How about this one?
Here's my way of dramatizing the question: Have not the "man at right" but the "man second from right" be the "unidentified" one
How about this one (thanks to UT):
Realistically, considering geographic claims, climate, and population growth (historically and potentially) Mexico - or some successor to New Spain - has a better chance at dominating North America than Canada - or some successor to British North America/New France - ever would have...
"Canada" as we understand it today (or anything that could be construed as a "Canada" that anyone would recognize, as opposed to Greater BNA or Le Grande France Noveau or whatever) is basically never going to be in a position to control much more of North America than it does historically; Greenland, St. Pierre et Miquelon and maybe Alaska, but that's really about it.
The "Dominion of Canada", in all liklihood, would not exist absent a United States as of 1860, which is way too late for any ambitions of the Ohio, Mississippi, or Missouri river countries... even Newfoundland is up in the air, to a large degree.
Couple those realities with the climate and weather of 95 percent of Canada today, and - although certainly a lovely place to visit at the right time of year - it's rather likel expecting Sweden to dominate Europe, rather than (take your pick) Germany, France, or Russia.
A "Greater Mexico" that got independence earlier than historically - so as to overcome the four-decade-long-head start on creating a nation state the U.S. - and managed to hang onto and settle/develop Texas and what became the Mexican Cession and the Gadsden Purchase would have been much closer to a peer competitor to the US than any sort of "Canada" could be ... even then, that requires a 40 year point of departure and a vastly different set of cultural and elite priorities in Mexico in terms of self-government, nationalism, and openess to immigration from Europe.
Best,