Lawrence Solomon is a columnist with the Financial Post, a former columnist with the Globe and Mail, a former contributor to the Wall Street Journal, and the author of seven books.According to a recent Angus Reid poll, a clear majority of Albertans — 57% — would definitely vote to stay in Canada if a referendum were held on Alberta becoming an independent country. These stayers have their reasons, most compellingly the fear expressed by 93% of them of "the prospect of an independent Alberta struggling to get its resources out of its landlocked state."That has things entirely backwards. Alberta is landlocked today. It struggles to export its resources today. It’s stymied today — by Ottawa in exporting oil south to the US, by the BC government in exporting it west to Asian markets, and by the Quebec government in exporting it east to European markets. The federal government also stymies developments on Alberta's own soil: Canadian Natural Resources recently decided to halt its $8.25-billion oilsands expansion because federal climate change regulations create an "economic burden for long-term growth investments."But everything changes if Alberta becomes an independent country, joining Switzerland, Austria, and the world's 30-plus other landlocked countries that trade successfully with the rest of the world. The US depends on Alberta oil. Donald Trump even exempted it from the punitive tariffs he imposed on other Canadian exports. The Americans would have every reason to at least maintain and maybe even increase their oil imports, and to spare other Alberta imports from the especially punitive tariffs they imposed in response to Ottawa's "elbows-up" posturing. Moreover, with Alberta's oil no longer landlocked, Alberta would be selling it south without the hefty discounts Americans now impose. .Alberta’s trade through Canada to Asian and European markets would also likely grow following a referendum in which a clear majority of Albertans said “Yes” to a clear question on independence. As the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the 1998 secession reference, the rest of Canada would be obliged to negotiate secession in good faith. Moreover, Canada is a signatory to various international frameworks, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantee land-locked countries access to tidewater. Given long-established precedents for trade agreements in dozens of landlocked countries, Canada would have no honourable justification for denying access to Alberta industries on internationally accepted trade terms.The good faith negotiations between Alberta and the rest of Canada would come down to a matter of dollars and cents: how to settle the debts and other financial obligations between the parties. In this area, too, Canada is signatory to international agreements that establish frameworks for settling financial disputes (e.g., the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States and the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund). Precedents also exist from other breakups, such as the “velvet divorce” of the Czechs and Slovaks from Czechoslovakia. As Alberta and Canada hammered out their financial agreements, Canada would be obliged to negotiate in good faith, which would mean facilitating Alberta’s trade with willing buyers. In any event, Canada would have an interest in Alberta’s financial viability so the new country could pay its share of Canada's national debt and compensate Canada for the national parks, military bases, and other federal properties it would be taking over..Of course, Canada might ignore the rules-based trading order that exists worldwide and refuse to negotiate in good faith. It could instead play Trump-style hardball and not allow Alberta exports to cross its territory to buyers in other provinces and beyond. But if things did get ugly, Alberta would hold some high cards. As an independent, sovereign nation, it would have the ability to regulate trade across its territory by establishing border controls, customs checkpoints, or tolls on highways. That would allow it to control imports from Asia destined for eastern Canada and goods from eastern Canada destined for BC and beyond. And because international law grants independent states sovereignty over the airspace above their territory, Alberta would regulate air traffic between BC and the rest of the country. The 57% of Albertans who oppose leaving Canada may have good reasons for wanting to stay put. Fear that the Alberta economy would become landlocked isn't one of them. Lawrence Solomon is a columnist with the Financial Post, a former columnist with the Globe and Mail, a former contributor to the Wall Street Journal, and the author of seven books.LawrenceSolomon@protonmail.com
