The more Trump allies covet Alberta, the less popular separatism may get

After seizing the leader of republic of venezuela and demanding ownership of kalaallit nunaat, perhaps it was inevitable Donald ruff’s team up would mould its expansionist gaze on an oil-rich and somewhat disaffected chunk of Canada.

And lo, it came late this week in the form of U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent talking encouragingly about the prospect of Alberta separating from Canada.

“They have great resources. Albertans are a very independent people,” he told the conservative website Real America’s Voice.  

“Rumour [is] that they may have a referendum on whether they want to stay in Canada or not.… People are talking. People want sovereignty. They want what the U.S. Has got.”

Days after the U.S. President posted his latest fantasy of a U.S.-owned Canada, such musings were bound to stoke attention.

To the ears of one Politico reporter, this was “a U.S. Cabinet secretary cheering on a split in Canada.”

This Trump administration heavyweight, one could clarify, wasn’t directly musing about Alberta becoming part of the United States. But a Republican U.S. Congressman was.

Speaking on Thursday to BBC about Greenland, Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee made a sharp rhetorical turn northwest.

“I think the people of Alberta would agree with the sentiment that they would prefer not to be part of Canada and to be part of the United States because we are winning day in and day out,” Ogles said.

To Ogles’s point, all public opinion polling to date has shown that Albertans’ majority sentiment has consistently been wanting to stay in Canada and not become Americans.

But to Bessent’s remarks — a rare understatement from Trump’s orbit — it’s far more than a rumour that Alberta may have a referendum of secession.

It’s a ready fact that separatists are spurring a petition that needs 177,732 signatures, representing about six per cent of the electorate, to force a vote on Alberta leaving Canada.

Any chance they have to say it, petition leaders from the group Stay Free Alberta will insist that their movement doesn’t favour unity with the United States as part of its push for separation from Canada.

“Statehood is not on the table. We’re not fighting tooth and nail to get out from the clutches of the CRA [Canada Revenue Agency] to have to pay federal income tax [to Washington].”

There’s always been a subsegment within Alberta’s pro-independence subsegment that does fancy the province becoming part of Trump’s country.

But organizers are aware their big idea has far less appeal if it’s bundled with Alberta becoming a U.S. State or territory.

A Research Co. Survey of Albertans earlier this month found that while 31 per cent of respondents support the idea of Alberta independence, the figure drops to 24 per cent when they’re asked about joining the U.S.

A mere seven per cent said they “strongly” support Alberta becoming part of America; 65 per cent strongly oppose it. 

Rath quickly distanced himself from what Ogles said, but not the treasury secretary’s remark about Alberta independence, which had one former federal minister wondering if it bordered on “foreign interference.”

The separatist lawyer praised Bessent for saying he “would recognize the Alberta drive for independence,” and that the United States would welcome another oil pipeline from Alberta, especially if the province struggled to get another one to the Pacific coast within Canada.

Rath said Bessent’s rhetoric is in line with the meetings he claims to have held in Washington with undisclosed officials with the U.S. State department, about the potential for the country to quickly recognize and support an independent Alberta should a referendum succeed.

(He also said he’s not met with Bessent or Ogles, nor any U.S. Congress member, for that matter.)

“We’re planning on going back to visit them again in February to carry on the dialogue,” Rath said.

If Rath and his team have met with administration officials, the Alberta government’s D.C. Representative hasn’t been made aware it’s happened. “I have no knowledge of their alleged meetings,” Nathan Cooper said in an interview.

While Rath doesn’t preach Alberta becoming another star in their spangled banner, he’s advocated maintaining closer ties with the U.S. Than Canada currently has.

A solo Alberta would have a “common market” with the United States and zero tariffs, he said. The new republic would also quickly adopt the U.S. Dollar as its currency and abandon the loonie, said Rath — though such matters would be up to the Alberta and federal government to negotiate, not referendum campaigners.

Rath has also expressed hope Washington would provide Alberta a $500-billion US line of credit to get the nascent country on its feet.

But the natural resource assets that make Alberta separatists confident the province can stand on its own might also become the reason Trump might not want to leave it alone.

While concerns about illicit drug smuggling anchored Trump’s rhetoric about Venezuela before he captured Nicolas Maduro, he began talking more about exploiting its oil after the socialist president was deposed.

And with Trump’s heightened interest in Greenland, he’s variously discussed strategic defence and desiring the large island’s mineral wealth.

A few months ago, U.S. National security commentator Brandon Weichert suggested that Trump’s 51st state rhetoric is “really talking about Alberta.”

On a show hosted by former Trump chief adviser Steve Bannon, he predicted that if Alberta votes to leave Canada, then “we’re going to recognize them and put them on the pathway to become the 51st state” — in large part because of Alberta’s oil, gas and rare earth mineral deposits.

Weichert went further with this analysis in a blog post this week. He suggested that Alberta separatists may be interested in independence for now, but that would only be an intermediate measure.

“Remember, both Texas and California first declared themselves independent from Mexico in the 1800s, establishing themselves as independent republics — before later voting to join the union,” he wrote.

“These are the same steps that Alberta would take, if they had a successful vote for independence. And it seems hard to believe that Washington would ultimately abide an independent, energy rich Alberta indefinitely at its border.”

He’s careful to note that the movement could well lose a referendum, as all current polling suggests it would. Further discussion of it being absorbed into the U.S. Empire could harm the idea’s popularity even more.

And given how persistent Trump’s interest has been in acquiring more land and resources, and his recurring musings about Canada (in part or whole?), this could well become a recurring theme in Alberta’s independence campaign.

The musings from Bessent and Ogles make it clear that Alberta separatism has become a topic in high offices in Washington, well before a referendum is assured to happen. It may become hard for Rath or anyone else to keep one contentious split and an even more contentious union from being commingled in people’s minds.

Producer and writer

---

---