Fun fact:
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
will be all but worthless when it comes to getting a pipeline built.https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-separation-calgary-wexit-peter-downing-1.5346219$1:
The UN convention, adopted in 1982, does say that "landlocked states shall enjoy freedom of transit through the territory of transit states by all means of transport."
However, it goes on to say that terms "shall be agreed between the landlocked states and transit states concerned through bilateral, subregional or regional agreements," and that transit states have the right to ensure their "legitimate interests" aren't infringed upon.
"It's not an unqualified right. They can't just say, 'OK, we need to get through here,"' said Silvia Maciunas, a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation in Waterloo, Ont.
"They have to talk to the other state, which would be Canada."
I went and had a look at
the actual UN Convention myself, and look what I found:
$1:
PART X
RIGHT OF ACCESS OF LAND-LOCKED
STATES TO AND FROM THE SEA
AND FREEDOM OF TRANSIT
Article 124
Use of terms
1. For the purposes of this Convention:
(a) "land-locked State" means a State which has no sea-coast;
(b) "transit State" means a State, with or without a sea-coast,
situated between a land-locked State and the sea, through whose
territory traffic in transit passes;
(c) "traffic in transit" means transit of persons, baggage, goods and
means of transport across the territory of one or more transit
States, when the passage across such territory, with or without
trans-shipment, warehousing, breaking bulk or change in the
mode of transport, is only a portion of a complete journey
68
which begins or terminates within the territory of the
land-locked State;
(d) "means of transport" means:
(i) railway rolling stock, sea, lake and river craft and road
vehicles;
(ii) where local conditions so require, porters and pack
animals.
2. Land-locked States and transit States may, by agreement between
them, include as means of transport pipelines and gas lines and means of
transport other than those included in paragraph 1.
In other words, an independent Alberta would still have to negotiate with the remainder of Canada to get a pipeline to tidewater.
The parallels with Quebec the Wexiteers are raising are interesting in that regard. Like us, many Quebecois in 1995 felt abused and spat on by the rest of the country, even as the rest of the country said that if Quebec did decide to separate, Ottawa should take a hard line in negotiations.
Wouldn't the exact same thing happen with us not just in any pipeline negotiations, but on all the other issues we'd have to work out with separation?