Whether an independent Alberta could maintain reliable access to ocean ports has become a central argument in the separation debate.

One side warns Alberta would become a landlocked country dependent on Canada and the United States to move its exports. The other argues Alberta would not need to own a port because its existing pipelines, railways and highways already connect it with buyers and shipping terminals.

Both positions contain some truth. Alberta would not require a seaport within its borders to function as a country, but it would require dependable transportation agreements with its neighbours.

The argument against separation

The case against separation begins with geography. Alberta has no coastline, so an independent Alberta would not control a marine port or the territory separating it from the Pacific Ocean.

The Trans Mountain pipeline illustrates the concern. The system carries oil from the Edmonton area through British Columbia to the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby. Its capacity increased to approximately 890,000 barrels per day after the expansion entered service in May 2024.

Following separation, the pipeline would begin in Alberta but cross another country before reaching a foreign-owned port. Alberta could not assume that the present Canadian regulatory system, toll structure and operating rights would continue unchanged.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea recognizes that landlocked states should have access to and from the sea. However, Article 125 also says the terms of that transit must be established through agreements between the landlocked country and the countries being crossed.

There is an additional complication for oil exports. The convention’s basic definition of transportation includes railways, roads and inland waterways. Pipelines and natural gas lines may be included, but only through an agreement between the countries involved.

That means international law would support Alberta’s right to negotiate access.

World Trade Organization (WTO) rules also protect the movement of goods through member countries. Article V of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade requires freedom of transit and prohibits unnecessary delays and unreasonable transit charges.

Those protections would become valuable to Alberta, but membership could not simply be assumed. The WTO says a government seeking membership must negotiate its entry terms with existing members.

Separation would also turn Alberta’s provincial boundaries into international borders. Customs inspections, product rules, security requirements and border procedures could affect shipments moving west, east or south.

The strongest argument against separation is therefore not that Alberta would be physically cut off. It is that the province would surrender the guaranteed domestic access and replace it with international agreements that would have to be negotiated.

That could create uncertainty for oil, grain, livestock, forestry products, manufactured goods and other exports requiring dependable delivery schedules.

The argument supporting separation

Supporters of separation respond that owning a seaport is not necessary for international trade. Many landlocked countries move goods through neighbouring countries under transportation and customs agreements.

Alberta’s physical infrastructure would not disappear following independence. Existing pipelines, railway tracks, highways, terminals and border crossings would remain in place. Canadian and American companies would continue to have a financial interest in moving Alberta products.

Alberta could also trade directly with the United States without using a Canadian seaport. Oil already moves south through major pipeline systems while agricultural and manufactured products can move by rail and truck.

American ports could provide another route to overseas markets, although those shipments would still require agreements with the United States.

British Columbia would also depend on continued access through Alberta with rail traffic travelling east from Vancouver and Prince Rupert crosses Alberta before reaching central Canada and parts of the United States.

The Alberta Transition Council estimates that more than $55 billion in B.C. goods move east through Alberta each year and that more than 900,000 shipping containers arriving at Vancouver and Prince Rupert travel through the province. 

The underlying argument is that trade corridors operate in both directions. Preventing Alberta products from reaching B.C. ports could invite retaliatory restrictions on B.C. goods moving east.

Port operators, railways, pipeline companies, exporters and consumers would have strong financial reasons to maintain an open corridor.

International rules would also provide a starting point for negotiations. Once Alberta obtained the necessary treaty and trade relationships, Canada could not necessarily impose arbitrary restrictions while continuing to provide more favourable transit treatment to other countries.

What the arguments actually establish

A lawful separation itself would require negotiations. The federal Clarity Act says provincial secession would require a constitutional amendment and negotiations involving the federal government and all provinces.

Transportation corridors, borders, pipelines, trade agreements and the division of federal assets would likely form part of a much larger settlement.

The practical question is therefore not whether a landlocked Alberta could trade. It could.

The unanswered questions are how much access would cost, how quickly agreements could be completed and what protections Alberta could obtain against future political or commercial disruptions.