Federalists endlessly argue that Alberta could never become an independent nation because it is landlocked. It has been since Ottawa created the province in 1905 without negotiating with the First Nations and settlers here..While being landlocked presents challenges for a national Alberta, those challenges are not as great as those currently facing a provincial Alberta. .How to deal with being landlocked is a frequent and fundamental question when talking about getting a fair deal for Alberta, as a province, or as an independent nation. While being landlocked is an issue, it is not the make-or-break issue for Alberta that federalists claim it to be. Instead, the federalists should consider how Alberta’s landlocked status could force it to seek independence if a genuine “fair deal” fails to be obtained. .In seeking a fair deal, we should consider what leverage a landlocked national Alberta would have in achieving market access. .As a province, there is little to no ability for Alberta to build adequate pipeline capacity. Politically and legally, we have run out of options. For more than a decade, Ottawa, B.C., and Quebec have blocked market access to the oceans that all functioning countries on the planet allow; that is, as a province. This is not how Canada’s founding fathers intended confederation to work in 1867, but it is where we are today. .Peter Lougheed secured Section 92A of the Constitution with the goal of ensuring provincial control over resource development in the 1982 negotiations, but successive federal governments have piled on unilateral environmental policies to limit that development. Now, not only are we landlocked, we are policy-locked and regulation-locked. These are not geographic facts. These are political facts. And unlike geography, political facts can be changed. .Federalists – both inside and outside of Alberta – point only to the geographic fact. An independent national Alberta would have no border with an ocean. They assume as a given that a post-independence Ottawa would build walls around the new nation and seek to starve it into economic and political submission. This ignores three vital considerations..Firstly, most of Alberta’s trade goes neither east or west, but south. The Americans would be happy to continue trading with Alberta. In fact, our trading relationship with the U.S. would most likely be stronger than it currently is, hemmed in as it is by Ottawa’s obsession with Ontario and Quebec in trade negotiations. Without the need to protect Quebec’s supply-managed dairy cartel and Ontario’s auto and aluminum sectors, Alberta would be free to negotiate much more favorable trade terms with the Americans. .Secondly, it would not be in Ottawa’s interest to effectively embargo Alberta. As much as leftist governments in Ottawa and several provinces might protest, they still need Alberta’s energy. Without it, energy prices across Canada would skyrocket..Thirdly – and most importantly – Canada needs to trade through Alberta much more than Alberta needs to trade through Canada. If a vengeful Ottawa were to disallow pipelines and trade westward through B.C., Alberta could stop all trade in both directions between B.C. and Eastern Canada. Unless Ottawa proposed to build a wildly expensive highway and railroad through the Arctic muskeg and permafrost, B.C. would be turned into a proverbial East Prussia; that is, an exclave separated by Alberta and two oceans from the rest of Canada. This option would be untenable for obvious reasons. Ottawa would be cutting of its nose to spite its face to vengefully try to isolate an independent Alberta. .As an independent nation, Alberta would have the legal and political right to play hardball with Ottawa to force market access. As a province, all Alberta can do is complain. .Also, being a landlocked nation is no guarantee of doom. On the contrary, some of the wealthiest nations on Earth are landlocked. Switzerland, Austria and Luxembourg are all in the top 20 highest GDP per capita in the world. An independent Alberta would place 11th, just below Switzerland and Luxembourg, and ahead of Austria without even accounting for all of the transfers that would stay at home. .These three countries are landlocked by larger nations, but they and their neighbours understand the mutually advantageous benefit of trade. And as independent nations, they cannot be so easily bullied – even by Germany, France, and Italy – as Alberta can be by Ottawa. .Many Albertans are ready to move toward independence right now. Some say that they are unconditional federalists. But many more want a fair deal within confederation that would see Alberta become autonomous, retain its wealth, and trade freely. And if this proves impossible, then seek independence. .Alberta has the capacity to be the freest, wealthiest place in the world to raise strong families, strong communities, as a strong province or nation. It is up to Ottawa to decide how that sentence ends. .Drew Barnes is the UCP MLA for Cypress-Medicine Hat
Federalists endlessly argue that Alberta could never become an independent nation because it is landlocked. It has been since Ottawa created the province in 1905 without negotiating with the First Nations and settlers here..While being landlocked presents challenges for a national Alberta, those challenges are not as great as those currently facing a provincial Alberta. .How to deal with being landlocked is a frequent and fundamental question when talking about getting a fair deal for Alberta, as a province, or as an independent nation. While being landlocked is an issue, it is not the make-or-break issue for Alberta that federalists claim it to be. Instead, the federalists should consider how Alberta’s landlocked status could force it to seek independence if a genuine “fair deal” fails to be obtained. .In seeking a fair deal, we should consider what leverage a landlocked national Alberta would have in achieving market access. .As a province, there is little to no ability for Alberta to build adequate pipeline capacity. Politically and legally, we have run out of options. For more than a decade, Ottawa, B.C., and Quebec have blocked market access to the oceans that all functioning countries on the planet allow; that is, as a province. This is not how Canada’s founding fathers intended confederation to work in 1867, but it is where we are today. .Peter Lougheed secured Section 92A of the Constitution with the goal of ensuring provincial control over resource development in the 1982 negotiations, but successive federal governments have piled on unilateral environmental policies to limit that development. Now, not only are we landlocked, we are policy-locked and regulation-locked. These are not geographic facts. These are political facts. And unlike geography, political facts can be changed. .Federalists – both inside and outside of Alberta – point only to the geographic fact. An independent national Alberta would have no border with an ocean. They assume as a given that a post-independence Ottawa would build walls around the new nation and seek to starve it into economic and political submission. This ignores three vital considerations..Firstly, most of Alberta’s trade goes neither east or west, but south. The Americans would be happy to continue trading with Alberta. In fact, our trading relationship with the U.S. would most likely be stronger than it currently is, hemmed in as it is by Ottawa’s obsession with Ontario and Quebec in trade negotiations. Without the need to protect Quebec’s supply-managed dairy cartel and Ontario’s auto and aluminum sectors, Alberta would be free to negotiate much more favorable trade terms with the Americans. .Secondly, it would not be in Ottawa’s interest to effectively embargo Alberta. As much as leftist governments in Ottawa and several provinces might protest, they still need Alberta’s energy. Without it, energy prices across Canada would skyrocket..Thirdly – and most importantly – Canada needs to trade through Alberta much more than Alberta needs to trade through Canada. If a vengeful Ottawa were to disallow pipelines and trade westward through B.C., Alberta could stop all trade in both directions between B.C. and Eastern Canada. Unless Ottawa proposed to build a wildly expensive highway and railroad through the Arctic muskeg and permafrost, B.C. would be turned into a proverbial East Prussia; that is, an exclave separated by Alberta and two oceans from the rest of Canada. This option would be untenable for obvious reasons. Ottawa would be cutting of its nose to spite its face to vengefully try to isolate an independent Alberta. .As an independent nation, Alberta would have the legal and political right to play hardball with Ottawa to force market access. As a province, all Alberta can do is complain. .Also, being a landlocked nation is no guarantee of doom. On the contrary, some of the wealthiest nations on Earth are landlocked. Switzerland, Austria and Luxembourg are all in the top 20 highest GDP per capita in the world. An independent Alberta would place 11th, just below Switzerland and Luxembourg, and ahead of Austria without even accounting for all of the transfers that would stay at home. .These three countries are landlocked by larger nations, but they and their neighbours understand the mutually advantageous benefit of trade. And as independent nations, they cannot be so easily bullied – even by Germany, France, and Italy – as Alberta can be by Ottawa. .Many Albertans are ready to move toward independence right now. Some say that they are unconditional federalists. But many more want a fair deal within confederation that would see Alberta become autonomous, retain its wealth, and trade freely. And if this proves impossible, then seek independence. .Alberta has the capacity to be the freest, wealthiest place in the world to raise strong families, strong communities, as a strong province or nation. It is up to Ottawa to decide how that sentence ends. .Drew Barnes is the UCP MLA for Cypress-Medicine Hat
