Debate digs into equalization referendum sum effect

A Calgary economist says the results of Alberta's upcoming referendum over whether the equalization principle should be removed from the Constitution could end up being meaningless.

University of Calgary economics professor Trevor Tombe squared off in a Thursday debate at Mount Royal University with Bill Bewick, Fairness Alberta executive director and political science instructor at Athabasca University.

Tombe said while the referendum poses a serious question, a “no” vote could be politically dismissed as a referendum on the provincial government's handling of the COVID -19 pandemic, and a “yes” result could be dismissed as an expression of “standard partisan” tensions between the governments of Alberta and Canada.

“Whichever way it goes — it's entirely possible that it won't matter at all,” he said.

Bewick said a “yes” vote would demonstrate democratic support for Alberta's push to get a better deal with Ottawa and help trigger meaningful negotiations, and that a “no” vote would set back efforts.

“If it comes back as a no, those in the country who are not interested in our issues will beat us over the head with it,” said Bewick, adding that the question addresses real grievances.

In advance polls and the Oct. 18 municipal election, Albertans will be asked to vote on whether the principle of making equalization payments — the idea of provinces having enough revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at comparable levels of taxation — should be thrown out.

Bewick said the federal government redistributes far too much income for things that should be provincially handled. “This referendum is meant to wedge the wealth transfer issue onto the national agenda,” he said.

Bewick said while it's not really about amending the Constitution, the referendum is “one of the best tactics” the province has, pointing to a 1998 Supreme Court decision that demands Ottawa negotiate when a province expresses support for constitutional change.

Tombe pointed to the same Supreme Court reference case on the issue of Quebec secession as an argument against the strength of Alberta's vote, saying the referendum doesn't send a clear message for change. The decision notes that such a referendum result “must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves.”

The referendum question doesn't address the equalization formula, something Tombe agreed can and should be changed.

“This referendum does nothing but raise tensions, inflame polarization and make it more difficult for sensible reform to be achieved,” he said.

At Tuesday's COVID-19 update, Premier Jason Kenney reiterated that the purpose of the referendum is to gain leverage in negotiations with the federal government not just on equalization, but also the fiscal stabilization program, Canada's health funding transfers, and Ottawa's Bill C-69, which regulates pipeline construction.