Pages 26-28 of “The Value of Freedom – A Draft Fully Costed Fiscal Plan for an Independent Alberta”.
Upfront, I wish to state most emphatically that I seek an independent Alberta free of Carney’s Canada and free of the globalist overlords and their climate change, net carbon zero scam.
Likewise, I submit these comments with the general overarching comment that this document would have much better served its purpose if it had strictly focused on “A Draft Fully Costed Fiscal Plan for an Independent Alberta”, demonstrating the clear financial benefits of Alberta becoming an independent nation. Disappointingly, the document went into opinionated political excursions. Despite saying, for example, in the “Notice to the Reader” (p. 2), that “It is not the purpose of this document to in any way prejudge or predetermine the outcome of such constitutional negotiations” (p. 26), nonetheless, the document proceeded with producing this “section dealing with the plan for Alberta’s Indigenous Nations” (p. 2).
As well, I am submitting these comments despite being told by one of the lead authors, lawyer Jeff Rath, that “You really need to internalize that we are attempting to reach out to the voters we need in the middle. There is nothing ‘problematic’ about anything in that document other than for people who insist on putting ideological purity ahead of independence”.
This section opens by reiterating the statement made on page 2, namely, “It is also not the purpose of this document to in any way prejudge or predetermine the outcome of such constitutional negotiations” (p. 26) and then proceeds to do so.
While saying (p. 26) that “It will be a required subject for discussion and negotiation in the context of the development of the constitution for the Commonwealth of Alberta”, it should be dealt with as a “subject for discussion and negotiation” in the future, AFTER a successful independence vote.
Nonetheless, we are treated to the opinions of the APP authors on this topic. For example, we are told that future constitutional arrangements “could include a continued role for the Crown of Alberta in the context of any future constitutional arrangements”. An independent Republic of Alberta will still contain “a continued role for the Crown”? So, will Salmabegum Lakhani, currently Alberta’s Lieutenant Governor become promoted to Governor General, becoming the viceregal representative of King Charles III of Canada in the new nation of Alberta?
On page 26, the APP document indicates that first nations reserves together with the Metis settlements currently occupy 1.6 million hectares of land in Alberta. However, a Google search provided an AI overview, indicating that First Nations reserves cover approximately 656,660 ha, according to the Government of Alberta, and 866,022.8 ha, according to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, and 512,121 hectares of land within the eight Métis Settlements in Alberta. Thereby, the total number of acres range from approximately 1.2 million hectares to 1.4 million hectares.
And now, APP proposes to provide another “Additional Land Allocation” of “1.6million hectares of Crown land (from Alberta’s 39.7 million hectares of public land) within traditional territories for Indigenous ownership, prioritizing areas with positive environmental improvement potential (e.g., grasslands, foothills).”
On July 7, 2025 I made the following post on X:
“Jeff Rath mocked Smith’s carbon capture and storage process as a costly “carbon sucking” machine. Offers in its place (p. 23) a “pragmatic carbon strategy” using vegetation to do the “sucking”. Then gives indigenous 1.6 million hectares of land to help manage the ‘sucking’.”
To which Jeff Rath responded as follows:
“Ron, decide what you want more – a free Alberta or your antipathy towards indigenous people. You can’t have both”, according to which, anyone who doesn’t agree entirely with his views on this topic, has antipathy towards indigenous people, and unless we accept his views, then we won’t be able to achieve a “free Alberta”.
This unfair representation of my genuine concern, prompted me to respond:
“Jeff, if as a taxpayer, I am unhappy about this situation (see below) does that make me antipathetic to indigenous people?”, which included a screen shot of this article written by Tom Flanagan for the Fraser Institute:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/an-avalanche-of-money-the-federal-governments-policies-toward-first-nations
According to that article, even though, “The annual Indigenous budget has almost tripled from 2015 to 2025, growing (in nominal dollars) from roughly $11 billion to more than $32 billion”, the article pointed out that the federal government’s policies of throwing an “avalanche of money” toward first nations did little to improve their lot. And yet, the Draft Fiscal Plan calls for the provincial Indigenous Services budget (p. 11) to be increased 3-4-fold to “$4.2–5 billion annually ($1.2–1.8 billion base + $2.4–3.2 billion new funding) to support the transition to sovereign, self-governing Indigenous communities.”
In another reply, I added, “Again, Jeff, as a taxpayer, I am unhappy about the following (see below). Does that make me have ‘antipathy towards indigenous people’?”. I shared an X post by Cory Morgan, who shared a Blacklock’s Reporter post showing how a B.C. First Nations at Kamloops was able to pocket $12.1 million in grants after claiming 215 graves, prompting him to observe, “The Kamloops Residential School hoax is one of the worst in modern history. And some folks made millions from it”.
https://x.com/ronvoss5/status/1942471607328604596?s=58
I failed to bring up a concern I have with what Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard described as the “aboriginal industry” described in their book, “Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation”, from 2008.
They argue that “Despite the billions of dollars devoted to aboriginal causes, native people in Canada continue to suffer all the symptoms of a marginalized existence.” They “expose the industry that has grown up around land claim settlements, showing that aboriginal policy development over the past thirty years has been manipulated by non-aboriginal lawyers and consultants, arguing “that the policies proposed to address these problems – land claims and self-government – are in fact contributing to their entrenchment”.
https://library.law.utoronto.ca/indigenous-perspectives/disrobing-aboriginal-industry
A 2024 article, “Indian Industry Cronyism”, by Brian Giesbrecht, a retired judge and a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, pointed out how former Justice Minister David Lametti upon his departure from government “took up immediate acceptance into an expensive law firm that makes millions from indigenous issues is a recent example of what has long been called ‘The Indian Industry’ at work”. https://fcpp.org/2024/02/16/indian-industry-cronyism/
At his legal firm’s website, Jeff Rath describes himself as “a seasoned legal advocate with over two decades of experience, has been at the forefront of advancing the rights and interests of First Nations in Canada. His expertise and knowledge have been pivotal in representing First Nations communities at all levels of court in the country, including the Supreme Court of Canada”.
https://rathandcompany.com/about-us/
In a word, a member of the so-called, “aboriginal industry”. Interestingly, I came across a case, “Tallcree First Nation v Rath and Co, 2021 ABQB 234”, where Rath was actually defending himself against a First Nation in Court. The Court heard an Appeal from the Review Officer’s Decision according to a contingency fee agreement claiming that Rath was entitled to 20 percent ($11.5 million) of the $57.5-million-dollar agricultural benefits settlement payment from the Federal Government to Tallcree. After considering the factors, the Justice re-emphasized the Court’s authority to alter or find any or all of a contingency agreement void. As such, he found that Rath was entitled to $3 million dollars as final payment, inclusive of all disbursements.
With the “aboriginal industry” in mind, I posed the following question to Jeff Rath on X, which he never answered:
“Jeff, I believe an honest question, given the nature of your legal practice, don’t you think it is appropriate for you to recuse yourself from outlining the fiscal plan for “Alberta’s Sovereign Indigenous People in an Independent Alberta”?
I believe this is warranted, and, as well, I ask that this section, “Alberta’s Sovereign Indigenous People in an Independent Alberta”, be expunged from the Draft Fiscal Plan, where all that is needed for now is to duplicate the finances received by the indigenous people from the federal government in determining the surplus we would be left with. This whole section comes across as pandering to win the support and vote of the indigenous community.
On July 9, 2025, I entered into an exchange with the APP’s Jeff Rath on X after he had posted:
“NOTICE THAT NO ONE HAS ANY SERIOUS CRITICISM OF THE “VALUE OF FREEDOM”. THE FULLY COSTED FISCAL PLAN FOR AN INDEPENDENT ALBERTA?
Several have tried – but the numbers are too solid!”, which included a video summary of the APP’s Draft Fiscal Plan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW9GRHjUT64
I responded:
“The numbers presumably are fine, and wish you had stuck to that, but the parts on ‘Sustainability (UN Terminology) and the Environment’ and ‘Alberta’s Sovereign Indigenous People in an Independent Alberta’ are problematic”.
Which generated his response, “You really need to internalize that we are attempting to reach out to the voters we need in the middle. There is nothing ‘problematic’ about anything in that document other than for people who insist on putting ideological purity ahead of independence.”
The section, “Sustainability and the Environment”, which I had previously reviewed, and its “pragmatic carbon strategy” emphasizing carbon sequestration by forests and grasslands and the promotion of such to provide a “carbon offset” is integral to understanding the transfer of land to indigenous communities. As pointed out in part 5 (Integration with Environmental Strategy) of “Alberta’s Sovereign Indigenous People in an Independent Alberta” section of the Draft Fiscal Plan, it calls for (p. 27): “Indigenous-Owned Environmental Projects: Transfer 1.6 million hectares of land including grasslands and foothills within the traditional indigenous territories for Indigenous-led environmental management including provision for natural carbon sequestration, yielding 0.5–5 Mt C/year”, and according to p. 26, this “indigenous-managed sequestration” (p. 27) is supposed to be “aligning to overall Alberta goals”, whatever those are. As described in the Introduction to the Draft Fiscal Plan (p. 6), “The environmental strategy (described in the “Sustainability and the Environment” section) emphasizes leveraging Alberta’s vast natural landscapes to mitigate concerns regarding carbon dioxide levels.”
As discussed in detail previously with respect to my submission in regards to the “Sustainability and the Environment” section, (p. 23-25), I had asked Jeff Rath these two questions on X:
“Does he believe 1) in man-made climate change caused by carbon dioxide emissions and 2) the necessity of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to achieve net carbon zero by 2050?” He replied, “I do not believe that man influences climate in any meaningful way. I don’t believe that Alberta needs to reduce CO2 in any way whatsoever. Last I checked CO2 was good for crops, forests and the vegetation that our wildlife needs to thrive”.
So, I am beginning to understand what he means when he says, “we are attempting to reach out to the voters we need in the middle” and we can’t be “people who insist on putting ideological purity ahead of independence.” Despite clearly declaring that he did “not believe that man influences climate in any meaningful way” and that he did not believe that “Alberta needs to reduce CO2 in any way whatsoever”, nonetheless, he decided to play along with the game, hoping by doing so he will be able “reach out to the voters we need in the middle”, essentially pandering, attempting to buy votes.
While the APP supposedly is open to and invites feedback on its document, it is shocking to learn, according to one of its authors, that supposedly there is nothing “problematic” in this document, implying don’t bother giving your feedback, especially any criticism. I genuinely hope that is not how my and other persons’ feedback will be treated.
Sincerely,
Ron Voss
July 11, 2025
P.S. With respect to “TOWARDS A GREAT ECONOMIC FUTURE” (p. 35-43), “The bulk of this document looks at the financial situation as it is today. In it, there are no material changes to tax policy, no material changes in government operations other than replacement of federal services”, I wish you had left it at that.