When does a separatist movement become a threat to Canada’s national security?

Foreign Interference and the Alberta Prosperity Project

JASON FRANSON/THE CANADIAN PRESS

When does a separatist movement become a threat to Canada’s national security?

This is a question hanging in the air in Alberta. People are asking how it can possibly be that the very same individuals who are leading the separatist movement can also be three meetings deep into a relationship with senior officials of the Trump Administration in Washington, with a fourth scheduled for this month.

Treason. Sedition. Traitorous. These are words that are ricocheting around the radio talk shows, and the social media channels.

In the aftermath of the US’s move on Venezuela people are genuinely concerned that Canada could also be “on the menu.” There is a growing recognition that resource imperialism has become the basic orienting principle of US grand strategy. And that Canada, as a resource rich, and militarily poor nation has become exceptionally vulnerable to it.

A sovereignty referendum engineered by a group known as the Alberta Prosperity Project at a time like this takes on exceptional, existential risk to Canada’s continuance as a sovereign nation in the Western Hemisphere.

It’s important, therefore, to understand where the line between political movement and national security threat is drawn in Canada.

It is, as we know, entirely legal in Canada to advocate and campaign in support of a province or territory leaving confederation. This is covered by the Clarity Act, but also by the Charter which protects the rights of citizens to free expression, assembly, and association.

Any organic political movement that is based in a genuine desire to achieve an outcome of their design is free to pursue that through whatever lawful means available to them. Foreign interference in such movements however, is where the line between lawful advocacy and dissent crosses into territory that constitutes a threat to Canada’s national security.

The CSIS Act is clear on this. CSIS itself does not have a mandate to investigate “lawful advocacy, protest or dissent” unless these forms of activity are carried on in conjunction with the range of activities which the Act defines as threats to the security of Canada.

These include:

(a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,

(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,

(c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and

(d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.

In relation to separatist movements, Canada has grappled with where the line between political movement and national security threat can be drawn in the past. In the late 1960s through the Royal Commission on Security, this issue was addressed in the context of the Quebec separatist movement.

The Commission argued that separatism in Quebec, pursued legally and democratically, should be dealt with in a political rather than a security context. But, were evidence of anti-democratic, subversive or seditious intentions or “any suggestion of foreign influence” to be present, then that did necessitate treating the issue as one of national security. At the very least this ought to compel the government to “take adequate steps to inform itself of any such threats.”(Report of the Royal Commission on Security, 1969), 8.

The threat environment of the time was remarkably simple by comparison to today. Then, the Commission assessed that the “main security threats to Canada are posed by international communism, and the communist powers, and by some elements of the Quebec separatist movement”(Ibid. 5). It recommended that security policy concerning separatism should be clearly stated and that the federal government should be seen to be taking steps to prevent the infiltration of the Quebec separatist movement “by persons who are clearly committed to the dissolution of Canada, or who are involved with elements of the separatist movement in which seditious activity or foreign involvement are factors”(Ibid. 109).

The Commission’s findings and recommendations remain instructive today. The line between political movement and national security threat is highly charged in the current context in Alberta. Any hint of federal “overreach” or “monitoring” of the situation will further inflame the separatist movement and lead to politicization allegations against the security agencies.

The questions then become:

(1) is there just cause for the security agencies to become involved at this point; and

(2) what should they be looking to achieve through this involvement?

The answer to the first question appears to hang entirely on the presence of a foreign element of influence or interference in the domestic political movement.

The answer to the second question amounts to CSIS beginning collection efforts in order to provide the government with intelligence briefs on the nature of the threat posed by that foreign involvement in the domestic political movement.

Should evidence of criminality present through the course of CSIS’s work, they would be expected to provide notice to the RCMP who would then have the option to investigate with the view towards criminal prosecution for crimes that could include sedition, treason, or espionage.

Beyond this, it does not appear as though there are many options for Canada to deal with the separatist issue other than to allow it to run its course and hope for the best.

The only other option is a potential use of a brand new federal law called the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act that would compel the APP to disclose any arrangement they have with any foreign principals, including any communications and financial relations related to the political process of the referendum.

However, this law only received Royal Assent in 2024, and the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement and the proposed Regulations were just published in the Gazette on January 3^rd of this year. The consultation period for the regulations continues until February 3^rd, after which point and presuming the consultations do not require major amendments it is possible that these regulations would come into force and have bearing on any foreign interference related to the referendum.

Foreign Interference

The open information on the US’s involvement with the APP comes from two sources.

First, on November 15^th, 2025 Trump strategist Steve Bannon hosted an individual named Brandon Weichert on his show that streams on the Real America’s Voice. Weichert, who is the Senior National Security editor for the conservative foreign affairs publication The National Interest stated:

“Alberta is the linchpin, so when Trump says Canada is gonna be the 51st State… he’s having a little fun…but what he’s really saying because I know a lot of the guys in charge of the Alberta separatist movement, prosperity movement, they have already met twice now with the State Department.

Albertans are ready to vote in the next six months. They’re getting out of the Canadian union. They’re gonna become an independent state, independent country, we’re gonna recognize them and that’s going to put them on the pathway to becoming the 51st State. And here’s why that’s important, Alberta has a bevy of untapped critical minerals, they have the world’s largest geothermal energy resources, they have some of the world’s largest natural gas and oil deposits.

So, when Trump says Canada’s becoming the 51st State, he’s really talking about Alberta. And that’s important because that’s a gateway to the Arctic. Greenland is another gateway to the Arctic. So when we talk about hemispheric defence we’re not just talking about Latin America, were talking about the polar regions too Steve and how they all link together.”

Weichert goes on from talking about Alberta as the lynchpin to America’s annexation of Canada and the Canadian Arctic, to accurately predicting that the Trump Administration would take Maduro out six weeks before it actually happened. There is, therefore, credibility to his statement that should not be overlooked in Canada, simply because it was made on Steve Bannon’s show.

The second data point we can add to understanding whether the APP is a political movement that should be treated as such, or a movement working in concert with foreign actors looking to interfere in a Canadian domestic political process comes from an interview with Jeffrey Rath—the APP’s lawyer and primary spokesman.

Rath’s interview with Rachel Parker provides a fulsome account of the scope of the third meeting he and his APP partners had with Trump Officials.

Below follows direct quotations from the interview which was uploaded to Rachel Parker’s Youtube channel in late December and has since had 76,000 views. I’ve provided below each quotation some analytical annotations.

RATH: “The people we meet with go directly from our meetings to the Oval Office.”

Clearly, Rath is implying that he’s meeting with people who are direct reports to the President. He might be saying that these individuals are conveying the outcomes of the meeting to the President in near real time. Either way, this should be interpreted to mean that these officials are Trump appointees in high-ranking positions—likely at the secretary or undersecretary level.

RATH: “The last meeting we had was very strange, we actually met in a SCIF off all things.”

A SCIF is a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. It is a secure room in which sensitive or classified state business occurs. SCIFs are designed with advanced soundproofing, reinforced doors and locks, and keypad access controls. To enter a SCIF, one must shed all technology from their person, including cell phones, smart watches, wireless headphones, laptops, tablets, you get the idea. Nothing that can be turned into a listening device or a camera gets inside.

The technical and physical standards for these facilities are incredibly strict. They are constructed with the view towards creating pockets of physical space where sensitive compartmented information can live. Meetings that take place in SCIFs are typically of a classified nature and are usually between government officials with requisite security clearances. It is unusual to have individuals without security clearances in a SCIF.

For US State Department officials to meet with the APP in a SCIF suggests they viewed the content of the meeting as occurring at a classified level, and were attempting to shield the contents of the discussion from any foreign signals intelligence agencies that might have an interest in eavesdropping on the meeting.

RATH: “We were at it for several hours going through all of the ways the US government could support Alberta independence when the timing was right.”

The US government has evidently held a multi-hour meeting in a SCIF with Alberta separatists to plot out how it can support the break-up of Canada. This is the third such meeting, and the first to be held at the SECRET or TOP SECRET level. This suggests a sustained and continued and escalating interest in assisting the APP to achieve its desired outcome of an independent Alberta and a divided Canada.

RATH: “They are very enthusiastic about Alberta becoming an independent country.”

The US National Security Strategy provides insights into why this would be the case. Outlining what it calls the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, the NSS explains that the intention of the strategy is to make it clear that the US will assert dominance over the Western Hemisphere. The way they intend to do so was demonstrated very clearly in the early hours of Saturday January 3rd when the US invaded Venezuela, removed its President and his wife to face trial in New York’s southern district court, and declared that they would now run the country in order to rescue the world’s largest oil reserve from underproduction. Other countries in the hemisphere that are not living up to Trump’s standards for oil production or law enforcement could be subject to similar intervention. Mexico, Cuba, and Columbia have already been put on notice, as has Greenland.

To quote from the US NSS:

“our goals for the Western Hemisphere can be summarized as ‘Enlist and Expand…’” “American policy should focus on enlisting regional champions that can help create tolerable stability in the region, even beyond those partners’ borders. These nations would help us stop illegal and destabilizing migration, neutralize cartels, nearshore manufacturing, and develop local private economies, among other things. We will reward and encourage the region’s governments, political parties, and movements broadly aligned with our strategy” (US NSS, 16).

RATH: “The one thing we have in common is that the government in Ottawa and the landlocking of Alberta’s resources is being done at the behest of the Communist Chinese and the Americans see it within their national interest, both under the Monroe doctrine which has been around forever and their new National Security Strategy to support Alberta independence and freeing the third largest oil field in the world from control by the Communist Chinese.”

There’s a lot to unpack here. First, it should go without saying that this assertion that Ottawa—as a monolith—is somehow being controlled by China is both false and dangerous. It is troubling that Rath believes that members of Trump’s inner circle view the Alberta oil reserves as somehow being held under the thumb of a Canadian government controlled by the Chinese. This is a false narrative that could be propagated against the Carney Government as justification for other forms of interference and further pressure from the Trump Administration.

Second, the invocation of the Monroe doctrine and the NSS by Rath in December in relation to American national interests in oil reserves gains new meaning after the US take-over of Venezuela for ostensibly the exact purpose in January. Part of President Trump’s justification for the take-over was that the “oil business in Venezuela had been a bust.”

Trump said in his address to the nation Saturday morning that the US was going to:

“have its oil companies go into Venezuela, spend billions of dollars and start making money for the country.”

“We are asserting American power in our home region, and our home region is very different than it was just a short while ago. We had great dominance in my first term, we have far greater dominance now.” “The future will be determined by the ability to protect commerce and territory and resources that are core to national security…These are the iron laws that have always determined global power.”

Indeed, as Thucydides said, “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” The assault on Venezuela was the first demonstration of the US NSS in practice. For every other sovereign nation in the hemisphere, including Canada, it was a warning shot with a thunderous report. The “Donroe Doctrine” of hegemonic dominance over the hemisphere is now in play. We ignore this warning shot at our peril.

RATH: “The reason the Chinese want to keep Alberta oil and gas landlocked is because they don’t want Japan and South Korea to have a steady and stable supply of oil and gas coming out of the third largest oil field in the world. “

Here, Rath is picking up on another key theme in the US NSS which is that asserting dominance in the hemisphere means driving out the influence of US adversaries, namely, in this case China.

RATH: “We talked about a west coast pipeline being one of the things Alberta would like to see immediately upon independence... We talked about currency support, support for our pensioners and converting Alberta pensions on par with US dollars, and a feasibility study to establish a $500 Billion line of credit for the country of Alberta… We want to be able to sidestep the inevitable response from Ottawa. If we’re backed by the full faith and credit of the US Treasury collateralized by Alberta oil resources we have no reason not to succeed in successfully removing Alberta from Canada.”

This is one of the more detailed and extraordinary sections of the interview. It speaks to the level of thought and planning that has gone into the US’s eventual involvement in seeing Alberta separate from Canada. This goes beyond a guarantee of recognition post referendum to something approaching an offer to pawn Alberta’s oil and gas resources for the financial wherewithal required to start a new nation state.

This bargain is not underpinned by benign recognition by a democratic state of a distinct society’s oppression within a particular regime it seeks relief from. Quite the contrary, this is based on a thirst for resource extraction, and the creation of an opportunity by an aligned movement in Canada to help the Trump Administration realize it’s objective of turning the country (or at least one province of it) into its 51st state. This aligns with the US NSS, and we have now seen one example of how that strategy looks in practice.

RATH: “We’ve now moved on from the first meeting which was introductory, to the second meeting which was more…ok, let’s get our heads around how this is going to look and how its going to work, to the third meeting where were now working at a very high policy level to discuss communications plans and so on. People will see the communication as it rolls out. There’s definitely a communications plan in place and we’re being continually reassured with all of our meetings that there’s very robust support for a free and independent Alberta in Washington D.C.”

This speaks to the progressive development of a relationship and a detailed policy planning process, as well as a commitment on the part of the Trump Administration to advance the Alberta separatist movement’s message and political objectives. This telegraphs that we can and should expect that the APP messaging will be amplified by the Trump Adminsitration and their proxies throughout the course of the petition process, and if successful throughout the referendum process.

RATH: “We’ll be going back down there in January. If anything comes up between now and then, I’m basically in contact with them now weekly whether by email or other forms of communication. I personally think APP has a far stronger and better relationship with the US Government than the Smith Government, which is really interesting.”

This is an unelected leader of an entity that bills itself as an “educational society” stating that he is in regular contact with Trump officials and that he has already planned a fourth visit to Washington to further his organization’s work with the US Administration to facilitate Alberta’s separation from Canada.

RATH: “Sometime in mid-January we are going to unleash the 50,000 volunteers we’ve got lined up to canvass and we’re setting a very lofty goal of 1.5 million signatures in favour of this referendum.”

Where are these 50,000 volunteers going to come from? Any political organizer in Canada will tell you this is an unfathomable number of volunteers. Will they come from the US (contrary to the Citizen Initiative Act)? Is this the conduit through which we will see large volumes of grey money flooding the petition and referendum processes?

Conclusion

The Federal Government and Canada’s Security and Intelligence Community will be hesitant to wade into this territory. Now is not the time for temerity. The clock is ticking on a time bomb referendum that has and will continue to bring US foreign interference into a crucial Canadian domestic political process through the conduit of the Alberta Prosperity Project.

This will come in the form of financial support through grey channels; through messaging support; through manipulation of social media (most controlled by the US tech bros who are clearly aligned with the Trump Administration); through human resources in the form of “volunteers”; through training on how to conduct the politicking on the ground and at the doors; through promises and guarantees as discussed above; and eventually, if necessary, even through the use of force if the example of Venezuela is anything to go on.

The lines between lawful advocacy and bona fide threat to national security in this case may have seemed somewhat unclear before. That should no longer be the case.