An independent Alberta would need to negotiate its own trade agreements with the U.S.
The C.D. Howe Institute analysis explores what separation would mean geopolitically and under international law, particularly for accessing North American markets.
Sources · C.D. Howe Institute
The day's top stories, food & events — every morning at 7. Unsubscribe anytime.
If Alberta were to become a separate country, it would face major challenges securing trade relationships and market access it now enjoys as part of Canada, according to a new analysis from the C.D. Howe Institute.
As a newly independent nation, Alberta would lose all existing treaty relationships and would need to negotiate its way into arrangements from scratch. Unlike inheriting pre-existing agreements as a Canadian province, international law requires newly formed countries to negotiate their own terms.
The most critical issue would be securing stable, beneficial access to the American market. While Alberta's oil and gas reserves offer important leverage, entry would not be automatic. Any new trade deal would have to involve Canada, the U.S., and Mexico — and because there's no provision in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) allowing new entrants, admitting Alberta would require unanimous agreement of all three countries. Alberta would have to negotiate entry independently.
An independent Alberta would also face complexity around securing oil and gas pipeline transit through both Canada and the U.S. The province would need to become a party to the 1977 Canada-United States Transit Pipelines Agreement — something that would require separate negotiations with both governments.
Beyond North American trade, an independent Alberta would not automatically receive rights and benefits under Canada's existing free trade agreements with the European Union (CETA), the Asia-Pacific region (CPTPP), or South Korea. Each would require fresh negotiation.
The analysis was published in the Globe and Mail.
