Many in Alberta support independence, and many more across the West want out of Canada. You can feel it in the comments online, in the conversations at coffee shops, and in the energy at townhalls. People are restless. They want it to happen now.

But here’s the hard truth—we are a long way from making it real. Why? Because right now, we are nothing more than scattered voices. We talk. We argue. We complain. And then we wait for someone else to organize it for us.

Yes, we show up at APP meetings and other events. We nod along, we learn, we show support. But support alone doesn’t build independence.

Human beings create nations. And in this movement, we are going to focus on the latter part of that word—the “being” part. Because declarations don’t build nations. “Being” does.

The Forgotten Power of “Being”

We call ourselves human beings, but too many forget that second word. “Being” is not talk. “Being” is action. It is putting your hands, your mind, and your will into the thing you desire.

Without “being” the thing we want, it will never manifest into reality. And that’s why so many fall back on government and organizations—because it’s easier to let someone else do it for us.

But here’s the problem: those organizations are not working for you. Not the government, not the unions, not the councils or corporations. They are working for themselves. Their workers don’t create freely—they follow orders, because their paycheque depends on it.

That is the game. When the organization pays the worker, it owns the worker’s output. It buys their “being.”

Government: The Parasite That Controls the People

A parasite, by definition, is an organism that leeches resources from a living host in order to extract its own life force and proliferate. In our society, the host is the human “being,” and the parasite is the organization of government.

But governments are worse than ordinary parasites. They don’t just drain resources; they extract our “being”—our work, our money, our creativity. They take the output of human “beings” and then feed a portion of it back in the form of wages, pensions, and programs. And with that exchange, they tighten control: paying people while dictating what they can and cannot do with their own work.

Step back and you’ll see it: government is the biggest employer in society. Bigger than any corporation. Provincial, federal, municipal—it doesn’t matter. Between health care, education, administration, law enforcement, and all the agencies stacked on top, 10–20% of the population is directly paid by tax dollars.

And guess who is organized? The government. Guess where they get their money? From you and me, through taxes. And where do they spend it? Paying people. Because government, at its core, is the parasite that controls the people.

So what happens? People care more about their next paycheque than about whether their work is contributing to a healthy society. That’s the true power of the salary: the ability to buy the “being” of a person.

And let’s be honest—we have all done it. Every one of us has signed on the dotted line, exchanging our “being” for money. What do you call it when you sell your “being” to the highest bidder? There are many words for it: mercenary, prostitute, pen for hire, sellout, hack, scab.

Here’s the hard truth—another word for it is employee. And everyone continues living as if we are not all selling out our “being” to the one who pays. And the largest one who pays is the government.

We have sold our “being.” We have sold the results of our hard work to serve the vision of the organization. And here’s the irony: we all complain about what government does—without acknowledging that it is built from our own work, our own funds, our own lives. The parasites at the top control our collective output because we hand it over to them.

Then we wonder why the world feels broken. It is because we have given our power away, piece by piece, until the very system that enslaves us is built from our own hands.

The Parasite Cycle of Government

• They leech money through taxes.

• They extract it to feed the life force of government.

• The parasite becomes stronger and more organized.

• They extract even more (there are always new taxes).

• They pay people just enough of what they’ve taken to keep the human “being” alive.

Who Really Funds the Organization?

So what do we do about it? If we are the ones funding the very organization that controls us, then the responsibility is ours.

It’s time to defund the government in the only way that matters: by taking the resources we have and choosing where to put them. Choosing which organizations we empower with our own dollars.

Does the government allow this? Of course not. Because if you could choose where your tax money went, the whole system would collapse. Grassroots organizations would thrive. Bureaucrats would starve. And suddenly the parasites wouldn’t have a host to feed on.

That’s why taxes are mandatory, enforced by law. Because if it were voluntary—if people actually got to decide—we would finally see real democracy. A society where the people direct their funds, not the parasites at the top.

Reclaiming the “Being”

I don’t say this to shame anyone for their job. We’ve all been there. I say it to show the truth: the organization only has power because it buys our “being.”

But we can choose differently. Everything we value—schools, churches, railroads, homes, associations—was built by human “beings,” not by the state. It was our hands that created them.

If we don’t like the direction of our government, then we must “be” something else. That is our power.

A Call to Self-Organization

This is a call to the individual. To you, as a human “being.” You are not alone. Millions feel this way. But they feel powerless, waiting for orders, waiting for paycheques, waiting for someone else to act.

But who else is going to do it? The truth is we can. We must.

We need to self-organize. To redirect our energy, our “being,” and yes, our money—away from the parasites and into creation. It will take courage. It will take faith. But if we build it, others will come.

The Challenge Before Us

If this resonates with you, then it’s your responsibility to put your “being” toward something higher—something worthy of God and not the parasites of government.

If we keep selling ourselves to the parasites, we cannot be surprised when the world itself becomes parasitic. The evidence is all around us.

Our creation must be given to the Creator, to GOD Himself—not to bureaucrats, not to politicians, not to the endless machine of control. We must “being” in the name of Christ, for the love of neighbor and the love of self.

Because only when our “being” is rooted in God, expressed in love, and directed toward creation—not control—will we see a future that is free, alive, and truly independent.

So the question stands:

*What are you going to do with your “being”?

August 13, 2025 – Camrose, Alberta

On a cool August evening, locals gathered in Camrose for another stop on the Alberta Independence Discussion tour. Though the format was simple—a handful of speakers, followed by open discussion—the weight of the questions in the room was anything but. What does independence mean? Can Alberta chart its own future outside the orbit of Ottawa? And what role does each citizen play in making that choice?

Setting the Stage

Organizer Jon Sedore opened the evening by grounding the discussion in its purpose: documenting what matters most to Albertans. Every meeting is recorded, he explained, not for spectacle but for truth—so that when political leaders and parties talk about what people want, there is a real record to compare their claims against.

He reminded the room that “independence” means many different things to different people—some see it as outright separation, others as greater autonomy within Canada, still others as aligning with the U.S. “That’s why we’re here,” Sedore said. “To ask hard questions and decide together what future we want.” His call was simple: don’t stay silent. Speak up, whether in the meeting or later at your kitchen tables and cafes, because silence is what keeps the status quo in place.

Jeff Willerton: Fixing Canada—or Leaving It Behind

Jeff Willerton wasted no time in going straight to the heart of his message: Canada is broken, and has been for decades.

Drawing on his experience in the Canadian Forces, the Taxpayers’ Federation, and as author of Fix Canada, Willerton argued that Ottawa’s problems are not mistakes of policy but deliberate patterns of control. Both major parties, he said, are “wings of the same bird,” enabling one another to impose globalist policies, from Brian Mulroney’s signing of the Rio Declaration to Stephen Harper’s approval of Codex Alimentarius. “One party sets up the shot, the other takes it,” he declared.

Though not always a separatist, Willerton admitted his affinity for Alberta’s independence grows daily. Yet he also acknowledged the possibility of remaining in Canada, provided there is a radical course correction rooted in moral clarity. “We have shed innocent blood,” he warned, citing abortion, euthanasia, and the indoctrination of youth. For Willerton, whether Alberta leaves or stays, the future must begin with repentance and a defense of life. His candidacy, he insisted, is not a wasted vote but a chance to put those issues back on the national scoreboard.

Kathy Flett: Women Leading the Movement

The second speaker, Kathy Flett, co-founder of the Alberta Women’s Independence Network (AWIN), brought both conviction and strategy to the room. She traced her journey from six years of party politics—where she saw infiltration and sabotage hollow out the Wildrose Independence Party—to her decision, alongside Angela Tabak, to build a grassroots network instead of another party.

“Our message is for women,” Flett explained. “Because in this movement, the men far outnumber us, and the language of independence has always been framed for them.” At AWIN meetings, participants are given simple maps showing the Senate and House of Commons seat distribution. The imbalance is obvious, Flett said, and when women see that Alberta can never win constitutional change under the Westminster system, they move quickly from denial to resolve.

Her message was deeply practical but also hopeful. Independence, she said, is not just about escaping Ottawa’s control—it is about creating a future where Alberta’s children can thrive without being crushed by recessions, debt, and federal dictates. She called on the men in the room to support, but also to recognize that “protecting the babies” during this uncertain transition is a women’s task. “Invite me to your living rooms,” she urged. “Five women or fifty—I’ll come. Because when women are convinced, whole families move with them.”

Ron Robertson: Independence as the Only Weapon Left

Ron Robertson, interim leader of the Independence Party of Alberta, stepped forward with the weight of lived experience. A lifelong Albertan, he spent 25 years on the police force, never imagining he would one day enter politics. But the turning point, he said, has come. “There comes a time when you can no longer sit on the sidelines,” Robertson told the room. “For Alberta, that time is now.”

Robertson rooted his talk in history. From the very beginning in 1905, he said, Alberta was forced into Confederation without consent and stripped of control over its resources. Ottawa’s interference never ended, only shifted forms. He laid much of the blame at the feet of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, describing him as a Marxist who used federalism to undermine Christian values, erode the family, and lay the groundwork for authoritarian control.

Canada today, Robertson argued, is already sliding into tyranny. From COVID lockdowns that shuttered churches while mosques stayed open, to Tamara Lich and Chris Barber facing jail for peaceful protest, to Marxist climate policies designed to restrict freedom—every example, he said, proves that reform is impossible. “Sovereignty within Canada is a lie,” he insisted. “The only weapon we have is independence.”

His vision: a constitutional republic of Alberta, where rights are guaranteed, government is limited, and politicians face criminal penalties for breaking their oath. Without that, he warned, Alberta will be dragged into poverty and serfdom. His appeal was both strategic and urgent: independence parties must unite to avoid vote-splitting, and Albertans must have the courage to act before it’s too late.

Tim Hoven: Choosing the Future Over the Past

The evening closed with Tim Hoven, a rancher and former reeve of Clearwater County, who delivered a talk that combined stark warnings with a vision of possibility. Speaking as both a farmer rooted in the land and a father concerned for the next generation, Hoven framed Canada’s current trajectory in simple but arresting terms: “If you’re driving a car a hundred kilometers an hour toward a cliff, slowing down doesn’t change the outcome—you still go over.”

He cited leaked reports warning that by 2040 Canadians could be foraging for food in parks, while the RCMP itself predicted unrest once citizens realized how impoverished the country had become. Inflation, the threat of central bank digital currency, and declining property rights, he said, are not abstract risks—they are already reshaping daily life. To underline the point, he reminded the audience of the chilling slogan promoted by the World Economic Forum: “You will own nothing and be happy.”

But Hoven also turned to history, noting that Alberta’s frustrations are nothing new. From Rupert’s Land monopolies to Riel’s rebellions, Ottawa has blocked Western aspirations for over a century. “For 140 years, we’ve been told to wait, to hope, to trust,” he said. “And every time, the East takes our resources, sets the rules, and leaves us begging for scraps.”

His closing words were a call to courage: “By not choosing, you are still choosing the past. This fight will come—better that it comes to us than to our children. It’s time to decide whether we will let the old Canada pull us under, or whether we will build a future worth fighting for.”

Open Forum: Where Common Sense Finds Common Ground

When the microphones were finally opened to the floor, the evening shifted from speeches to raw dialogue. What stood out most in Camrose was a back-and-forth over where to place blame. Some participants wanted to point the finger at Premier Danielle Smith or other politicians, frustrated by individual decisions and inconsistencies. Others pushed back, warning that targeting personalities only divides people who should be working together.

The deeper question became clear: is Alberta’s struggle really about this or that politician, or is it about a system that was designed to keep the province weak and dependent? The majority in the room leaned toward the latter. As one participant put it, “If we keep fighting about who sits in the chair, we’ll miss the fact that the whole table is rigged.”

This exchange revealed the power of the open forum: people could disagree, push each other, and still find common ground. In the end, the consensus was that no single leader—whether Smith, Trudeau, or anyone else—could fix what Albertans are facing. The problem is structural, rooted in the imbalance of Confederation and reinforced by federal overreach.

The conversation also turned to the referendum expected in the months ahead. Concerns were raised that Ottawa might manipulate the process, delay the vote, or muddy the question so badly that it would fail to capture Albertans’ true will. Participants questioned whether a citizen-led referendum could be trusted, or whether only a united independence movement in the legislature could deliver the clarity needed. This sparked urgency: if independence is to move forward, Albertans must not only vote but also safeguard the process itself from interference.

By the end of the discussion, two threads had woven together: the need to avoid division by focusing on the system rather than personalities, and the recognition that the referendum will be a decisive test. People left with the sense that independence is not about trading one politician for another, but about building a framework where government is accountable—and ensuring that Albertans themselves, not Ottawa, decide the future.

Key Topics Covered

• What Independence Really Means – Sovereignty, Separation, or Reform?
  “That’s why we’re here—to ask hard questions and decide together what future we want.”

• The Moral Foundation – Protecting Life, Family, and Freedom
  “We have shed innocent blood, and until we repent of that, nothing else will stand.”

• Women’s Leadership – Shaping Families and the Future
  “When women are convinced, whole families move with them.”

• Canada as a Failed System – Resource Control and Globalist Agendas
  “Sovereignty within Canada is a lie. The only weapon we have is independence.”

• Economic Survival – From Food Security to Digital Currency
  “If we can’t afford homes or groceries, then independence isn’t just politics—it’s survival.”

• The Referendum Ahead – Clinging to the Past or Building the Future
  “By not choosing, you are still choosing the past.”

Closing Reflection

The Camrose gathering underscored the power of ordinary Albertans to wrestle with extraordinary questions. The tone was not of despair but of urgency—an insistence that the future is still unwritten, but only if people are willing to write it. Whether through networks like AWIN, parties like the AIP, or simply speaking with friends around the kitchen table, the message was the same: silence is complicity, but conversation is the seed of change.

Disclaimer: Alberta Independence Discussion (AID) event reports are prepared as summaries of public discussions and are intended to reflect the range of views expressed by speakers and participants. These reports are not verbatim transcripts. Statements made during events are the responsibility of the individual speaker and do not necessarily represent the views of AID. Any factual claims should be independently verified. AID event summaries are drafted with the assistance of AI technology based on event notes, recordings, and transcripts, and are reviewed for accuracy and clarity before publication.

On August 12th in Stettler, Alberta, more than fifty people gathered in a town hall setting for an evening of frank, open discussion on Alberta’s future. Host Jon Sedore, founder of Alberta Independence Discussion, opened the meeting by welcoming the crowd and reminding everyone why these gatherings matter: Alberta’s political crossroads can’t be navigated by slogans and soundbites alone—it takes face-to-face conversations, straight answers, and a willingness to wrestle with uncomfortable truths.

Sedore emphasized that the goal was not to put on a partisan rally, but to give Albertans a space to ask real questions of political leaders and hear their vision without the filter of party spin or media editing. “We don’t have to agree on every solution,” he said, “but we do have to agree that Alberta’s future is worth fighting for.” He acknowledged the possibility of heated disagreement but called on attendees to treat one another with respect, noting that the fight for Alberta’s future must be built on unity of purpose, even when strategies differ. He also flagged that independence, sovereignty, and reform are not abstract theories—they are decisions that could shape the lives of everyone in the room within just a few years.

With that, he introduced the evening’s lineup of speakers, each representing different corners of Alberta’s political landscape, but all tied to the same central question: Do we fix Canada from within—or leave it behind?

The Speakers

Jeff Willerton (Christian Heritage Party) opened the night with a deeply moral framing, drawing a straight line between Canada’s political history and what he sees as the erosion of life, liberty, and faith. “Those are God’s children we’re killing and maiming,” he warned, linking cultural shifts to what he considers moral decay. He traced decades of federal overreach, climate policy impositions, and assaults on traditional values—arguing that real change will require Albertans to break free from the “blue-red paradigm” and vote for leaders committed to ending abortion, euthanasia, indoctrination of children, and the cultural engineering he believes Ottawa is driving.

Jonathan Bridges (People’s Party of Canada) shifted the conversation toward fiscal responsibility and generational stewardship. Using Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund as a contrast, Bridges lamented Canada’s ballooning debt—$120,000 per person—while Alberta’s Heritage Trust Fund languishes at $5,000 per capita. “Instead of leaving an inheritance to our grandchildren, we’re stealing from them,” he said, urging the crowd to break from voting habits that have kept the same problems in place for decades. He made the case for smaller government, balanced budgets, and voting for principles rather than “strategic” blue-team loyalty, warning that every delay in changing course comes at the expense of our children’s inheritance.

Maxime Bernier (Leader, PPC) brought the federal outsider’s voice. A Quebecer and self-described federalist who nonetheless pledged to stand on the “Yes” side in any Alberta referendum, Bernier argued that both Quebec and Alberta have been lied to repeatedly by Ottawa’s power brokers. “If you vote no, nothing will change—if you vote yes, at least you have a chance,” he told the crowd. He laid out three possible outcomes of a “Yes” vote—true constitutional reform, outright independence, or even alignment with the U.S.—and urged Albertans to use a referendum as leverage for real change, warning that a “No” simply signals Ottawa to ignore the province entirely.

Cam Davies (Alberta Republican Party) reminded the room that independence sentiment in Central Alberta is stronger than media suggests, with younger Albertans often more in favour than their parents but less visible at events. While Quebec’s referendums were often a negotiating tactic, Davies stressed Alberta’s goal is different: “Independence isn’t a negotiation tactic for us—it’s an exit strategy.” He urged starting now on Alberta-first institutions—policing, tax collection, pensions, and immigration—so Ottawa can’t use them as leverage if a vote is called. He also criticized the province’s petition requirements, warning they drain time and momentum. “It doesn’t take a petition to do the right thing—it takes political will,” he said, calling independence a calculated risk worth taking over the “terrifying certainty” of staying in Confederation.

Ron Robertson (Independence Party of Alberta) took a historical and hard-line approach, connecting Alberta’s creation in 1905 to a pattern of imposed governance and resource control. He argued that Canada is already under a form of Marxist influence, pointing to Pierre Trudeau’s ideological history and current federal policies. “We can’t have sovereignty inside a system designed to control us,” Robertson said, advocating for a unilateral declaration of independence, a constitutional republic with strict limits on government power, and equal treatment for all Albertans without “special rights” enshrined in law.

Open Forum – Where the Room Comes Alive

When the formal speeches wrapped, the tone of the evening shifted into something more electric. The mics moved through the audience, and what followed was a rapid-fire exchange of ideas, challenges, and genuine curiosity.

The first round of questions tackled one of the thorniest issues in Alberta politics: the Indian Act. Audience members wanted to know exactly how each party envisioned handling Indigenous relations in an independent Alberta. Responses from the panel converged on the principle of equal rights for all Albertans, while also acknowledging the need to dismantle a system that has trapped many in dependency and stripped away property rights. “If everyone’s truly equal, there should be no special rights for anyone—and no second-class citizens either,” one speaker said to nods around the room.

Another hot topic was the timeline for independence. One attendee openly admitted they still wanted to give Canada “one last chance” before breaking away, prompting a mix of agreement and pushback from the panel. Davies cautioned that the damage done in even a few more years under the current federal direction could be irreversible. Bernier stressed that a referendum vote could serve as the “last chance” for Ottawa to offer meaningful reform—if rejected, Alberta should be prepared to leave. Robertson warned that delay has been the independence movement’s Achilles heel for decades, and that hesitation risks losing the momentum building now. “Four more years under this system will do damage we can’t undo,” he said.

The conversation also turned inward, focusing on unity—or lack of it—within the independence movement itself. Several attendees wanted clarity on why there are multiple independence parties, and how that might split the vote. The speakers explained the distinction between registered political parties and organizations like the Alberta Prosperity Project, which is an educational society rather than a political vehicle. Robertson and Davies pointed to their memorandum of understanding as an example of cooperation and called on others to follow suit, warning that running multiple pro-independence candidates in the same riding only helps the federalist parties. “Five pro-independence names on one ballot just guarantees a win for the people who want us to fail,” one speaker bluntly said.

Throughout the discussion, there was a noticeable absence of hostility. Even on points of disagreement, the exchanges stayed constructive, with speakers thanking attendees for hard questions and attendees showing openness to hearing answers they might not agree with. That willingness to engage—to challenge each other without shutting each other down—is what kept the energy high in the room right through to the breakout conversations afterward.

Key Topics Covered

• Historical federal overreach and resource control since Alberta’s founding
  “We were never meant to be an equal partner in Confederation—we were designed to be a resource colony.”

• Moral and cultural decline under Ottawa’s policies
  “When the government blames you for their crimes, you’re already living under tyranny.”

• Fiscal mismanagement and intergenerational debt
  “We’re not leaving our kids an inheritance—we’re leaving them the bill for our mistakes.”

• Referendum strategy: negotiation tool vs. direct exit
  “A ‘No’ vote tells Ottawa they can keep ignoring us—a ‘Yes’ at least forces them to the table.”

• Building Alberta-first institutions before a vote
  “If we wait until after a referendum to build them, Ottawa will make sure we never get the chance.”

• Risks of delay in pursuing independence
  “Four more years under this system will do damage we can’t undo.”

• Equal representation, Senate reform, and dismantling the Indian Act
  “If everyone’s truly equal, there should be no special rights for anyone—and no second-class citizens either.”

• The need for unity among independence parties and organizations
  “Five pro-independence names on one ballot just guarantees a win for the people who want us to fail.”

Closing Note:
The Stettler meeting demonstrated that Alberta’s political future isn’t just a matter of party platforms—it’s forged in rooms where people are willing to speak plainly, listen intently, and test their convictions against opposing views. Over fifty voices filled the hall, not in agreement on every point, but united in taking the issues seriously enough to show up and engage.

In that exchange—where tough questions met candid answers—the key themes of the night came to life: the urgency of action, the tension between caution and boldness, and the recognition that unity will matter more than perfection. These are not abstract talking points; they are the living, breathing conditions that will shape whether Alberta charts its own course or remains tied to the one set in Ottawa.

If there was one takeaway from Stettler, it’s that discussions like this are not just commentary on the times—they are part of the work itself. What happens in these rooms will determine what happens beyond them.

Disclaimer: Alberta Independence Discussion (AID) event reports are prepared as summaries of public discussions and are intended to reflect the range of views expressed by speakers and participants. These reports are not verbatim transcripts. Statements made during events are the responsibility of the individual speaker and do not necessarily represent the views of AID. Any factual claims should be independently verified. AID event summaries are drafted with the assistance of AI technology based on event notes, recordings, and transcripts, and are reviewed for accuracy and clarity before publication.