When Provinces Flirt With Empires

How Alberta’s politics, American influence, and historical parallels raise urgent questions about Canadian unity and democratic resilience.

What We’re Supposed to Notice

Photo by Lumin Osity on Unsplash

History often arrives quietly, wrapped in familiar language, asking ordinary people whether they will notice patterns before they harden into consequences. Canada is currently facing one of those pivotal moments. The question is not whether provinces should challenge Ottawa but what happens when grievance becomes a political strategy, and when a province begins to echo the ambitions of a foreign movement that does not recognize borders as limits.

Alberta’s Political Lineage

Danielle Smith did not emerge from nowhere. Long before becoming Alberta’s premier, she led the Wildrose Party in the late 2000s and early 2010s, a political movement that positioned itself far to the right of Canada’s mainstream conservatism. Wildrose flirted openly with separatist ideas, leaned hard into grievance politics, and framed Ottawa as an occupying force rather than a democratic partner.

When the party eventually merged into what became the United Conservative Party, its ideology was absorbed and normalized. The posture of Alberta’s current government is not an improvisation or a misunderstanding. Rather, it is the continuation of a worldview that treats conflict with the federal government as its identity.

The Silence of Institutions

What is most unsettling is not only the behaviour of Alberta’s government, but the lack of visible response from institutions designed to safeguard Canada’s stability. The RCMP and CSIS exist, in part, to monitor domestic threats to national security. Unfortunately, public scrutiny, transparency, or even reassurance have been notably absent. Domestic destabilization would seem to fall squarely within their mandate, and yet Canadians hear little.

The federal government has also chosen restraint. That caution may be strategic, intended to avoid inflaming tensions before facts are established. Still, when power goes unchecked for long enough, it begins to feel untouchable. We have built a culture where the more authority someone holds, the less acceptable it becomes to hold them accountable, as seen with Doug Ford.

American Gravity and Canadian Media

Canada does not exist apart from American influence. Much of our media landscape is now owned by American companies, and American political narratives dominate Canadian airwaves and screens. What Canadians see, fear, and ignore is increasingly filtered through U.S. interests.

This helps explain why, when Alberta politicians court MAGA figures, attend Republican fundraisers, or align themselves with Trump-era rhetoric, it barely registers as a national emergency. In an environment where American politics is treated as domestic news, American influence becomes background noise.

Donald Trump has spent the past year openly threatening Canadian sovereignty while demonstrating, through actions abroad, that international law is negotiable when oil is involved. His posture toward Venezuela made one thing clear: he is willing to violate norms, treaties, and borders to secure resources.

Canada is not Venezuela, but history teaches that proximity, alliance, or cultural similarity does not guarantee safety. Alberta’s oil, combined with internal division and a provincial government that signals friendliness toward MAGA politics, creates a vulnerability that should not be dismissed as implausible or hysterical.

Division as Invitation

Danielle Smith’s approach has deepened internal division within Alberta. By validating separatist voices, amplifying resentment, and framing Confederation as hostile, she has produced a province that feels anxious and broken. Foreign powers look for weakness, hesitation, and internal conflict. When leaders publicly flirt with movements, like MAGA, that reject democratic norms, they suggest that resistance would be uncoordinated, leadership uncertain, and national response delayed.

In the nineteenth century, American settlers moved into Texas when it was still Mexican territory. After Mexico abolished slavery and centralized governance, those settlers were encouraged to believe the government no longer represented them. Promises of religious freedom and economic autonomy followed. Separatist sentiment was cultivated, funded, and organized. Texas briefly existed as an independent republic before being annexed by the United States.

The circumstances are different, but the structure remains familiar. Economic interests drive political narratives. Local grievances are magnified when separation is sold as self-determination. Then, annexation becomes the unspoken solution. Today, cotton fields are replaced by oil sands. The rhetoric shifts, but the objective does not.

The Cost of Escalation

Speculating about invasion or military response reflects fear, but it also exposes how fragile our assumptions have become. A conflict on Canadian soil would not resemble past wars. The geography alone would make it unprecedented, while the economic consequences would be immediate and global. Fuel shortages, food inflation, agricultural collapse, and supply chain breakdowns would follow quickly.

Recognizing this is an argument for understanding that political recklessness invites outcomes that no leader can fully control. Expanding trade relationships, strengthening alliances, and refusing to escalate rhetoric may appear passive, but it preserves stability. Still, patience must not become denial, given that American imperial ambition does not vanish when ignored. History suggests this will not necessarily end with one presidency or one election cycle.

What Canadians Choose to Do

Canada becomes vulnerable when it forgets its own past. The answer is vigilance, historical literacy, and public insistence on accountability. Citizens must question narratives that encourage resentment and reject the idea that outrage alone is action. Institutions must remember why they exist. Most of all, the media must decide whether it serves democracy or convenience.

History offers warnings. What Canadians do with those warnings remains an open question. If this resonated with you, consider liking and sharing it so others can engage with it too. Subscribe to a paid subscription to help support our financial stability, or buy me a coffee to keep independent writing free as algorithms increasingly bury thoughtful work.

Danielle Smith's Betrayal: The MAGA Influence on Alberta

What Albertans Get Wrong About Equalization

Danielle Smith’s Trump Plea Risks Canadian Sovereignty