Former Alberta premier Alison Redford says Alberta’s oil is a “Canadian resource” and should be put on the table as a bargaining chip in Ottawa’s trade fight with the United States.

But constitutionally, Redford’s description leaves out a rather important fact: Alberta’s natural resources are primarily under Alberta’s jurisdiction, and most of the province’s mineral rights are owned by the Alberta Crown, not the federal government.

Speaking to CBC, Redford argued Alberta must be prepared to use its oil to help Ontario and Quebec weather U.S. tariffs.

“I think it’s a Canadian resource,” Redford said. “So, we either are Team Canada or we’re not.”

That may be a political argument for national solidarity with a country that has largely shown none with Alberta. What it isn't is an accurate description of is who owns and controls Alberta’s resources.

The Government of Alberta says the provincial Crown owns the mineral rights to approximately 81% of Alberta’s 66 million hectares, including vast oil, natural gas and oil sands deposits. Those resources are managed by Alberta on behalf of Albertans. The remaining mineral rights belong to private owners, corporations and, in some cases, the federal Crown.

There is a historical reason for that.

Go Ad Free

When Alberta became a province in 1905, Ottawa initially retained control over its natural resources. That changed through the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, signed in 1929 and implemented in 1930, which transferred control of those resources to Alberta. 

Alberta’s own historical archives describe the agreement as transferring “jurisdiction of natural resources from the federal to the provincial government.” 

The Constitution is even clearer today.

Section 92A of the Constitution Act gives provincial legislatures exclusive authority over the exploration, development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources within their provinces, including the rate of primary production. Provinces also have constitutional authority to tax those resources.

There are limits, however.

Ottawa retains significant constitutional powers over interprovincial and international trade and can legislate in certain areas involving resource exports. So Alberta does not possess an absolute constitutional veto over every federal policy touching Alberta oil.

But that does not transform provincially owned petroleum into a federal asset for Ottawa to deploy whenever it wants leverage in a trade dispute.

And Redford’s argument raises another question.

If Alberta oil becomes a “Canadian resource” whenever Ontario and Quebec need economic protection, does Ontario’s auto industry become an Alberta resource when Alberta needs leverage? Does Quebec hydro belong to all Canadians when Alberta faces economic pressure?

“Team Canada” is a political slogan. Resource ownership and constitutional jurisdiction are matters of law.

Alberta’s oil unquestionably contributes enormously to Canada’s economy and energy security. But most of the resource belongs to the Alberta Crown, its development and management fall principally under provincial jurisdiction, and the royalties are collected by Alberta on behalf of Albertans.

Calling it a “Canadian resource” may make for a convenient argument in Ottawa’s trade war.

It doesn’t, however, rewrite the Constitution.