This article was originally published on The Conversation, an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. Disclosure information is available on the original site.
___
Author: Stewart Prest, Lecturer, Political Science, University of British Columbia
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is using sovereignty sentiments in Alberta as a kind of implied threat to get a better deal for the province.
In a letter to Mark Carney in the run-up to the recent first ministers conference in Saskatoon, Smith told the prime minister that failure to build additional pipelines for Alberta oil would “send an unwelcome signal to Albertans concerned about Ottawa’s commitment to national unity.”
Accordingly, it’s worth asking: what would happen if Alberta did vote to leave?
Two historical touch points are the 1995 sovereignty referendum in Québec and the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom in 2016. In different ways, both examples drive home one inevitable point: in the event of a vote to pursue sovereignty, the future of Alberta would have to be negotiated one painful and uncertain step at a time.
International lawlessness
Sovereignty is an assertion of independent governmental authority, notably including a monopoly over the legitimate use of force over a defined people and territory. Unlike provinces in a country like Canada, sovereign countries co-operate with each other if — and only if — it’s in their interests to do so.
Some proponents of separatism have argued that an independent Alberta could rely on international law to secure continued access to tidewater through Canada. The idea seems to form the basis of Smith’s assertions that one nation cannot “landlock” another under international law. But that’s not the case.
What’s more, international law — even if it does apply in theory — doesn’t always hold in practice. That’s because between countries, formal anarchy prevails: no one has the responsibility to enforce international law on their own. If one country breaks international law, it’s up to other countries to respond. If that doesn’t happen, then it just doesn’t happen.
Simply put, if Alberta were to leave Canada, it would lose all enforceable rights and protections offered by the Canadian Constitution and enforced by the institutions and courts. In their place, Alberta would get exactly — and only — what it can bargain for.
The Québec example
The Québec independence saga has in many ways clarified and refined the path to potential secession for provinces in Canada, and hints at what can happen in the aftermath of a sovereignty referendum.
In the wake of the near miss that was the 1995 referendum — when those wanting to remain in Canada defeated those who voted to separate with the narrowest of margins — Jean Chretien’s Liberal government took rapid steps to respond.
Plan A focused on actions aimed at addressing Québec’s grievances, not unlike Carney’s quest for a national consensus to build an additional pipeline.
Another course of action, known as Plan B, defined the path to secession.
The federal government asked the Supreme Court of Canada for a clarification on the legality of sovereignty. It then passed the Clarity Act, which enshrined into law Ottawa’s understanding of the court’s answer. The reference and act both made clear that any secession attempt could be triggered only by a “clear majority” on a “clear question.”
The act also illuminated the stakes of secession. The preamble of the legislation, for instance, spells out that provincial sovereignty would mean the end of guaranteed Canadian citizenship for departing provincial residents.
The act also lays out some of the points to be negotiated in the event of secession, “including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.”
Simply put, everything would be on the table if Albertans opted to separate.
You Brexit, you bought it
Brexit provides an example of just how painful that process can be. After voting to leave the European Union, the U.K. found itself bogged down in a difficult negotiation process that continues to this day.
Political, economic and trade rights — even including the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland — have all been painfully reconstituted through complex negotiations. Despite the promises made by those who advocated in favour of Brexit, the U.K. will continue to pay in perpetuity for access to the limited EU services it still retains.
The U.K. is dealing with these challenges even though it was already a sovereign state. Alberta is not. Everything between a sovereign Alberta and its neighbours would be subject to difficult negotiations, both in the initial days of an independent Albertan state and any subsequent discussions.
Alberta would have little leverage
Once independent, Alberta would be a landlocked, oil-exporting nation. It would be negotiating with Canada — and the United States, its neighbour to the south — over every aspect of its new relationship.
Its borders with other provinces and territories would need be negotiated, as would the status of marginalized populations and Indigenous Peoples within Alberta. The status of lands subject to treaty — in other words, most of the province — would have to be negotiated.
Indigenous Peoples themselves have already made clear they have no interest in secession and would mount a vigorous defence of Indigenous rights as they exist within Canada.
After all, if Canada is divisible, so is Alberta. A new republic has no automatic claims to territory with respect to Indigenous Peoples and treaty lands.
Once borders were settled, Alberta would have little leverage and would need a lot of help as a country of about 4.5 million negotiating with neighbours of 35 million in Canada and 350 million in the U.S. Who would be its allies?
Nothing would be guaranteed, not Alberta’s admission to the United Nations, the establishment of an Albertan currency and exchange rates, national and continental defence, the management of shared borders and citizenship rules or the terms of cross-border trade and investment.
Access to Canadian ports would be at Canada’s discretion, negotiated on terms Canada considered in its interests. Alberta could no more force a pipeline through Canada than through the United States.
Puerto Rico North?
Of course, a republic of Alberta would be free to pursue deeper relations with the American republic to its south. The U.S president, however, has already made clear what would be the likely terms for free trade: accession.
Here, too, there would be no guarantees. Alberta could just as easily become an American territory, with limited representation, as it could a 51st state. “Puerto Rico North” is as possible as “Alaska South.”
Gone too would be any claims to share collective goods. Alberta’s neighbours would have no incentive, for instance, to help with the inevitable post-oil clean-up, estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Simply put, if Alberta were to vote to leave Canada, it would truly be on its own.
___
Stewart Prest does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
___
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Disclosure information is available on the original site. Read the original article: https://theconversation.com/what-if-alberta-really-did-vote-to-separate-257214
Stewart Prest, Lecturer, Political Science, University of British Columbia, The Conversation
