Former Alberta premier Jason Kenney says separation would mean Alberta automatically losing access to Canada’s treaties and free-trade agreements.

“We leave Canada, we leave all of Canada’s treaties and free trade agreements,” Kenney posted on social media. “Past time for separatists to speak to this and all the other inconvenient truths.”

Former Premier Kenney is wrong to assume Alberta would simply walk away from existing trade relationships. We wouldn’t.

If Albertans vote Option 2 on October 19, there would be months of negotiations before any independence referendum or constitutional change. That gives Alberta… https://t.co/0bpUksPQdy

— Keith Wilson (@ikwilson) August 31, 2026

Lawyer Keith Wilson responded that an independent Alberta would need to negotiate its own treaties and trade arrangements, but argued the transition would be manageable.

So, who is right?

On the narrow legal question, Kenney is largely correct.

Canada’s trade agreements belong to Canada. An independent Alberta would become a new sovereign country and could not simply assume that it remained a party to agreements negotiated and ratified by the Canadian government.

That includes the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA (also known as USMCA). The agreement names Canada, the United States and Mexico as its parties. Alberta is currently covered because it is part of Canada, not because it independently signed the agreement.

Go Ad Free

International law does provide mechanisms through which a successor state can seek continuity, accede to existing agreements or negotiate temporary arrangements. According to the United Nations’ work on state succession, newly independent countries have frequently used declarations of succession and negotiated devolution agreements to preserve treaty relationships.

In other words, Alberta would not automatically inherit Canada’s entire treaty network, but neither would it necessarily awaken on independence day economically sealed behind a maple-leaf curtain.

Wilson argues Alberta would have years to prepare before any constitutional change took effect. The province has its own trade officials, lawyers, public servants and negotiators who could pursue continuity agreements during separation negotiations.

Alberta would also bring considerable leverage to the table. Wilson cited its more than $470-billion economy, its role as a major North American energy supplier and its enormous purchases of goods and services from the rest of Canada.

Canada and the United States would have strong economic reasons to avoid disrupting established energy supplies, pipelines, transportation networks and commercial relationships.

Negotiations could be difficult, and other governments would pursue their own interests. There could also be periods of uncertainty for investors and exporters.

But losing automatic coverage under Canada’s trade agreements is not the same thing as losing the ability to trade.

Countries trade without comprehensive free-trade agreements every day. The differences involve tariffs, market-access rules, customs procedures and regulatory barriers, not an automatic shutdown of commerce.