“Wouldn’t an independent Alberta be landlocked?” is one of the most common questions the APP receives. “An Alberta within Canada is already landlocked” is our reply.
Asking whether or not an independent Alberta would be landlocked is an excellent question, but it’s a non–sequiter. The fact of the matter is that according to the classical definition of “landlocking,” Alberta is already subject to it. We do not have immediate access to any port on our North, South, East, or West sides, and unless something drastic changes in the future, it’s going to stay that way.
The question to ask, therefore, is not whether an independent Alberta would be landlocked or not, but whether an independent Alberta can navigate its landlock better than an Alberta within Canada can. And the answer to that question is a resounding yes. Here’s why:
1. USA
From Alberta’s $353.3 billion annual GDP, $182.2 billion is exported internationally 1, and $38.7 billion is imported internationally 2. But shockingly, almost 90% ($167 billion) of Alberta’s international exports flow to America. Put simply, America is far and away Alberta’s largest trading partner.
But while Alberta’s economic prosperity is intimately connected to America’s appetite for our goods, Alberta does not presently have the authority to sign trade deals with America. According to sections 91(2) and 132 of the Canadian Constitution, that authority rests chiefly with Ottawa. The main problem with this division of authority is that Ottawa’s interests are not Alberta’s interests. Ottawa signs trade deals that are best for the east, not the west. Thus, Alberta does not presently experience immunity from COOL–style beef labeling, or guaranteed pipeline infrastructure into America, leading to uncertainty in the markets.
However, if Alberta were independent, it would finally have the right to negotiate international trade deals (including deals with America) on its own behalf and for its benefit. Ottawa would no longer represent us; we would represent ourselves. Freed from bureaucratic restrictions like Bill C–69, and freed from the influence of lobbies like the eastern dairy cartel, we would be able to ship increased volumes of goods like oil and gas to America, while also importing more international goods as well.
1 https://www.atb.com/company/insights/the-twenty-four/alberta-international-exports-to-december-2024/
2 https://oec.world/en/profile/subnational_can/alberta
2. LEVERAGE
As previously mentioned, Alberta does not negotiate trade deals between itself and the international community. According to the Constitution, that authority rests chiefly with the Federal Government. This is true, not only for international trade, but domestic trade as well. Just as Ottawa negotiates international trade on Alberta’s behalf, it governs trade between Alberta, B.C., Saskatchewan, and the rest of the provinces and territories.
Once again, this is a source of frustration for Alberta. If certain provinces block Alberta’s trade with other nations, as is common with our pipeline woes, Alberta is unable to retaliate. For example, the UCP passed Bill 12 in 2018, hoping to govern the flow of Alberta’s oil. This would have effectively “turned off the taps,” giving Alberta trade leverage in the process. However, after Alberta passed Bill 12, Canadian courts ruled the Bill constitutionally impermissible, and the province had to retreat from its position.
But if Alberta were independent, it would command a level of leverage it’s never experienced before. Not only would we be able to negotiate international trade deals for itself, it would be able to deal domestically as well. Rather than being handcuffed by the Federal Government, Alberta could employ new tools, and forge new relationships, to both economize and increase our exports and imports.
3. UN LAW OF THE SEA
Right now, Alberta is part of Canada. Canada is not (geographically) landlocked. Therefore, Alberta is not part of a landlocked country and is not protected by international landlocking rights. For example, the UN passed “The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982” 3. In it, there are rights granted to land–locked nations like:
Land-locked States shall have the right of access to and from the sea for the purpose of exercising the rights provided for in this Convention including those relating to the freedom of the high seas and the common heritage of mankind. To this end, land-locked States shall enjoy freedom of transit through the territory of transit States by all means of transport.
And,
Transit States, in the exercise of their full sovereignty over their territory, shall have the right to take all measures necessary to ensure that the rights and facilities provided for in this Part for land-locked States shall in no way infringe their legitimate interests.
And,
Traffic in transit shall not be subject to any customs duties, taxes or other charges except charges levied for specific services rendered in connection with such traffic.
These are rights which would be granted to Alberta only if it were an independent nation. It would be a new piece of leverage we’ve never had before. And combined with the other tools mentioned previously, like being able to negotiate with America, and being able to negotiate with Canada and the other provinces, Alberta would finally be able to enjoy a position of trade that reflects our industrious attitude. Put simply, rather than acting within Canada, Alberta is able to navigate its landlock far more efficiently, effectively, and productively, as an independent nation.
3 https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part10.htm