Latest News

Transfer Payments
Free Trade
Debt & Taxes
Canada Pension Plan

Free Speech
Property Rights
National Energy Program
Historical Grievances
History of Secession
Pierre Trudeau
Secession from Canadah
Republic of Alberta
Symbols of Alberta
Independence Polls

"Secession is treasonous."

Secession is not treasonous. The Clarity Act specifies a legal means by which a province may separate from Canada. This legal framework for separation is what this website advocates.
"Alberta's independence movement is the same as Quebec seeking 'sovereignty association.' "

First, nobody, including the PQ, knows what "sovereignty association" is.  Alberta, in contrast should become an independent country.

Quebec gains financially from staying in Confederation. Alberta loses by being in Confederation. The corollary of these facts is that while it is possible to buy Quebec off (observe Quebec that Quebec was once a net contributor to Confederation), it is not possible to do so with Alberta. Note also that a significant base of federal power comes from Quebec. None of it comes from Alberta.

Quebec loses financially by declaring independence. Hence, the introduction of the terminology of "sovereignty association," which has all the benefits of staying within Canada, but none of the responsibilities. Alberta wins financially by declaring her independence. Instead of Ottawa funneling off $8 billion dollars per year (and this is without past crimes such as the NEP, or future crimes such as Kyoto, being imposed), Alberta would easily be able to finance areas that were previously under the responsibility of the federal government out of this yearly theft. 

"Alberta's population is too small to be a country." 

Alberta has roughly 3 million people. Singapore has 4.3 million people, and is a successful country. It seceded from Malaysia (22.2 million population, similar to what Canada's would be after Alberta secedes). Singapore's per capita GDP is $26,500 USD, while Malaysia's is $10,300 USD. Obviously, Singapore becoming independent from the Malaysian union was not a bad decision. There are many other examples of very successful countries with smaller populations than Alberta. Bermuda has roughly 60,000 people - less populous than Red Deer, with one of the world's highest standard of living. Luxembourg has less than 450,000 people, with a higher standard of living than Canada as well. The main difference is these countries do not have Alberta's natural resources.

"Alberta will not be part of Canadian treaties, such as the FTA and the NAFTA."

While this statement in itself may be true, the effect of this in practice will be negligible. 64.1% of Alberta's exports to the US were from mineral fuel. Alberta does not export many goods that are wont to be protected by US labor leaders or business groups. On the contrary, Alberta's energy is a crucial input to the American economy. Also, the US is currently in the process in seeking to replace energy imports from the Middle East with more reliable sources. In fact, an Alberta not constrained by the consequences of Kyoto will be a much more reliable supplier of energy than Alberta constrained by a Treaty imposed by Ottawa. 

Further, one observes how Mexico was made party to the NAFTA soon after the FTA agreement was signed. It is quite reasonable to expect that a newly independent country would be given opportunity to join the NAFTA. But even if not, consider the consequences. 2/3 of Alberta's exports to the US are energy. With shortages of energy in the US (particularly the Western US) and alternative suppliers in the politically antagonistic Middle East, restricting Alberta's energy exports is unlikely. With imports, not only does Alberta get the choice to reduce import tariffs on American products, but on other the products of other nations as well. There is no Albertan auto industry whose lobbyists need to be accomodated. Japanese autos could be purchased without the high tariffs that Albertans currently face.

Looking closer at trade, how does staying in Canada help Alberta? It was the Premier of Alberta who managed to visit the White House to discuss energy issues, while Federal Government officials stayed behind in Ottawa because their dogmatic anti-Americanism wasn't welcome in Washington.

Further, the issue of Mad Cow affecting Alberta's ranchers hasn't been dealt with effectively by Canada. As mentioned in the current issues section of, the response of Ottawa was to deal with SARS and ignore Mad Cow disease. Indeed, while Alberta did not cancel business with Ontario, Ontario talked of banning Alberta beef.

"Alberta will not be protected under current Canadian security arrangements such as NORAD or NATO." 

Alberta, essentially is protected, because they are surrounded by Canada and the US. If someone were to attack Alberta, they would have to do so thru Canada or the US. By doing so, the attacking nation would incur the wrath of NATO, while being protected under NORAD's umbrella. Due to Alberta's location, it makes sense (from an American perspective) to include Alberta in NORAD. One advantage independence immediately provides is that the US will no longer have a neighbor that is conveniently antagonistic towards the US, one that blames the victims for the Sept. 11 attack, one that doesn't harbor terrorists and prefers to support Iraq. Rather than choosing a foreign policy that needlessly irritates the US, Alberta could choose one that actually supports her allies in such obvious cases. This is much more important for the long term security of Alberta than the current path Canada is taking.

"Alberta would not be allowed to use the Canadian dollar."

This point fails to ask several questions. First, what should Alberta's monetary policy be? If Alberta decides upon subletting its monetary policy to the Bank of Canada, could it use the Canadian dollar as its currency? If Alberta decides upon its own monetary policy, could it use the Canadian dollar as its currency, or as an index to fix her currency to? In either case, the question is yes. In the post WWII era, the Soviets held vast quantities of US dollars outside the US banking system. It evolved into the Eurodollar market, which is common today. The U.S., at the height of the Cold War, was unable to prevent the Soviets from using U.S. dollars. Internationally, we observe countries such as Singapore or Bermuda, which use the U.S. dollar as their currency or as a currency to fix to.

An independent Alberta would have the choice of which currency to use. Why consider using the Canadian dollar, when the U.S. dollar could be used? The U.S. dollar has been a superior store of value over the past 35 years. Alberta could consider using the Swiss Franc, which has been a superior store of value over that time as well. Or Alberta could consider other options, such as competing currencies or a currency backed by an index of commodities (as suggested by Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek), or even consider a gold standard. The real issue isn't whether Alberta would not be allowed to use the Canadian dollar, but whether Alberta would choose to use the Canadian dollar.

"Albertans are religious fundamentalists."

This is a complete fallacy. 44% of Albertans will not go to church this year, the second highest rate in Canada after B.C.. Canada's Bible Belt is in Atlantic Canada, only because of a large drop-off in church attendance in Quebec.
"Albertans are ignorant rednecks. "

Aside from the ironic bigotry in this statement, it is untrue. 48.1% of Albertans had some sort of post-secondary education, which is higher than Ontario or Quebec, and tied with B.C..
"An independent Albertan will be landlocked."

While this statement is true, it is made to convey that Alberta will be subject to deleterious economic effects from not having ocean or sea ports.

Alberta is landlocked today. Geography is what it is. We don't have ports. Should we be worried about not having access to Vancouver's ports? Why would Canada needlessly try to incur the wrath of an independent Alberta, who would disallow convenient access to B.C.? B.C. would be geographically separated from Canada if Alberta secedes. And as Canada could circumvent Alberta by circumnavigating through the U.S. in that circumstance, that is an option available to Alberta. Access to Ontario's ports is not an issue.

A similar argument is that Alberta's pipelines would be cut off once they would reach the Canadian border. This would be more important  as most of Alberta's trade is with the U.S. and some of Alberta's trade does come from pipelines that pass through Canada. Why would Canada follow such idiotic policy? Are they really willing to incur the wrath of the U.S., where most of the natural gas and oil will be going? Are they really willing to cut themselves off from Alberta's energy? The answer to both questions, of course, is no.

Alberta will benefit from being landlocked and does benefit from being landlocked. First, we don't have any rats, which would be an impossibility if we have a port. Second, we would not have to finance a navy, since we have no coast line to defend.

There are many successful countries, like Switzerland or Luxembourg, that are landlocked. They have no disputes with their neighbors and their trade is not interrupted. There are many unsuccessful countries, like Bangladesh, that aren't landlocked.