MAC AND CHEESE BREAKS UP WITH CHEESEBURGER MID-CONCERT, CROWD TRIES TO CONSUME THE GRIEF

AAn Open Letter from Donna Purcell, K.C.

I am writing to share a candid assessment of the risks Alberta would face in pursuing separation from Canada, particularly in light of the current global political environment, the accelerating AI revolution, and the realistic path by which Alberta could end up absorbed by the United States — not through force, but through economic inevitability.

The Landlocked Problem Is Not Theoretical

Unlike Quebec, which retains direct access to the Atlantic via the St. Lawrence, an independent Alberta would be entirely landlocked, bordered only by Canada and the United States. Quebec’s separatist movement, whatever its merits, was never structurally dependent on the goodwill of a single neighbouring power for market access, currency stability, or trade routes. Alberta’s would be. Independence would not grant Alberta a truly free hand; it would grant Alberta one dependent relationship (Canada) in exchange for a different, less balanced one (the United States). This is a structural fact, not a political opinion, and it should be the starting point of any serious conversation about separation.

Alberta’s energy wealth is frequently cited by separatists as evidence the province could stand on its own. In practice, that wealth is precisely what makes an independent Alberta a target rather than a fortress.

Wealth Is Not Protection — It Is the Draw

Alberta’s energy wealth is frequently cited by separatists as evidence the province could stand on its own. In practice, that wealth is precisely what makes an independent Alberta a target rather than a fortress. Its oil and gas reserves, combined with its emerging position as a hub for AI data centres and critical minerals (lithium, rare earths, copper), place Alberta squarely inside the resource competition now driving U.S.–China strategic rivalry. The AI revolution has made electricity, minerals, and computing infrastructure into instruments of great-power competition, and Alberta happens to sit on a disproportionate share of exactly what that competition demands. Separation would not shield this wealth from outside interest — it would concentrate outside interest on a smaller, weaker, and newly sovereign entity with far less leverage to negotiate than a Canadian province currently has.

Foreign Interference Is Already Documented, Not Speculative

Canada’s own intelligence service has confirmed active foreign interference risk tied to the Alberta referendum, including confirmed contact between separatist organizers and U.S. officials, a U.S.-built voter database with significant privacy failures, and a documented spike in Russian disinformation activity timed to coincide with separatist political developments. This is not a hypothetical risk that might emerge after a vote to separate — it is already shaping the debate before any vote has occurred. A movement that has, to date, been unwilling to open its books to election authorities is not well positioned to negotiate sovereignty on Alberta’s behalf against considerably more sophisticated state actors.

Why the U.S. Would Not Need to Use Force

American public opinion is not a source of comfort here — it should not be mistaken for one. Polling consistently shows large majorities of Americans oppose forcibly annexing Canada or Greenland. But that opposition is precisely why a voluntary, referendum-driven path is the more realistic threat, not a less realistic one. A forced annexation would be a political liability for any U.S. administration. A “welcomed” annexation — framed as Albertans exercising self-determination and choosing prosperity — carries none of that cost, and considerably more strategic upside, particularly if it delivers energy and critical mineral security at a moment when the U.S. is racing to reduce dependence on Chinese-controlled supply chains. The path of least resistance for Washington is not tanks at the border. It is a struggling, newly independent Alberta with no port, no currency, and no leverage, arriving at Washington’s door asking for terms.

Conclusion

Separatist grievances with Ottawa may be legitimate and deserve serious engagement. But engagement is different from the pursuit of independence itself, and the current environment makes that pursuit considerably more dangerous than it would have been a decade ago. Alberta’s advocates for separation are, in effect, proposing to trade a seat at the Canadian table — with constitutional protections, equalization leverage, and an integrated economy — for a high-risk bet that independence would not simply become the fastest route to the very outcome most Albertans say they do not want: becoming American.