Three Alberta separatism myths

No, we wouldn’t be able to force the rest of Canada to build pipelines.

Alberta separatism is not a good idea.

It should fill us with moral concerns. It presents countless treaty concerns. The attack on the Canadian experience it represents - especially at this time - is extremely hurtful to many and incredibly short sighted. It is a concept that can divide us at a time we cannot afford to be divided.

Beyond that, the end goal - creating a landlocked country of 5 million people - is wildly impractical. The idea Canada is divisible, but Alberta is not - is wildly impractical. We should all be very concerned about prominent voices treating Alberta separatism as a legitimate notion.

Even the discourse will hurt us - it probably already has. Stoking frustrations into separatism and riding discontent for political gain could have profound consequences for our province.

A clear majority of Albertans are opposed to separation. But a minority are open to the idea, and under proposed referendum rules that minority will be able to force the question. Some of those open to the idea rest their openness on online arguments that have been circulated that are false, inaccurate, or dubious-at-best:

• The idea that a sovereign Alberta could force Canada to build pipelines to the coast.

• The idea that a sovereign Alberta would have more money.

• The idea that a sovereign Alberta would always have conservative government.

Rebutting these myths risks spreading them, or them being treated as more legitimate than they are, or treating Alberta separatism as a more popular movement than it is. But with the referendum thresholds lowering, it’s worth making sure the facts are out there for people considering signing a petition that would bring a damaging conversation on our province.

MYTH 1: “If we were a separate nation, the rest of Canada would be OBLIGED to give us pipelines to the coasts under international law.”

The belief that being a sovereign country would give Alberta unlimited ability to create pipelines to tidewater hinges on a read of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1965 New York Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked States. Under those treaties, landlocked countries have rights of access to and from the sea.

But ask the oil-producing jurisdictions of South Sudan, Uganda or Kazakhstan how those treaties works for getting oil to market (spoiler: not well). The treaties guarantee rights of access but they do not guarantee the right to build infrastructure across another country’s territory. The right is a right to transit, not transit infrastructure.

Even access to existing infrastructure is not a given. Tensions between countries can and do lead to pipeline shutdowns and limits to existing access. The treaties certainly do not force the creation of new infrastructure. A host country retains full control over environmental regulation, route approvals, and conditions. Access is gotten and maintained, if at all, through negotiation - often difficult, always costly, rarely linear.

The International Court of Justice has recently taken up a case where a country tried to compel another country to give access to the coast. Bolivia wanted access to the Pacific through Chile. In the 2018 ruling Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile), the court reaffirmed that states cannot be compelled to negotiate unless they have explicitly agreed to do so.

The “one neat trick to get to tidewater” proposed by some relies on a right that is more moral and diplomatic than legal. Like similar claims for weight loss and bunions all over your aunt’s Facebook page, approach with skepticism. No higher authority is going to compel Canada to build infrastructure on behalf of a sovereign nation.

In Canada, we have seen pipelines built by the federal government using its authority, even over concerns of provinces (see: TMX). There would be no reason or benefit for a Canada divorced from Alberta to do the same. As frustrating as it can sometimes seem, it should be self-evident that the legal ability to build energy infrastructure in Canada is far stronger when you’re in Canada than if you are outside of it.

MYTH 2: “If we were a separate nation, we’d have more money for ourselves.”

This is based on the idea that Albertans pay more in federal taxes than the federal government spends in Alberta. The thinking goes: keep that money here, replicate the functions of the federal government, and we’ll end up ahead.

So let’s set aside what has been established elsewhere - that our economy would be suffering from an environment of economic uncertainty and a lack of guaranteed access even through the infrastructure that exists today.

Let’s instead focus on what it costs to run a federal government and economies of scale.

When it comes to cost, small countries have big disadvantages. Fixed costs of governance (e.g., a legislature, judiciary, ministries) are spread across fewer people, so per capita costs tend to be higher.

Canada is the 8th largest economy and 37th most populous country in the world. Alberta would be the 125th. Instead of 41 million people paying for 270 diplomatic offices across the globe, 5 million people would be doing it. The same level of service would cost the average taxpayer 8 times as much.

This ties into the concept of economies of scale and the de-risking that occurs the larger and more diversified an economy is. We see it most prominently with the Canada Pension Plan - which gets greater returns than the smaller Quebec Pension Plan. We also see it with spending on armed forces, innovation, trade, housing and agriculture. Fixed costs for smaller countries are a bigger percent of spending - and more limited dollars go less distance.

There’s every reason to believe Albertans would spend more on a sovereign Alberta than what Albertans currently spend on a sovereign Canada.

MYTH 3: “If we were a separate nation, my party/conservatives could always win.”

Gang, the NDP were in power provincially as recently as six years ago. But for a couple thousand votes in Calgary last election, they would be in power right now. This is not ancient history. At this point you could easily make the case Alberta is more likely than Ontario to vote for a non-conservative government.

Not only is future conservative rule far from guaranteed in a sovereign Alberta, Alberta has arguably never been more central to confederation. Our Prime Minister grew up here. Our leader of the Opposition grew up here. The interim leader of the New Democratic caucus grew up here. All have deep roots and deep understanding of this place.

So many recent Canadian leaders are Albertans. In fact, Mark Carney is the first Prime Minister elected since 1965 to represent a province other than Alberta or Quebec.

I’m a Liberal in Alberta. I’m pretty acutely aware of how frustrating it can be to routinely be on the losing side of elections. But picking up your ball and leaving because haven’t won the last few games is loser talk. Albertans are not losers.

* * *

The next several months could be a dangerous time for Alberta. It does not take a majority of Albertans voting to separate to severely damage our home - serious talk alone will be sufficient.

Consider the example of Quebec in the 1970s: companies moved from Montreal to Toronto to escape political uncertainty. This was despite the fact that corporate taxes were lower in Quebec than Ontario at that time.

Putting so much political risk into the equation will more than undo any other Alberta Advantage we create. It’s incumbent on all of us to tread carefully. Now is a time for cool heads and facts.