National Post

IF ALBERTANS ARE WORKED UP ENOUGH TO HOLD A REFERENDUM, OTTAWA SHOULD LISTEN.

- Bill Bewick National Post Bill Bewick is a political science instructor at Athabasca University and the executive director of Fairness Alberta, a non-profit group dedicated to raising awareness about Albertans’ contributi­ons to — and barriers from — Canad

On Oct. 18, Albertans will be asked if they support removing Sec. 36(2) of the Constituti­on Act, 1982, which declares support for the “principle of making equalizati­on payments.” Equalizati­on has long been a thorn in the side of Alberta, as it is the most notorious of the many federal programs that have siphoned hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth out of the province over the years. A national conversati­on on the issue is long overdue, but unfortunat­ely, pundits and scholars are already attempting to undermine this initiative.

While politicall­y contentiou­s, this discussion is long overdue because equalizati­on has become unnecessar­y, unaffordab­le and unfair. Provincial wealth levels have rapidly converged in recent years, thus lessening the need for equalizati­on, yet payments have climbed to record levels.

This year’s transfers are largely unnecessar­y given all the other federal supports provided to the provinces via programs like the Canada Health Transfer, and are unaffordab­le in the face of record deficits. This year’s equalizati­on payments of $21 billion work out to $550 from every Canadian, yet the money only benefits 30 per cent of the population. This is especially unfair at a time when all the provinces are struggling.

Obviously, Albertans alone cannot amend the Constituti­on or change equalizati­on, but a strong referendum result would certainly raise the national profile of this flawed and contentiou­s program. More importantl­y, it will force the kind of uncomforta­ble discussion­s federal and provincial leaders tend to run from.

Should a referendum to remove equalizati­on from the Constituti­on pass, the federal government will arguably have a duty to engage with the Government of Alberta on this issue, as the Supreme Court stated in its 1998 Quebec secession reference.

In it, the court spoke of how individual provinces have the right to initiate various changes, and how there exists “a correspond­ing duty on the participan­ts to Confederat­ion to engage in constituti­onal discussion­s in order to acknowledg­e and address democratic expression­s of a desire for change.”

Given that there is no stronger or clearer “democratic expression” than a referendum, the theory behind this approach to enabling Albertans to thrust their issues into the national debate seems straightfo­rward. And yet, there is no shortage of academics and pundits in Alberta who are attacking the approach, accusing the referendum of being illegitima­te, ineffectua­l or both.

For example, law scholar Eric Adams, writing in the Globe and Mail, argued that the court’s ruling only applies “to the most fundamenta­l of constituti­onal crises: the breakup of the federation itself.” Yet even a cursory reading of the 1998 reference illustrate­s the court’s clear intention to affirm the common-sense notion that a reciprocal duty to discuss and address a referendum like this does in fact exist.

In addition to the aforementi­oned duty to engage, the court asserted multiple times that there is “a reciprocal duty on the other participan­ts to engage in discussion­s to address any legitimate initiative to change the constituti­onal order.” One does not need a law degree to know that the phrases “any legitimate initiative” and “democratic expression­s for change” are much broader than just secession.

The reason using a referendum to force renegotiat­ions is legitimate is the same reason it should be effective: the voice of the people is far more powerful and harder to dismiss than a request from a politician.

But when a respected source tells you this theory is all wrong, what’s a regular citizen to do? On the one hand, we have the Supreme Court explicitly and repeatedly referring to a “duty” that correspond­s to democratic expression­s for constituti­onal change. On the other, we have pundits, academics and constituti­onal scholars saying that the government is way off base and wasting everyone’s time.

After rereading the court’s affirmatio­ns of the broader principle above, I think it’s clear that, in the rare cases where a province gets worked up enough about a constituti­onal matter to hold and pass a referendum proposing change, the federal government would clearly be abrogating its role — if not openly fomenting national disunity — if it did not engage in good-faith negotiatio­ns on the issue.

Political leaders jockeying between orders of government and across party lines is an eternal feature of federalism, but a clear referendum result is an active and explicit expression of the people’s will. It should never be ignored.

Fortunatel­y, the Supreme Court recognized this reality and affirmed that good-faith discussion­s must follow from any such “democratic expression.” The alternativ­e — brushing off non-secession referenda by individual provinces — is nothing more than a surefire way to generate actual referenda about secession down the road.

A NATIONAL CONVERSATI­ON ON THE ISSUE IS LONG OVERDUE.

 ?? POSTMEDIA NETWORK FILES ?? Should a referendum to remove equalizati­on from the Constituti­on pass in Premier Jason Kenney’s province of Alberta, the federal government will arguably have a duty to engage with the Alberta
government on this issue, writes Bill Bewick.
POSTMEDIA NETWORK FILES Should a referendum to remove equalizati­on from the Constituti­on pass in Premier Jason Kenney’s province of Alberta, the federal government will arguably have a duty to engage with the Alberta government on this issue, writes Bill Bewick.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada