go from there. I'll start with Jeff, and then Bruce will switch to you after. Jeff, your thoughts.

Well, actually, Bruce's opinions are so far out there. I'd like to hear what he has to say first. Oh, sure. It flies in the face of 150 years of history and, you know, on the very foundation of our country. So I'd like to hear from Bruce as to why he thinks that we should be able to ignore treaty and Aboriginal rights in the context of a free and

independent Alberta. Sure. Because it's wrong in principle and it's wrong in effect. You're right that it does fly in the face of history. It flies in the face the Constitution. It flies in the face of what many Canadians think about this. This idea of separate and distinct peoples is very deeply embedded. But that doesn't mean that it's right. It's actually quite wrong. It violates the principle of blind justice. And blind justice, as you will know as well as I do, is the idea that the law could not discriminate between people on the basis of their identity. That is, on the basis of their genes, on the basis of their lineage, on the basis of who their parents are. If you want a free country, if you want a free and independent Alberta, if you want to

properly start again and get rid of those things that are Canadian and don't work. Then in my books, one of the first of those things is to insist upon a legal system that treats everybody the same way. That is, everybody, everybody has the same rights and freedoms that are subject of the same laws and the same standards without regard to what whatever, you know, combination of genes you happen to carry around in your body. All right. Well, that's an interesting point of view. All right.

Carry on. No, no. I'll let you finish. No, no. You're a mistake. I think you're just fundamentally mistaken if you think that treaty and Aboriginal rights are genetic rather than legal. But okay. What else do you want to say?

Well, carry on. Carry on. You make that point. No, no. I mean, we've already established that. As far as you're concerned, the idea you're proposing is extra legal. So I guess you're not proposing that, making that proposition as a lawyer. This is really just your personal opinion.

And the problem that we have, Bruce, is that we're leading a movement that is trying to get Alberta out of Canada. We're doing it through a democratic process that includes having everybody in the province vote in favor of a specific referendum question. And I think the problem that we're having with what you're proposing is that it flies. in the face of basically the majority opinion in Alberta, which is to respect treaty and Aboriginal rights. So I guess it's all well and good to have a personal opinion from your law, you know, from your professor's office in Queens that basically stirs up hard feelings in Alberta, creates disunity, you know, upsets people on both sides of the issue because there's lots of Albertans that are non-Indigenous that vehemently disagree with the ideas that you're putting

forward and I just don't see how that helps get us to a yes vote which is pretty you know on a pragmatic basis what we're the most concerned about so you know that's where my concern comes from I mean you know I'm glad that you've admitted that everything that you're saying is extra legal isn't bound you know isn't has no foundation in law or the constitution and that these are just your personal opinions but you know I would say in the context of the Alberta independence movement they're extremely unhelpful personal opinions well you're words in my mouth. No, not at all.

I don't know what you mean by, I don't know what you mean by extra legal. So the point of separating from the country you belong to is to separate from its established order. And its established order includes its constitution. It includes the content of its laws. And so ideally, if Alberta was to succeed in separating, it would sit down and say, all right, Let's start again. How should we govern ourselves? How should this government, how should the government? So what you're effectively talking about is some form of communist revolution. Let's start from scratch.

We can get rid of property rights. We can get rid of all the laws and the legal foundation of the jurisdiction within which we find ourselves. We can erase the vested rights of 300,000 citizens of Alberta. And you think that that proposition makes sense in the context of getting us to yes within 12 months. That's what I find so shocking about the opinions that you're putting forward, Bruce, is that they're not the least bit helpful and are extremely divisive and do not in any way advance the cause of independence. Just let me finish this point, Bruce, because I think it's really important. So you have your own personal acts to grind with regard to treaty in Aboriginal rights.

I'm sure there's a minority in Alberta that probably shares your point of view. But I don't see how that minority opinion helps advance independence. The system that now exists is unfair to two groups. The first group is rank and file indigenous people. And the second one is ordinary Canadian citizens. The indigenous people, the rank and file indigenous people, are trapped right now by group rights. Those group rights are subject to the way.

and the potential corruptions of their leaders. And Canadian citizens... I have... I have... That's complete nonsense. I let you finish. That is complete nonsense. I let you finish.

Why don't you let me finish? Canadian citizens are subject to the violation of the idea that everybody is subject to the same rights and privileges. And they are being subject to... So somebody is hunting, trapping and fishing rights. A bottomless... A bottomless... Trapping and fishing rights.

Gentlemen. Gentlemen. Jeff and Bruce. Just if we're going to let one guy finish, let the other guy finish and we can go back and forth. The problem with a video podcast online is when you talk over each other, we're not going to get anywhere. So let's just let Bruce finish. Then Jeff, you can talk. And let's just let them think out their thoughts.

And then you can go back and forth. So Bruce, finish your thought. Then Jeff hop in. Right. So, as I was saying, the system that we have disadvantages those two groups of people and advantages to other groups of people. And it advantages indigenous leaders and chiefs and non-indigenous government bureaucrats, consultants, lawyers. It's called the Aboriginal industry. What we have done with the best of intentions is we have created a grift based upon government, large, yes, we have disenfranchised a whole group of people on the basis of group rights,

and we can fix it instead by substituting those group rights for individual rights. As you may know, what I have suggested is that those bands that have reserves, you take those reserves, you chop them up into bits, and you give title to those lots to individual indigenous people so that they can do with their property, what everybody else can do with theirs. They can improve it. They can mortgage it. They can sell it. They can pass it on. They can lease it like everybody else. Everybody has to have the same rights and privileges. Otherwise, it turns into the kind of disaster, the permanent dependency that we have right now. There's a lot of reasons, Bruce, for the dependency, so-called permanent dependency of First Nations that have little or nothing to do with,

the fact that reserve lands are held in trust pursuant to the terms of the treaty. So again, everything that you're saying has nothing whatsoever to do with the law. It has to do with your personal opinion. And what I would phrase is the politics of envy that you don't like other people having rights that you don't have. And that's about what it comes down to. So as far as it goes, on a going forward basis, there's what you're suggesting, like just the phrase, let's chop their land up into bits. Well, Bruce, that's all you're doing now is throwing a Molotov cocktail into the middle of the mix, trying to force people to be fighting with one another over these issues,

as opposed to coming together in a manner where we can, in a unified fashion, come to yes with regard to independence. So I'm not sure whether you're deliberately sabotaging the independence movement by doing this, but it's certainly the effect of what you're doing. By getting into war with, no, let me finish now. I will, yes. Sure. Go ahead.

Right. You know, what you're proposing is, in effect, causing a massive, massive societal upheaval in and around this issue at the same time that we're trying to win a referendum. It's a non-starter. You know, and again, this whole idea that somehow or other, everybody's equal and that everybody, you know, should somehow have the same rights. I mean, are you talking about doing away with trusts that provide group rights to groups of beneficiaries? That seems to be your suggestion. It's a fairly well-known doctrine under Canadian law. And that's effectively what the treaties were,

you know, that the ancestors of these people held title to the entire province and in exchange for the promises under the treaty, put those lands in trust with the federal government in exchange for those promises. Now, you're suggesting is let's ignore 150 years of history and let's completely eradicate the trust that was created, by those treaties and to use your exact words, chop their lands up into bits and treat them like everybody else.

And that's your suggestion for a successful referendum at the end of the day. It's a non-starter bruise. And I really wonder, you know, in promoting this idea, whether you're deliberately trying to sabotage what we're doing because it's not going to work. You are insisting upon the premise

of treating people as though they are different people. And we're, we should be beyond that now. Invasion and migration and mixing is the history of humanity. And the only objection that you are bringing to my suggestions is essentially a political one, a pragmatic one. Fair enough. But let's acknowledge that's what it is. You have not actually addressed the principled point. The principal point is that people are people. And at a certain point, yes, sure, these events have happened throughout human history. You have a set of inhabitants of a territory. And at some point, other people come in, and they are resisted, and understandably so. But eventually, those two

groups of people mix, and they become a third thing. If we as a species were thieves with the project of looking endlessly back through history to try to figure out who has grievances and who is a victim and who is an oppressor, then you would have this kind of law in all the countries of the world, but you don't. My favorite example is Great Britain because it's handy. In Great Britain, the Saxons at a certain point in time were the dominant power. And then in 1066, the Normans came in and conquered the place. And you know, the people whose ancestors were Saxons, you know, might have grievances against those people whose ancestors were Normans. But that's That's not the way it works, because those are not the two distinct peoples in Great Britain.

Everybody is a mixture of something else, including people who are from elsewhere. If British law tried to give different rights to Saxons and to Normans, the thing wouldn't work, and it would be against the whole idea of blind justice. That would be ridiculous. But we stick and insist upon that idea in this country. It is detrimental to everybody involved, everybody involved. everybody involved except for those exceptions that I mentioned. But to my question for you, Jeff, you seem to be standing behind or hiding behind existing Canadian law, existing Canadian

constitution. If you are going to establish a new country, then surely you are going to have a look at all that law and decide for yourself what you want to keep and what you want to get rid of. Are you contemplating an Alberta that simply reproduces all the law in Canada? Are you done now, Bruce? Sure. Yeah. I mean, as far as it goes, Bruce, what we're contemplating is respect for the existing rights of people that live in this province. This is a free and democratic movement.

We're not proposing a revolution, which apparently is what you're proposing, which is that a group take over, extrajudicially take over a province, and then deny the rights of 300,000 people, which seems to be your thesis. And the fact that you keep harping on somehow or other that this is genetic or whatever it is, it's not. The simple fact of the matter is it's a matter of people, the recognition of individual either Métis people or indigenous people in Alberta belonging to First Nations. It's a matter of ancestry going back to their grandparents or great-grandparents signing treaties.

This isn't, you know, these are legally binding documents. and you're basically saying let's shred the legally existing rights and the legally binding obligations that the existing government of Canada and the existing government of Alberta has in the context of an independence exercise. I am. I am. Well, good for you. Now, how does that comply with the Clarity Act? It does it? Oh, okay.

So at that point, so at that point, just let me finish. I'm not talking. Right? You know, at that point, you're suggesting that we're doing something completely outside of the framework of Canadian law, which is fine. I just want you to acknowledge that that's what you're doing. And you're talking about as, you know, as an exercise, a thought exercise, that we should get rid of the vested rights of 300,000 people in this province. And I just wonder whether you'd be as willing to say, okay, well, let's do away with the transgenerational transfer of wealth. What other forms of transgenerational rights are interests are you prepared to dispose of on the basis of your own personal opinion, which is really what this comes down to. Okay. Wait, wait. I want to interject here for a second.

Sure. First, Bruce, are you suggesting you get rid of 300,000 people's rights? I'm suggesting you get rid of the special status that however many people hold, yes. And then they would be on equal footing or I don't know if that's the right word. So forgive you. They would have the same rights and freedoms and personal. privileges as everybody else. In other words,

what Bruce is proposing is waving a magic waving a magic fairy wand in the air and erasing treaty in Aboriginal rights in Alberta. I'm sorry, Sean. I forget what your question was. Well, I was just, Jeff was saying that you want to get rid of 300,000 people's rights.

Right? So I'm just curious if that's what you're implying. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. So let's back up a step. Here's, here's, here's, here's a step that Jeff is trying to deny as a possibility. If you become an independent country, Alberta, then you need to start from scratch and say, all right, how is this going to work? How do we want this to work? Because

we are leaving a country that doesn't work. And one of the reasons it doesn't work is that his constitution isn't very good. And in that constitution or contained all kinds of different rights and privileges and so on. So as a starting point, I think Alberta should say, you know what? We are going to probably have our own constitution. And we are going to do away with those parts of the Canadian constitution that don't work. And what parts are those? And that gets you into a conversation a little bit like the one that the Americans had at their revolution,

which was, what was good from the old country and what should we leave behind? And how do we make this place anew? so it works for all the people in a much better way. That's the kind of conversation that sounds like Jeff does not want to have. Well, my concern is that Bruce is proposing that he wave a magic fairy wand in the air and erase the existing rights of 300,000 Albertans. And he wants to deny that we should have a transitional constitution or that we're going to have a transitional government,

that somehow or other, the somehow magical revolutionary government that Bruce can identify is going to pop into being with a new constitution, without any transition or without any discussion whatsoever with regard to people's existing rights on the basis of his own personal opinion that the existing rights of 300,000 people should be eradicated with the wave of a fairy warrant. To me, it's not the least bit helpful. It's not going to work in the context of getting a yes vote in the context of a referendum in 12 months. And at this point, I'm really wondering whether Bruce is just acting as controlled opposition. and wants this entire exercise to fail.

Because as somebody who's lived in Alberta my entire life, I can tell you the majority opinion in this province is that we respect treaty and Aboriginal rights in this province. And because a law professor from Queens says we shouldn't, that means that we should all start fighting with one another instead of working together to a future for everybody in this province, including Alberta's indigenous people, which Professor Party seems to think we should just forget about

because he has some idyllic view of the world based on the Norman conquest, you know, as in we can have a referendum vote and all of a sudden the indigenous people of Alberta become conquered people and too bad for them. It's a particularly odious point of view, I think. Bruce, are you controlled opposition? Are you doing this? I mean, so Jeff, sorry, Sean, you'll notice this. Jeff has not actually addressed the principled question. And really, all he has for me is an insult. So you can take from that whatever you like.

Oh, come on, Bruce. I have been addressing your issues. My concern is that you want to completely erase the existing rights of 300,000 people. You've admitted that that's what you want to do. And then you don't think that that's going to be a problem at all in terms of getting to yes in a referendum. So I have to suggest that somehow or other, I haven't addressed your question. I have. These rights exist.

They are the basis of over 150 years of history in this province. They are based on Aboriginal rights and title that pre-existed Canada, pre-existed Alberta. And your suggestion is to basically suggest that somehow or other, because of immigration to Alberta, we can declare in effect a Norman conquest and start from scratch by ignoring the rights of 300,000 people. I don't think it's a particularly helpful perspective. If Alberta were to go on course and do it create its own constitution, then the elimination of the Canadian Constitution in Alberta territory would eliminate all the constitutional rights of all the people there

under the Canadian Constitution. You're starting again. You have to rethink how this works. What you're doing is insisting upon the continuation of a system of permanent dependency that does not work for the people you're trying to protect. Bruce, the issue is it obvious. Everybody knows this system doesn't work. You are insisting that because we've been doing it for so long,

it has to remain the way it is. And this is the moment. There's a hang on, Bruce. This is like, you, you keep interrupting me. Why don't you let me finish? This is the moment Alberta has to rethink all of these things. If you don't do it at this moment when you, when you obtain independence, it will never, never happen.

And everybody knows this system doesn't work. Everybody knows that. Everybody knows that, Jeff. Everybody knows this system doesn't work. All you're doing is the system because it's existed for so long, therefore we have to have it the way it is. That's what you're saying. No, that's not what I'm saying at all, Bruce.

There's a big difference between the existence of rights and a dysfunctional system. Nobody, I think everybody can agree that the system doesn't work, but it doesn't work because of the existence of, you know, treaty and Aboriginal rights. The reason the system doesn't work is 100-some-odd years of failed bureaucracy and the denial of treaty and Aboriginal rights and the refusal to honor the treaties the way that they were written and the way the promises were made in those treaties by the government of Canada. Had the treaties been honored, just now you're interrupting me, Bruce, so let me finish. Had the treaties been honored the way that they were intended to be honored, going back to the 1890s, where First Nations people were promised that they would be educated ever-increasing in knowledge, so as to enable them to always earn their living, which is right in the commissioner's report to treaty eight, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

But of course, Ottawa has drastically underfunded, undereducated, underperformed on every single treaty promise, which has led to the dysfunctional mess that we have now. So to suggest somehow or other that rights have to do with the dysfunction of various communities or indigenous poverty in Alberta, the indigenous poverty is laid directly at the doorstep of Canada. But taking away rights that these people have, taking away their land base, chopping their land up into pieces, as you would suggest, Bruce, is not the way forward and is not the way to address these problems. You know, this whole idea that you can just wave the magic equality wand and somehow or other you're going to end indigenous poverty is complete nonsense. Are you done? Yeah, I'm done for now.

Okay, so what you're insisting upon is the system of Aboriginal rights and status and privileges that has created the situation that we're in. What you're insisting upon is the continuation of the relationship that essentially, and we don't use these words, but essentially you create words of the state who are supposed to be paid, not because of what they do, but because of who they are. forever. What you're asking for is more money from the government. That's what it comes down to. Your bottom line is the government hasn't paid enough money and the reason it's dysfunctional is they haven't paid enough money. So if the government pays more money and permanently into the future, well, then maybe the situation will fix itself. But in fact, it is because it is because of the special status, the special rights, the different relationship, the treatment of the treatment of people as distinct peoples that is at the root of the whole problem.

If you don't fix that, you will continue on with a dysfunctional system. Well, obviously, I'm never going to agree with you, Bruce. The issue that we have goes beyond money. It goes towards the respect for indigenous rights and the resources that come from their lands. This, our entire society has been built on the backs of Aboriginal people and on the backs of their lands. And what we're proposing on a going forward basis

is a constitutionalized resource revenue sharing agreement with First Nations in Alberta to make sure that they're not going to be wards of the state, that they will be truly independent within an independent Alberta and be able to chart their own future for the first time ever, which under the present system, I agree with you, has been extremely difficult, if not impossible, because of all the inherent corruption and incompetence

of the Department of Indian Affairs and the federal government. I don't disagree with you on those points, Bruce, but your suggestion that somehow, just let me finish, your suggestion that somehow or other taking rights away from people is going to make them better off

is, you know, is, again, just your personal opinion and not one that seems to make a lot of sense to, you know, makes a lot of sense going forward. And again, I'm going to reiterate this point. We are never going to succeed

in having a yes vote with regard to Alberta independence if we're at war with 300 indigenous people in the province of Alberta. So keep spreading your opinion, Bruce, and keep, you know, beating on this drum and telling indigenous people that your plan for an independent Alberta is to chop the lands up into bits and take it away from them. And I guess we'll see how likely we are to succeed. Yeah, but I see, which we're not going to succeed at all.

You're, you're misrepresenting what I suggested. And in fact, in the same way that you've been misrepresenting what I've been saying, Okay, so let me repeat my proposal is to take reserve lands and give title to those lands to lots on those lands to individual indigenous people. It's not taking the land away. It is giving it to the individuals to do with as they see fit. And there are an awful lot, and you know this too, there are an awful lot of regular indigenous people who agree with me that they are under the thumb of their leadership and that this is a system that should not continue. Let me tell you a story that I told Sean last time that I was on with him. And I was having a conversation. This is years ago.

I was coming in a conversation with an indigenous person, having not exactly this argument, but this kind of argument. And he said, you know, we have been here longer than you. We were here first. We've been here longer than you. And I asked him how old he was. And he said he was in his late 20s. And I said, well, if that's the case,

then I have been here longer than you. Everybody who was born here is native to the place, is as native as anybody else to the place. A citizen of Canada should be a citizen of Canada without regard to who your ancestors are. And I know you will not agree with that, and we've established that pretty clearly.

But an awful lot of people in this country I think are of this opinion that it is past time to keep pretending that it matters who your parents are, who your ancestors are, what lineage you think you claim. We are all mixed up. And that's good. We have populations that are all mixed together from all over the place. And to pretend that peoples are still distinct and deserve to be treated differently on the basis of that lineage, I think, is a grave error.

Well, that's fine, Bruce. I can agree with you on that. Then let's just invoke full communism, which is what you seem to be suggesting, and we'll do away with the transgenerational transfer of wealth in Canada. Because that's what we're talking about. These people's ancestors owned the land in Alberta. In exchange for giving up that land subject to the terms of the treaties, trusts were established under those treaties.

You're talking about doing away with those trusts. So let's do away with family trust. Let's do away with the transgenerational transfer of wealth, right? Let's just go full communist, which is what you seem to be suggesting, when we can just arbitrarily erase the rights of 300,000 people, and because that fits your idealized worldview. You know, to me, it's just, it's just baffling that you think that you're being the least bit helpful with regard to Alberta independence by running around spewing ideas like this,

which frankly make no sense whatsoever into the context of the current, you know, the current state of the law in Alberta. And on top of it, you know, the overwhelming majority of Albertans, which I think support the continuation of treaty and Aboriginal rights in this province. It's great that you want to provoke this fight, Bruce, and that you want to, I guess, get what, you know, some sort of influence or points for being, you know, a right-wing equalizer and destroyer of Aboriginal nations and Aboriginal nations and Aboriginal rights good all the power to you but it's not helpful and it's not going to help us get to a yes vote in a referendum okay i want to ask a question because i jeff i just want to make sure i understand you say eradicate the trust which is um forgive me if i'm this is i just want some clarification is the trust an individual like um first nation that they negotiated with canada years ago that's the trust you're talking about?

Yeah, I'm talking specifically about the Alberta treaties. Alberta Treaty 6, 7, 8, and I guess part of Treaty 4 comes into Alberta as well. I mean, there were agreements entered into with, you know, the government of Canada, which the imperial crown required Canada to enter into prior to taking up and using the lands in the province. And what Bruce is saying is, in effect, that Alberta, through violence, effectively, in a post-independence world can just declare an end

to 150 years of vested treaty in Aboriginal rights, which to me is a non-starter in the context of what we're trying to achieve, which is a yes vote. So it's great that Bruce wants to have this debate and he wants to stir up. Jeff, one other question.

If you cut up the trust, you've mentioned communism multiple times, and I'm wondering how common, but forgive me, I can be just, I am the layperson here, so I can be, I'm listening to you two go back and forth. Like, if you cut up the treaty, okay, and you give individuals right to their property instead of a group, the group, to me, represents communism. And an individual getting rights on their own lands is the opposite, sorry of that.

Or am I wrong on that? Well, the problem with it is, is what Bruce is talking about doing, is doing away with the transgenerational, transfer of wealth and property, which is what the treaties represent. And no, in the same way as a common law trust where, you know, people, you know, will property down through several generations. That's effectively what the treaties did, right? What Bruce wants to do is to basically break up all of the Indian reserves in Alberta, right? And then on some, you know, God knows on what basis the allocations would happen, because there's certainly members of those First Nations that have an interest in those lands that don't live there, that live in the cities or whatever, but they still

want to be able to go back and they want to be able hunt on their lands and they want to be able to participate in the community, Aboriginal community on their lands or whatever it is. Bruce is talking about on the basis of his personal opinion doing away with all of that and starting what amounts to social chaos in Alberta because we are never going to get to a yes vote for independence if this is the type of opinion that is going to prevail. And if Bruce wants to advocate for his opinion, and if he wants to push this idea forward, you know, I'm, you know,

I pretty much think that we may as well give up having a successful referendum in the next year. And I guess we can thank Bruce Party for that and we can all just go home. On your question, Sean, here's the difference between this transgenerational transfer of wealth that Jeff is talking about and the reserve system, two different things.

And you've alluded to the difference. And the difference is this. The reserves are group rights. And the transgenerational transfer of those rights is controlled by the group and by the group's leaders. Individual indigenous people have no control over that. If they want to transfer their interests to somebody else, they cannot do it because it's outside the definition of the group. So they do not have the same kind of property rights. and are not able to pass them down in the same way that everybody else can or in the way that they wish.

So what does is that? Let me finish. The American economist Thomas Sowell wants to put it this way. He said, when you are used to special treatment, equal treatment, themes like discrimination. What I am talking about is ending discrimination. and what Jeff is arguing for is continuing it on into the indefinite future. That's simply not the case. What I am advocating for is the continued respect of treaty and Aboriginal rights in the province of Alberta.

Bruce wants to characterize it in the way that he's characterizing it so that he can continue to advocate for this position of his, that Indian, you know, that we wave a fair wand in the air, that we do away with treaty and Aboriginal rights in Alberta, and all of the people like Bruce that appear at it, suffer from treaty in Aboriginal rights envy can now say once and for all that they've solved the problem and that nobody has any rights that they don't have you know it's to me you know it's a non-starter in the context of where we're at it's a recipe for chaos in the context of the referendum process

and isn't the least bit helpful on a going forward basis and i don't think it's a majority viewpoint of the people of Alberta and it's not going to sell in the context of trying to have a successful referendum. So I guess if people like Bruce want to keep pushing this idea forward and suggesting, you know, and he's not even suggesting, he's straight out said that his, that his desire is to eradicate the existing rights of 300,000 people in Alberta because he doesn't like the fact that these people have those rights, then, you know, I guess we may as well all go home and stop talking about independence because we're never going to achieve it with people like Mr. Party proposing such radical ideas that literally, you know, are going to be opposed by well more than 60 or 70%

of the population of Alberta. So thanks for coming out, Bruce. It's really helpful that you're doing this. And, you know, I really don't know what to say other than I'm pretty sure now after this conversation, you have no interest whatsoever in seeing Alberta becoming an independent country. Well, in response to that, I would say to Albertans, think big. folks, you have the chance to save Western civilization and no less than that. But if you do it the way Mr. Rath is proposing, all you're going to do is get free from the particular tentacles of Ottawa. This is an opportunity for you to rethink your own civilization, your own place, how you should be governed, what the principle should be. It's an opportunity to think again.

about all the problems that you're trying to escape from. And the very worst thing that you could do is to reproduce automatically without thinking about it, all those problems within Alberta that you are trying to escape when you're leaving Canada. There is Canada outside Alberta, and there's a lot of Canada inside Alberta too, and you need to get rid of both.

So don't do this blindly, do it thoughtfully, do it with debate, do it with an open mind, and rethink what it is that you're a country, should be. I was just going to finish by saying both of you are going to be in Calgary this Wednesday night, correct? Jeff, you're coming to the courage to listen. You're speaking at it, correct? Yeah, that's correct. So, you know, for the audience, if you don't have tickets to the courage to listen, building a framework for a sovereign Alberta, Bruce Party's going to be there, Jeff Rath's going to be there. There's going to be some other folks as well. I could probably list off here and let me pull it up. You can go of The Courage to Listen.cai to get tickets.

You got Mitch Sylvester, Peter McCaffrey, Dr. Michael Wagner, Chris Sims, and Matthew Erred also going to be on stage there. And whether Albertans like this conversation, hate this conversation, wherever they're at on the spectrum of the conversation, parts of it are going to be happening again very shortly in Alberta, in Calgary, at the courage to listen. Jeff, if you got a final thought, I'll give it to you. You hopped out for a second and then you've come back. Yeah, no, I just wanted to add that, you know, on a going forward basis,

I think everybody that's interested in independence at Alberta, you know, needs to recognize that moving forward by thinking that we're going to become an independent country, by destroying the rights or eradicating the rights of 300,000 people in this province, is, you know, simply a non-starter. When I speak at APP events around the province and I talk about, you know, the plan moving forward to lift indigenous people out of poverty through constitutionalized resource revenue sharing and respect for treaty and aboriginal rights, I get overwhelming applause from every single audience that I appear in front of and I share those ideas with.

Unfortunately, you know, there are people out there that share Professor Party's point of view. It's a particular point of view. In my own words, I think it's a pretty odious point of view. And I think it's one that's designed to make sure that we don't succeed in having a successful referendum within 12 months because you're not going to be able to sell that idea of Professor parties that we just trash the rights of 300,000 people on the way to independence on the road to a yes vote to get Alberta out of Canada. So, you know, I guess, you know, that's where we're at. I think it's a diametrically opposed viewpoint. And I thank you for having me on and

and letting me respond at least in part to some of Bruce Party's suggestions, which are not the least bit helpful in the context of Alberta independence. Gentlemen, I appreciate you doing this. I'm going to say it again. If people want to hear more on this conversation, the courage to listen.com.ca is where you're going to get tickets. These two individuals are going to be on stage again, or together, I should say, in Alberta, in Calgary, here Wednesday night.

Gentlemen, thanks for hopping on and doing this. My pleasure. Thank you for having me.