Canada has faced the possibility of a province leaving the country before.
Quebec came extremely close in 1995.
Today, Canadians are hearing similar talk from Alberta.
That raises an obvious question:
Is Alberta simply another Quebec—or is something different happening?
The answer is: a little of both.
WHY QUEBEC WANTED TO LEAVE
Quebec separatism developed over many decades.
Quebec has a distinct French-speaking culture, history and identity. Many Quebec separatists believed Quebec was not simply another Canadian province. They considered it a nation that should become its own independent country.
Canada held two Quebec referendums, in 1980 and 1995.
The second was incredibly close.
Quebec remained in Canada.
Whatever Canadians thought about separatism, however, there was little mystery about where the movement came from.
It came from Quebec.
ALBERTA IS DIFFERENT
Alberta separatism has different roots.
Many Albertans believe Ottawa has treated their province unfairly. They are angry about taxes, equalization, pipelines, environmental and energy policies, and what they see as too much federal control over Alberta’s natural resources.
Some have reached the conclusion that Alberta would be richer or more powerful outside Canada.
Those feelings are real.
You don’t have to agree with them to recognize that they exist.
And importantly, Alberta anger toward Ottawa didn’t suddenly appear because Donald Trump became president or because somebody in another country invented it.
Western alienation has existed in Canada for generations.
SO WHERE DO FOREIGN COUNTRIES COME INTO THIS?
This is where things become more concerning.
Foreign actors do not necessarily have to create a political movement to take advantage of one.
Imagine two neighbours who have been arguing for years.
A third person arrives and starts whispering to one of them:
“You’re right. The other guy is cheating you. You’d be better off without him.”
The third person didn’t start the argument.
But he certainly isn’t trying to end it.
That is a simple way to understand foreign interference.
Researchers have identified Russian-aligned information networks promoting narratives portraying Alberta as mistreated by Canada and suggesting independence or closer relations with the United States as solutions.
That doesn’t mean Albertans supporting independence are working for Russia.
It means a foreign actor can discover an existing Canadian grievance and attempt to exploit it.
Those are two very different things.
THEN THERE IS THE UNITED STATES
This part deserves particular attention.
Representatives of Alberta’s separatist movement have met representatives of the Trump administration. American officials have described such contacts as ordinary meetings and have said no commitments were made.
That fact alone does not prove the United States is secretly running Alberta separatism.
But Americans—including prominent political voices—have openly discussed Alberta’s political future.
And this is happening while President Donald Trump has repeatedly spoken about Canada becoming America’s “51st state.”
That understandably makes Canadians suspicious.
Suspicion, however, is not evidence of a conspiracy.
The distinction matters.
DOES THAT MEAN ALBERTA SEPARATISTS ARE FOREIGN AGENTS?
No.
Someone can sincerely believe Alberta should leave Canada without working for another country.
Calling every separatist a foreign agent would actually make the problem worse because it would dismiss genuine frustrations that exist in Alberta.
If someone claims that a particular Canadian politician or activist is secretly working for a foreign government, there needs to be actual evidence.
Who paid them?
Who directed them?
What communications took place?
What agreement existed?
Without evidence like that, we should not make the accusation.
BUT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IS STILL A REAL CONCERN
Here is the important distinction:
“Foreign countries are exploiting Alberta separatism” is a claim that can be examined through evidence of foreign information activity and outside political interest.
“Foreign countries created Alberta separatism” is a much different claim.
The existence of foreign influence activity does not establish that foreign actors created the underlying movement.
Russia doesn’t need to convince every Albertan to leave Canada.
A foreign government can benefit simply from Canadians becoming more divided, distrusting their own institutions and turning against one another.
Likewise, American political interests may have reasons to take an interest in Alberta because of its enormous energy resources and its importance to Canada’s economy.
That doesn’t prove a conspiracy.
It means Canada should be paying attention.
THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN QUEBEC THEN AND ALBERTA NOW
When Quebec nearly left Canada in 1995, Canada’s relationship with the United States was fundamentally different.
The United States generally wanted a stable, united Canada beside it.
Today, Canadians are hearing an American president repeatedly talk about Canada becoming part of the United States while some American political voices openly discuss Alberta separatism.
That changes the atmosphere considerably.
Canada isn’t simply dealing with an argument inside its own family anymore.
Other people are standing outside the house watching the argument—and some may benefit if the family breaks apart.
WHAT SHOULD CANADA DO?
Canada shouldn’t respond by telling Albertans to shut up.
It should listen.
If Albertans have legitimate complaints about Confederation, Ottawa should address them seriously.
But Canada should also make absolutely certain that any debate about Alberta’s future belongs to Canadians.
Foreign governments should not secretly finance Canadian political campaigns.
Foreign organizations should not manipulate Canadian voters.
Social-media disinformation should be exposed.
And suspicious foreign funding or coordination should be investigated.
There is nothing wrong with Canadians arguing about Canada.
That is democracy.
But there is something very wrong if another country secretly puts its hand on the scale.
Quebec taught Canada that national unity cannot simply be taken for granted.
Alberta may be teaching us something else:
We should listen when Canadians feel ignored—but we should also pay very close attention when outsiders discover that Canadian anger can be useful to them.
Whatever Alberta’s future is, one principle should be beyond argument:
CANADA’S FUTURE SHOULD BE DECIDED BY CANADIANS.
North of Polite
Canadian news, analysis and commentary without the noise.
© 2026 North of Polite. Original reporting, analysis and commentary. All rights reserved. 🍁
Leave a comment