The Globe and Mail article is inaccurate. If you want to know what happened in Washington, read it here....substack.com/home/post/p-219… or here Jason Lavigne’s Substack Exploratory Talks Are Not a Deal What the record actually shows about Alberta Prosperity Project’s conversations with the U.S. State Department Jason Lavigne 13 hours ago 📷 The meetings were real. So were the ideas. But Dennis Modry says no agreement or follow-up document was produced. The talks paused while Albertans decided whether independence had democratic support, and no one in the room had authority to negotiate on Alberta’s behalf. The headline is stronger than the evidence The Globe and Mail’s October 3 investigation presented a dramatic picture: Alberta independence advocates travelling to Washington to discuss oil, water, financing, and other potential benefits while seeking American help with Alberta’s transition out of Canada. A substantial factual story lies beneath that framing. Alberta Prosperity Project representatives did meet with representatives of the U.S. State Department. They discussed what relations between an independent Alberta and the United States might someday involve. They explored possible areas of mutual interest, including trade, financing, security, infrastructure, pipelines, agriculture, minerals and transportation corridors. But after interviewing APP co-founder Dennis Modry, reviewing his written corrections, and following up with him again, the central distinction is clearer: these were exploratory conversations about a hypothetical future, not negotiations on behalf of Alberta. No elected official from either country participated. Premier Danielle Smith and her office were not involved. No agreement was reached. No quid pro quo was established. No one requested or offered American assistance with the referendum campaign. The meetings were real. The ideas were real. But exploratory talks are not a deal. APP was not the Government of Alberta The Alberta Prosperity Project operates under the Alberta Prosperity Society, a non-profit Alberta society. APP has publicly described itself as an educational initiative, and in January 2026 publicly clarified that APP is a committee of the board of the Alberta Prosperity Society. That distinction is central to understanding the Washington meetings. APP could research policy, publish analysis, meet people, ask questions and explore possible future relationships. It could not bind Alberta. It could not sign a treaty for Alberta. It could not transfer Alberta’s natural resources. It could not commit a future Alberta government to a pipeline, a railway corridor, a loan or a trade agreement. Modry says everyone involved understood that from the beginning. No Alberta or Canadian elected official attended. No U.S. elected official attended. The American participants were representatives of the U.S. State Department. 📷 Modry also confirms that Premier Danielle Smith and her office were not involved. The Premier’s Office did not authorize the meetings, did not participate in them and was not being represented by APP. Why the State Department agreed to meet According to Modry, the American representatives told the APP participants that the organization’s body of work had given it credibility. APP spent years producing research, publications, interviews, podcasts, and public presentations examining the economic, constitutional, and institutional questions surrounding Alberta sovereignty. Jeff Rath brought the invitation to Modry. Modry does not know whether Rath initially approached the American side, whether the invitation originated there, or precisely how the contact began. The record therefore should go no further than what is known: Rath brought the invitation, and the State Department representatives said APP’s work was why they considered the organization worth meeting. The eight-page document came before the first meeting The Globe’s reporting places considerable weight on an eight-page document associated with the Washington discussions. The chronology of that document is important. Modry says he drafted it before the first meeting. Its title was “Benefits of Alberta Sovereignty to the USA and Alberta.” It was not a record of an agreement reached with the United States. It was not written after negotiations. It was not a memorandum of understanding, a term sheet or a joint statement. Modry describes it as a conversation starter, a framework for discussions; a pre-meeting collection of ideas about potential mutual interests that future governments might one day discuss if Alberta first became sovereign. The paper canvassed subjects such as trade, financing, security, pipelines, agriculture, minerals, corridors and other economic questions. Among the financial concepts were a potential US$500-billion line of credit and a US$50-billion swap line for consideration in Alberta’s transition to a sovereign country, should that materialize. Those figures are large, but their existence in a discussion paper is not evidence that the United States offered Alberta that money, or that APP promised something in return. Just as important, Modry says no additional document was created after any of the meetings. No revised agreement, no document recording new commitments, and no written understanding emerged from the conversations. The eight-page paper served as a framework for discussion. It was not the product of a negotiation. Three meetings, then a deliberate pause The Globe identified meetings on April 22, September 29 and December 16, 2025, at the Harry S. Truman Building, headquarters of the U.S. Department of State. Modry confirms that location and says there were additional communications beyond those three meetings. He also says the Alberta participants were asked not to disclose the identities of the State Department representatives they met. The December 16 meeting is particularly important because of how it ended. At that point, Alberta’s citizen-initiative petition on independence was about to begin. No petition had succeeded, no referendum had been held, and Albertans had given no democratic mandate to pursue sovereignty. Modry says the discussions therefore reached a natural stopping point: wait and see what happened in Alberta. The petition would first have to establish meaningful public support. If the process advanced, a referendum would follow. Only after Albertans demonstrated through their own democratic process that they supported independence would there be any reason to consider taking the discussions further. In other words, the next step belonged to Albertans, not Washington. These were “Day 2” conversations Modry repeatedly describes the Washington meetings as “Day 2” conversations. The question was not how the United States could help APP persuade Albertans to vote for independence. The question was what practical issues might arise after Albertans themselves had successfully completed the democratic process required to pursue sovereignty. According to Modry, the talks did not involve campaign messaging, voter targeting, campaign financing or referendum strategy. No American endorsement was requested. No campaign assistance was requested. The American representatives made clear there would be no U.S. interference in Alberta’s campaign. That account matches the White House response quoted by The Globe: “No support or commitments were conveyed.” It is also consistent with U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra’s July statement that the administration was not meeting with separatists and strategizing the campaign. Asked about a reported U.S. credit line, Hoekstra said he was not aware of such discussions. Those statements do not mean the State Department meetings did not occur. They did. They support a narrower distinction: meeting to explore a hypothetical post-referendum future is not the same thing as the U.S. government helping run an Alberta referendum campaign. No quid pro quo The most consequential difference between the Globe’s framing and Modry’s account is the suggestion of an exchange: American help for Alberta independence in return for access to Alberta resources or economic benefits. Modry says no such bargain existed. Possible areas of mutual interest were discussed because that was the purpose of the exercise: to identify what two future sovereign governments might eventually have reasons to negotiate. But APP could not make those commitments. The State Department representatives could not receive them as commitments from Alberta. No agreement linked American support for independence to oil, water, pipelines, financing, or anything else. 📷 The distinction also matters on water. The Globe described water as one of the hypothetical subjects raised in the wider discussion. Modry clarified that no water agreement was negotiated or offered. Any actual negotiation involving trade or natural resources would have to occur later between governments legally empowered to conduct it. That is the difference between identifying a subject that could matter in a future relationship and bargaining over that subject today. No 51st-state proposal Alberta becoming the 51st U.S. state was not the purpose of the Washington discussions. Modry says APP did not advocate statehood and the Americans did not offer it. The Globe itself reports that both Modry and Rath said statehood was neither advocated nor offered during the meetings. That does not mean no individual in Alberta or the United States has ever promoted the idea publicly. It means those outside opinions should not be inserted into separate State Department discussions and presented as what APP was pursuing. What is actually known about the White House The White House connection also requires careful wording. Modry confirms that a senior State Department participant told the APP delegation at the end of one meeting that he had to leave for a pre-scheduled meeting at the White House. That fact supports only one limited statement: someone who participated in the APP meeting subsequently went to a White House meeting. Neither Modry nor Rath knows whether APP, Alberta sovereignty or anything from the State Department discussion was raised at that subsequent meeting. There is therefore no basis to state that the White House was briefed on APP’s discussions. There is equally no reason to deny the sequence of events that Modry confirms occurred. The responsible conclusion is simply that the State Department official stated there was a subsequent pre-scheduled White House meeting, and whether it happened or what was discussed there is unknown. The 10X Votes meeting was a separate event The Globe article also examines a January Calgary meeting involving the American 10X Votes political-organizing platform. That is a legitimate subject for reporting, but it is separate from the State Department meetings. The Globe reports that Mitch Sylvestre, Gregory Hartzler — described by the newspaper as a financial consultant to APP — and other APP representatives met a 10X delegation near Calgary International Airport after David Parker brokered the introduction. The Globe’s own account also establishes that Sylvestre did not agree to the proposed use of APP’s supporter database. According to the article, Sylvestre became uncomfortable. He and Hartzler questioned how the proposed database would be populated, and Parker proposed using APP’s supporter list. The meeting ended without a resolution. Sylvestre later refused to give Parker the list, telling The Globe: “Not a chance in hell you’re getting my list.” Parker later launched the Centurion Project using technology adapted from the 10X model. That chronology matters. A presentation is not adoption. A sales pitch is not a partnership. The Globe’s own reporting shows Sylvestre rejected using APP’s supporter list, and Parker subsequently pursued Centurion separately. Modry says he had no involvement in the Calgary 10X meeting and did not even know it had occurred until he read The Globe article. The Washington “Day 2” conversations and the Calgary 10X pitch therefore had different participants, purposes, and outcomes. APP had already described the Washington effort publicly The Globe did not first disclose the Washington outreach in October. On December 27, 2025, APP published an article describing its Washington engagements as discussions about Alberta’s potential as an independent nation and as relationship-building intended to support a possible future transition to sovereignty. 📷 That publication does not independently prove every detail Modry now provides. It does, however, show that APP publicly characterized the meetings as future-oriented transition planning months before The Globe’s investigation. What the record supports A professional rebuttal should not deny facts simply because they are politically inconvenient. The State Department meetings happened. APP explored significant and sometimes ambitious ideas. The U.S. contacts were real. Those facts deserve scrutiny. But the record also supports important limits on what can responsibly be claimed: • APP was an educational project under a private Alberta society, not the Government of Alberta.• The American participants were State Department representatives, but no elected officials from either country attended.• Premier Danielle Smith and her office had no involvement in the meetings.• Modry drafted the eight-page “Benefits of Alberta Sovereignty to the USA and Alberta” paper before the first meeting as a frame of reference for discussions. • No new document was produced after the meetings to record an agreement, commitment or changed understanding.• The meetings explored a hypothetical post-referendum future, not how to influence Alberta’s referendum campaign.• No U.S. campaign assistance was requested or offered.• No quid pro quo was established.• No agreement was reached on a US$500-billion line of credit, US$50-billion swap line, pipelines, water, resources or any other issue.• No 51st-state proposal was pursued or offered.• The December 16 meeting ended with the parties waiting to see whether Albertans themselves demonstrated support through the petition and subsequent referendum process.• The 10X Votes meeting in Calgary was separate; The Globe itself reports that Sylvestre refused to provide APP’s supporter list, and Parker later pursued Centurion separately. The distinction matters Research, discussion, negotiation and agreement are not interchangeable words. Private citizens can research what an independent Alberta might need. An educational organization can ask American officials what issues might matter in a hypothetical future relationship. It can identify possible financial tools, transportation corridors, trade opportunities and security questions. That does not make the organization a government. It does not make a discussion paper an offer. It does not make an exploratory meeting a negotiation. And it does not create an international agreement. If the December 16 meeting had ended with instructions to draft terms, secure approvals or continue bargaining, that would be a materially different story. According to Modry, it ended with a wait for Albertans. That matters because it puts democratic legitimacy where it belongs: in Alberta. The petition had to happen first. Then the referendum. Only if Albertans showed they wanted to pursue sovereignty would future governments have a reason to turn hypothetical ideas into actual negotiations. The State Department meetings explored what might happen after Albertans made a decision. They were not a substitute for that decision. Bottom line The Globe and Mail uncovered a story worthy of public examination. Albertans should know when organizations advocating major constitutional change meet representatives of foreign governments. They should know what subjects were discussed. They should scrutinize claims about financing, resources, campaign technology and access to senior officials. But scrutiny also requires precision. The eight-page document existed before the first meeting and was drafted as a frame of reference for discussions. No post-meeting agreement or revised understanding was documented. No elected officials participated. Premier Smith’s office was not involved. No one requested or offered foreign campaign assistance. The December 16 meeting ended with a wait for Albertans to decide whether the independence process would advance. The meetings were real. The ideas were real. But exploratory talks are not a deal. Sources and notes [1] The Globe and Mail, Carrie Tait, Grant Robertson and Nathan VanderKlippe, October 3, 2026, archived copy of the investigation on Alberta separatists and U.S. contacts. web.archive.org/web/20261004…] Alberta Prosperity Project, “Public Notice: Clarification on Alberta Prosperity Project’s Role in the Citizens Initiative Petition,” January 4, 2026. albertanation.com/articles/p…] Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Alberta Prosperity Society trademark filing 2161733, describing the applicant and educational/public-information services. ised-isde.canada.ca/cipo/tra…] Alberta Prosperity Project website, describing APP as an educational initiative. albertaprosperityproject.com…] Alberta Prosperity Project, “Alberta Prosperity Project’s Diplomatic Engagements in Washington: Building Alliances for a Sovereign Future,” December 27, 2025. albertanation.com/articles/a…] Global News, Mackenzie Gray, “Trump administration not meeting or strategizing with Alberta separatists: Hoekstra,” July 5, 2026. globalnews.ca/news/11953894/…] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, “The Logan Act,” December 18, 2020; updated January 17, 2025. justice.gov/olc/opinion/loga…] Government of Alberta, information on incorporation of societies under Alberta’s Societies Act. alberta.ca/incorporate-a-soc…] Private interview: Dennis Modry with Jason Lavigne, October 5, 2026; followed by Modry’s written review of the working draft.[10] Follow-up conversation: Dennis Modry with Jason Lavigne, October 6, 2026, clarifying State Department participation, the source of the invitation, the pre-meeting eight-page paper and the December 16 pause.[11] The Lavigne Show, “Tea & Coffee w/ Paula & Jay | Episode #128 | Mitch Sylvestre & Dr. Dennis Modry,” March 2026. youtube.com/live/KZ_ru830RTM

Statement from Dr. Dennis L. Modry Regarding Recent CBC Reporting Recent reporting by CBC concerning a family estate matter and aspects of my professional history contains significant omissions, mischaracterizations, and inaccuracies. Given the seriousness of the claims and the impact on my reputation, I believe it is important to clarify the facts. I have spent more than three decades serving patients as a cardiovascular and thoracic surgeon and critical care specialist, including establishing Western Canada’s first heart and lung transplantation program, which I directed for the majority of my time in practice, along with the cardiovascular intensive care unit. Throughout my career I have treated more than 7,000 patients and worked alongside hundreds of dedicated healthcare professionals. My reputation for integrity and professional conduct has been built over a lifetime of service. The suggestion that I would knowingly exploit vulnerable family members or misuse funds is fundamentally inconsistent with both my character and my professional record. The relevant facts are outlined below. The Estate Matter My uncle Fred (my mother’s brother) personally asked me to serve as executor of his and his wife’s estate and to hold power of attorney. Before these legal arrangements were finalized, both my uncle and aunt were independently assessed for competency by a law firm due to perceptions about mild dementia. They were deemed competent and both signed the required documents in the presence of legal counsel and my mother. Several months later, and without my involvement or presence, my uncle independently revised his will with his lawyer. He then informed me that he had made this change, and his lawyer sent me the revised document, in which I noted that my uncle had chosen to make me the primary beneficiary. Over time, my uncle remained mentally competent while my aunt’s health unfortunately declined into advanced Alzheimer’s disease. At my uncle's request and with his full understanding a portion of the funds were then invested according to his wishes in a high-end development in which he would have directly benefited both financially and with beautiful new accommodation. Early progress on the development was promising, including strong presales and construction arrangements with established contractors. However, the project was ultimately derailed when a wealthy Edmonton individual, who had previously attempted to purchase the property, paid out mezzanine financing without my knowledge, forced foreclosure, and took control of the property. I spent nearly two years attempting to salvage the project but was ultimately unsuccessful. I personally suffered substantial financial losses as a result. Despite those setbacks, there were always sufficient funds available to ensure that my aunt and uncle received high-quality care for the remainder of their lives. A significant portion of estate funds was used to cover those care costs, and no care expense was too much. Following the passing of my aunt and uncle, a distant relative from Nova Scotia challenged my uncle’s revised will. She initially attempted to bring criminal allegations against me. After reviewing the matter, police found no evidence of wrongdoing and declined to pursue charges. That relative then initiated a civil lawsuit. Based on the clear circumstances under which my uncle revised his Will independently with his lawyer, I believed the case would ultimately be resolved in my favor. My legal counsel therefore handled the matter through the courts, absent my presence. I was surprised and disappointed by the ruling, in which the court declined to accept my uncle’s revised will and suggested misappropriation of funds. I strongly disagree with that conclusion. My uncle made his decisions independently and with legal counsel. Nonetheless, I instructed my lawyer to pursue a good-faith settlement following the decision, though those efforts did not result in an agreement. Other Inaccuracies in the CBC Reporting I have never purchased or rented a condominium in Scottsdale. Assertions suggesting otherwise are false. I did purchase a small amount of cryptocurrency personally, but never with estate funds. Any suggestion that estate funds were used for personal purchases, including wine, is untrue. I maintained detailed financial records regarding the management of my aunt and uncle’s affairs. In retrospect, documentation related to the development investment could have been more extensive. However, that administrative issue does not equate to misappropriation My Dispute with Alberta Health Services The reporting also references a past dispute with Alberta Health Services. Years earlier when I discovered that I had been defrauded in a business matter involving millions of dollars, I cancelled two elective surgical cases because I believed I could not provide the focus those procedures required. The surgeries were successfully completed the following week. Alberta Health Services suspended me for those cancellations. When reinstatement was delayed, I pursued legal action. I prevailed in the initial court decision. On appeal, the ruling was reversed based on outcome data that was incomplete and inaccurate. Because the court did not permit submission of the comprehensive risk-stratified surgical outcome data compiled by our cardiac surgical research group, I was granted leave to pursue the case using the true data before the Supreme Court of Canada. Before that process proceeded further, Alberta Health Services knew that they couldn’t win at the level of the Supreme Court and offered a settlement that I considered acceptable. I accepted the settlement and subsequently retired after 32 years in practice. Despite that dispute, I remain extremely proud of my medical career and the work accomplished with my colleagues. Together we helped build programs that provided advanced cardiovascular and heart and lung transplant care to thousands of patients who otherwise would not have had access to those services in Canada. Public Advocacy In retirement, I have been active in public discussions about the future of Alberta and the rationale and merits of Alberta sovereignty, which is the likely genesis of the CBC article to discredit the movement. My advocacy regarding Alberta sovereignty is grounded in my belief that Alberta specifically, and Western Canada more broadly, deserve to be out from under federal subjugation, domination and exploitation. This discussion is larger than any one individual and reflects the concerns of many Albertans about economic fairness, political representation, and regional self-determination. Closing I have dedicated my life to medicine, public service, and helping patients facing life-threatening cardiovascular disease. While public debate is healthy in a democracy, it should be grounded in fairness and accuracy. I remain confident that those who examine the full facts will understand the reality of these matters. Dr. Dennis L. Modry BSc, MD, MSc, FRCS(C), FACS(C), FACCP(C), Postdoc Immunology Clinical Associate Professor, Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Alberta Founder and Director, Heart & Lung Transplantation Program Director, Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit Retired Chair and Co-Founder, Alberta Prosperity Society

Check out Rebel News. I just joined. rebelnews.com/footer-signup?…

As of now, specific data for Alberta's total federal tax contributions in 2024 has not been published. However, based on historical trends and available information, we can provide an informed estimate. Estimated Federal Tax Contributions from Alberta in 2024 In 2022, Alberta's net contribution to federal finances—that is, the amount of federal taxes paid minus federal spending received—was approximately $14.2 billion. This figure reflects Alberta's significant role as a net contributor to Canada's federal budget.Fraser Institute Considering Alberta's economic growth and consistent contributions in previous years, it's reasonable to estimate that in 2024, Albertans paid between $50 billion and $55 billion in total federal taxes. This includes personal and corporate income taxes, Goods and Services Tax (GST), Employment Insurance (EI) premiums, and other federal levies. Federal Transfers to Alberta In the 2024–25 fiscal year, Alberta is projected to receive approximately $8.17 billion in major federal transfers, comprising:Government of Canada+1Government of Canada+1 Canada Health Transfer: $6.17 billion Canada Social Transfer: $2.00 billionGovernment of Canada+1Government of Canada+1 Notably, Alberta does not receive equalization payments. Government of Canada+4Fraser Institute+4Wikipedia+4 Net Fiscal Contribution Subtracting the estimated federal transfers from the total federal taxes paid, Alberta's net contribution to federal finances in 2024 is estimated to be between $41.8 billion and $46.8 billion. This substantial net contribution underscores Alberta's pivotal role in supporting Canada's federal programs and services.

Taking into account all types of federal taxation in Alberta, what it the total amount paid to the federal government in 2024?

REGISTER FOR PETITION: Intention-to-Vote 'Yes' on a referendum to establish Alberta's Independence. albertaprosperityproject.nat…

German Shepherd Rescue Mission gofund.me/46d38476