Subhead:An independent Alberta would have several strong options when it comes to negotiating trade deals with the rest of Canada.#
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.
Amazon-embed:B0GXDXZ6LX
