Before going to secede, Alberta should do what Quebec has done and "practise" being a country: collect its own taxes, run its own police, run its own retirement system, control provincial immigration, ... This will give them a better idea what will be required to go it alone, and test whether their low-tax haven will survive leaving Canada.
The UCP (who seem to have no official opinion on separation) have already begun some of this, with an Alberta pension plan and a new Alberta police force.
(Edit: to be clear, these are just proposals the government is exploring at this point.)
> test whether their low-tax haven will survive leaving Canada.
The math already makes sense from a tax perspective. Alberta is a net contributor to the rest of the country, mainly due to resource royalties.
But to me, the question is whether that would still hold when it has to work out trade deals with two neighbouring countries, while small (pop. 5 million), and landlocked.
> The UCP (who seem to have no official opinion on separation) have already begun some of this, with an Alberta pension plan and a new Alberta police force.
To be clear, none of this has been enacted. The UCP love to threaten, but those initiatives have not proven to be popular with Albertans.
> But to me, the question is whether that would still hold when it has to work out trade deals with two neighbouring countries, while small (pop. 5 million), and landlocked.
And when Alberta needs to take on all the things that the federal government does for them.
> The UCP love to threaten, but those initiatives have not proven to be popular with Albertans.
Unpopularity didn't stop them from changing the environmental rules to allow a new coal mine in the eastern slopes of the Rockies. The vast majority of Albertans were opposed and they went ahead anyway.
There is no Alberta Pension Plan that exists today. All provinces also already run their own police forces. So there has been no movement on this in Alberta.
> There is no Alberta Pension Plan that exists today.
There is a fund (AIMCo) that the government is proposing to convert in to a general pension plan. So far that has not been popular enough to translate into concrete action.
> All provinces also already run their own police forces.
No, rural policing is handled by the RCMP in 8 provinces. Ontario has the OPP and Quebec has SQ.
> So there has been no movement on this in Alberta.
They can't be an independent country, because their position is indefensible. Over 3/4ths of their borders would be with Canada— that's enough influence and threat to thwart any separatism. Who do you trade with? How do you keep Canadian troops away?
The only way this could happen is if the only other country Alberta borders, the United States, strongly supports the separation— strongly enough to break ties with Canada over it that is. And if it does, I suspect Alberta wouldn't be independent very long. All trade and most defense would be with and thanks to the United States. It'd be easy for the USA to annex Alberta.
Canada wouldn't keep its arms closed as it looses its most profitable province, connection to its western ocean, and over 11% of its population. Unless the USA vows to defend Alberta, this would certainly mean Canadian troops marching towards Edmonton. It's an existential threat. Looking at the map, it splits Canada in two.
I'm not saying this would mean war. Alberta doesn't have the right geography or military power to fight a war with Canada, unlike, say, the South in the American Civil War. Canadian troops would into Edmonton with little resistance and Alberta would return to Canada.
The only way Alberta could remain independent is if the USA defended it. I don't think this would mean war either— Canada would never go to war with the United States. At most troops from both sides would be positioned on each side of the border, to show they mean business, but Canada wouldn't fire a shot.
Knowing thus, that Alberta depends on them for both trade and defense (reminder, Alberta is land-locked and could only trade with the USA or Canada), and given their recent expansionist rhetoric, would the USA really opt to keep Alberta as an independent country they spent money defending, but get no taxes or land jurisdiction from, or would they expect to eventually incorporate it?
I'll admit it'd be a little cool in the winter but NWT is still a part of Canada.
Since you said looking at a map; almost all of Alberta is treaty land, be a very interesting and long court case before anything comes of it, no matter what our lobbyist Premier wants to do.
Of the few Canadian troops that exist, most of them are sourced from the West (just like the US, for that matter). It's difficult to prosecute a war without any soldiers.
Some clause to this effect could be a nice thing to add to any future unions. Want to leave? Go for it! Run your own services, take your chunk of the national debt and once you’ve paid it off you are free.
Why are countries begging their regions to stay? It’s obviously just a negotiation or political rhetoric. If these movements actually had to take themselves seriously they would immediately dissolve I think.
Because a national identity means more than a temporary convenience, and regions have ups and downs in their fortunes. Why should the rich parts of Alberta fund the poor parts?
Just to be clear; the idea there was to reduce the tendency to make these threats by actually providing a serious path toward succession. I think these movements are mostly not serious or well thought out, so this would be a good way of calling their bluffs.
However they are also, in my opinion, being promoted by state actors who want to weaken Canadian and American national identity. In that way, it's important to not push people into stronger support of the secessionist position.
For maybe another 10 more years, tops. With the world adding > 1TW of solar every year and > 20 million EV's every year, the demand for oil is going to drop. Alberta oilsands oil has the most expensive production costs of any major oil production area, which means they're the marginal producer, the first to shut down. Saudi Arabia with their cheap light oil is going to be making money on oil for at least 50 years, but Alberta will be lucky to get 10 more.
> Alberta oilsands oil has the most expensive production costs of any major oil production area, which means they're the marginal producer, the first to shut down
Admittedly they are benefiting mostly from American refining tech in this sense. They would have a tough time negotiating advantageous trade terms on their own and not many refineries can handle it, meaning they are mostly dependent on pipelines to America to make their oil saleable.
Alberta's solar energy might make BC rich. The price of electricity while the sun is shining is very low. The combination of Alberta solar during the daytime and BC hydro at night is valuable, but it's the hydro that'll get the vast bulk of the dollars.
And Alberta is quite far from big electricity markets. It's far cheaper to put overbuild solar in places with poor sunshine than it is to build a HVDC line.
Plus Alberta will have to compete with Arizona and neighboring states, which have even more sunshine than Alberta does.
Alberta/Canada exports oil which earns it forex. Which allows it to buy stuff from other countries. Exporting solar electricity to earn forex will earn next to nothing.
It's not hard to look this up. It's not just fewer hours per day, latitude matters a lot. If you look at yearly totals[1] Alberta looks better than BC but not better than any other neighbors to the South or East. All its neighbors also have plenty of space. Plus, total energy consumption (electricity plus gas) is probably highest in winter when solar input is lowest. I think it's hard to argue Alberta will become an exporter of solar-derived power.
The US is just a small fraction of oil use. There world will be consuming oil for many decades. Some by industries with hard to replace uses (plastic, planes etc), and some by backwards countries (US, Russia). But it'll just be a small fraction, so will be supplied by the low cost producers like Saudi Arabia. High cost producers like Alberta will be shut out.
Gas car sales peaked in 2018 globally. EVs are already >20% of new car sales worldwide, and the US is a joke when it comes to EV sales compared to Europe or China.
They've been saying it "will be replaced" for decades. I'm saying it "is being replaced". Big difference. 1 TW of solar and 20% of car sales are massive numbers we've never seen before.
> Global oil demand is projected to increase in 2025 compared to 2024, but the growth rate is expected to slow down. The International Energy Agency (IEA) anticipates a decrease in global oil demand growth for the remainder of 2025, but expects demand to reach 104 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2025, a notable increase from 2024.
Perhaps you meant the pace of growth is slowing this year. But that has a lot to do with the macro economic situation, with central banks around the world cutting rates as growth slows (and some countries enter recession.) The global economy is slowing, when it rebounds again, so will growth in oil demand.
All this means is that the average income of citizens in Alberta is dramatically higher than other provinces and so Alberta pays more in the federal taxes that are applied uniformly to everyone.
I'm sure the other provinces also wish they had such high paying jobs and contributed more in taxes!
Yeah, this whole "Alberta gives Quebec money" complaint is in fact just how federal income, in the form of income tax, is distributed and is like getting upset that your provincial taxes are paying for something in Red Deer when you live in Calgary.
