Mr. Carney, Is Washington Trying to Break Up Canada With the Help of Alberta Separatists? This Is a National Security Matter

The evidence does not yet establish an American government plot to break up Canada. However, it does establish enough American involvement in Alberta’s separatist movement to demand an immediate national-security investigation.

By Yiannis Damellos

October 4, 2026

Dear Prime Minister,

The question confronting Canada is no longer simply whether some Albertans want independence. We all know that Canadians have every right to debate their country’s constitutional future, however profoundly others may disagree with them. The question is whether foreign political actors are attempting to influence that constitutional future from outside Canada — and whether Canadian institutions are prepared to stop unlawful interference before it can affect a democratic process. A major Globe and Mail investigation published Oct. 3 reports that Republican political operatives from Michigan travelled to Alberta to assist separatists, while some of those Americans have themselves advocated Alberta’s separation and even U.S. annexation. The investigation also reports that Alberta separatist representatives went to Washington and that discussions there included proposals involving Alberta’s oil royalties, land access and fresh water in exchange for assistance with a transition toward independence.

The resource issue is particularly serious because these are not merely ideological abstractions. Alberta’s oil, land and water are part of the province’s economic foundation, while Alberta remains constitutionally part of Canada. The Globe reports that Dennis Modry of the Alberta Prosperity Project discussed the possibility of an independent Alberta offering the United States royalties on crude oil, infrastructure access and fresh water. Another participant, Jeff Rath, disputes that account and says those proposals were not discussed with U.S. officials. The White House has also said that no support or commitments were conveyed. While those disagreements matter, they also mean we should investigate rather than declare the allegations proven or unproven. But the fact that Canadian separatists met U.S. officials while seeking American assistance for an independence project is serious enough that Ottawa should demand a complete accounting of what was discussed, by whom, and on whose authority.

There is a second and potentially even more alarming dimension: political technology and personal data. The Globe reports that American Republican strategists associated with 10X Votes met Alberta separatists and demonstrated software designed to identify and mobilize voters. That technology subsequently inspired the Centurion Project in Alberta. The project was able to search Albertans by names and partial addresses and, according to reporting based on the database, contained information on approximately 2.96 million people, including more than two million telephone numbers. Elections Alberta has said that the Republican Party of Alberta’s copy of the provincial voters list was provided to the Centurion Project, and the RCMP has been investigating the resulting privacy breach. This is no longer merely a philosophical argument about separation. It is a question involving electoral integrity, personal data and potentially foreign political influence.

Canada must therefore resist making two potential mistakes. The first would be to dismiss the affair as ordinary political activity simply because separatists have the democratic right to advocate independence. The second would be to declare, without evidence, that the U.S. government has launched a coordinated operation to dismantle Canada. 

What the evidence currently establishes is something between those extremes — yet potentially very serious: American political actors have participated in efforts supporting Alberta separatism; separatist representatives have sought relationships with U.S. officials; some American participants have openly advocated Alberta’s separation or annexation; and resource arrangements have reportedly been discussed in connection with a possible independent Alberta. Whether those activities amount to a coordinated operation by the U.S. government, or constitute criminal foreign interference under Canadian law, remains for Canadian authorities to establish. The White House denies that it has made commitments, and those denials must remain part of the factual record. 

Yet, the timing makes this impossible to treat as a distant constitutional curiosity. Elections Alberta says the independence petition received 286,593 signatures initially, of which 279,337 were counted as valid; after the required statistical verification, 222,597 signatures were verified, exceeding the 177,732 threshold. Albertans are now scheduled to vote Oct. 19 on whether the provincial government should remain within Canada or begin the constitutional process required to pursue a future binding referendum on separation. The vote itself does not make Alberta independent. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in its Secession Reference that even a clear majority on a clear question would not permit unilateral secession; it would create a constitutional process requiring negotiations involving the federal government and the other provinces.

That constitutional protection, however, does not make American interference harmless. A foreign actor does not have to possess the power to physically remove Alberta from Canada to threaten Canadian sovereignty. It can attempt to influence the political process through money, technology, information, personal data, political networks or promises of future economic arrangements. 

If such activity is covert, deceptive or directed by a foreign entity, Canadian law now provides a remarkably serious response. Section 20.4 of the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act makes it an indictable offence to engage, at the direction of or in association with a foreign entity, in surreptitious or deceptive conduct intended to influence a Canadian political or governmental process or the exercise of a democratic right. The law explicitly includes elections and referendums and provides for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Mr. Carney, implement the power of the Law if you want to save our sovereignty. Pierre Trudeau would do it in the blink of an eye.

Ottawa should therefore initiate a coordinated national-security and electoral-integrity investigation immediately, rather than waiting for the political temperature to rise after Oct. 19. 

CSIS, the RCMP, the Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner and the appropriate Alberta electoral authorities should establish exactly who financed the American political operatives, what services or technology they provided, who authorized their activities, where the voter information came from, who had access to it, and whether any Canadian or foreign organization entered into an undisclosed arrangement intended to influence the referendum process. 

Canada now has a Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act and a public registry specifically designed to expose arrangements with foreign principals intended to influence Canadian political or governmental processes. The federal government brought that regime into force Aug. 4, 2026.

The investigation should also establish the precise nature of the American connection. Being an American Republican activist is not, by itself, evidence of acting for the U.S. government. Nor is supporting Alberta independence a crime. But the legal definition of a foreign entity includes a foreign power and people acting at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with a foreign power. If investigators find that individuals were secretly acting on behalf of a foreign entity to manipulate an Alberta political process, the law provides mechanisms for prosecution. If they find only private American political activism, that is a different matter, and the distinction is not semantic. It is the difference between protected political activity and potentially criminal foreign interference.

Canada should also ask Washington direct questions through diplomatic channels. Who were the U.S. officials who met the Alberta separatists? What did they discuss? Were documents or proposals exchanged? Did anyone offer political, financial, technological or organizational assistance? Were senior administration officials aware of the meetings? And did anyone in the U.S. government or its political networks contemplate an economic relationship with an independent Alberta involving Canadian territory or resources? The United States is Canada's closest neighbour and principal economic partner. That relationship makes transparency more important, not less. A sovereign country should not have to discover through investigative journalism what foreign officials and Canadian separatists discussed about its territorial and economic future.

There is also a larger Canadian response that cannot be reduced to policing separatists. Ottawa has just designated the proposed Pacific Link pipeline a project of national interest, with a planned capacity of one million barrels of Alberta oil a day to Canada's West Coast and global markets. You, Mr. Prime Minister, have presented energy diversification as part of strengthening Canada's sovereignty, while Danielle Smith supports the project and has said she intends to vote for Alberta to remain in Canada. Reducing Alberta's economic dependence on the United States is therefore not merely an energy policy. It has become part of Canadian sovereignty's architecture.

This is ultimately bigger than Alberta and bigger than the Oct. 19 ballot. Canada has a legitimate constitutional process for discussing changes to the federation, and Canadians who favour Alberta independence have the right to advocate their position. Those rights are precisely why foreign governments and foreign political organizations cannot be permitted to secretly manipulate the process. The question before Ottawa is not whether Albertans may dream of another country. It is whether anyone outside Canada is attempting to help determine what that country might look like, what resources it would control and whose strategic interests it would serve. If the answer is no, a transparent investigation will establish that. If the answer is yes, Canada must know who did it, how it was done, who in Canada participated, and which laws were broken. A sovereign country should not wait until after its constitutional foundations have been shaken to discover who was standing beside the hammer.