One of the most common statements blurted by opponents to Alberta’s independence is, “But you would be landlocked!”

They neglect to mention that Alberta already is landlocked and independence wouldn’t make it any more difficult to get infrastructure to coastal ports than it already is under Canada’s broken federation. In fact, it would make successful pipeline development more likely.

In an editorial column in The Hub, they go into more detail in trying to frighten Albertans about the risks of becoming landlocked should they choose independence. They note the potential lost jobs and lost investment as Alberta’s resources become stranded.

The problem is, they are painting the picture Alberta already sees by remaining in the federation.

The piece correctly dissects a misguided case made by independence supporters of how maritime law guarantees coastal access for exports to landlocked countries. UNCLOS Articles 124 and 125 “require that every country shall have access to the sea.”

Realistically though, landlocked nations must still negotiate with their neighbours to attain coastal access. Alberta can’t count on an army of UN soldiers forcing the construction of a pipeline to the West coast and most Albertans wouldn’t be thrilled to see all those blue helmets appearing in their new nation.

What the writers at the Hub neglect to touch upon is the increased leverage in negotiating for projects such as pipelines an independent Alberta would have.

Currently, the federal government lacks the courage to use its constitutional authority in the federation to ensure that provinces and Indigenous bands can’t block interprovincial infrastructure projects.

Go Ad Free

They have forced Alberta into a humiliating negotiation process to try to expand pipeline infrastructure which as only led to concessions from Alberta on carbon tax increases and carbon capture boondoggles, while refusing to lift the regulations blocking pipelines and refusing to exert federal authority on Indigenous opponents and premiers.

An independent Alberta wouldn’t have those hindrances when negotiating pipeline access.

While maritime law doesn’t really guarantee coastal access for Alberta’s products, there are also no international laws that could compel Alberta to allow the flow of goods eastward from British Columbia or westward from Eastern Canada.

An independent Alberta could quickly halt or hinder truck and rail transport in the event of a trade dispute which would lead to quick resolution. An independent Alberta could also shut off the taps for existing pipelines which would lead to B.C. running out of aviation fuel quickly along with other associated fuel shortages.

That’s leverage.

These actions would likely never come to pass, as B.C. and Eastern Canada would realize the terrible costs which would be incurred by such a trade war and Alberta certainly wouldn’t want to have to harm the economic well-being of its neighbours.

Environmental, economic and social concerns would have to be addressed in negotiations with B.C. for expanding pipeline access. The people of B.C. would also need some form of compensation for allowing the line across their land.

But with leverage, these things could be negotiated quickly instead of being mired in Canada’s broken federation. Mutually beneficial arrangements would be made and earth would be moving.

If Alberta were to be forced to cut off access for the transport of goods across the province at some point, the conflict would be resolved within days, if not hours.

Alberta will be landlocked whether independent or not.

Albertans can choose to be landlocked within Canada which means having no leverage in negotiating pipelines, or they can choose independence and suddenly hold all the cards.