The Alberta separation referendum vote is rapidly approaching, as the province is only six days away from Oct. 19. Among the 10 questions posed to voters is: “Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education, and social services, without a province losing any of the associated federal funding for use in its social programs?” “The problem with the federal government is that they create new programs not in their jurisdiction, they implement them badly, and then they don’t match well with the programs that we have,” said Premier Danielle Smith. “We would take the view that it’s far better if they want to achieve those objectives, just allow us to be able to administer the programs that we have and give us the resulting amount of dollars that they’re prepared to pledge in other provinces. That would be a far better way of managing areas that are not in their jurisdiction.” University of Alberta political scientist Jared Wesley says the idea of using federal funds to boost similar or identical provincial programs is not new. He pointed to the Chrétien government’s policy of allowing provincial programs to opt out of national programs unless a majority of provinces are in support, adding in the past “the federal government has treated federal-provincial transfers in the way the Smith government is asking them to do.” However, Wesley calls the government’s approach of achieving this goal through constitutional change “a bit dubious.” “Most experts would tell you in intergovernmental relations, you don’t need to change the Constitution to change practice. And in fact, we’ve had these kinds of arrangements in the past where the federal government has agreed not to introduce any new programs and to fund provincial programs that are equivalent to the ones that it does want to introduce. “And so a Constitutional amendment may not necessarily be in the cards or necessary in order to affect this kind of change.” Other political scientists agree, saying what Alberta is bringing up isn’t particularly surprising, but approaching it as a Constitutional change makes it significantly harder. “This idea of Alberta just simply having more autonomy over policies that are constitutionally its jurisdiction is not a new idea. But framing it as a Constitutional point certainly is,” said Timothy van den Brink, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Moncton. “In principle, it makes sense. These aren’t Ottawa’s dollars, these are Canadian taxpayers’ dollars. The provincial government here in Alberta has been making the case that Albertans and Alberta businesses send more money out of the province than they get back in return, and this is one way where they’re trying to ensure that Alberta gets what they see as its fair share of federal transfers back from Ottawa,” Wesley added. Van den Brink has a strong interest in national identity and Albertan regionalism, having published several works covering those topics. He says a question like this surrounding possible perceived “federal overreach,” is not new, pointing to things like the Firewall Letter co-authored by Stephen Harper and several professors before he became prime minister, adding the question also highlights ideological differences between the United Conservative Party and federal Liberals surrounding social programs. However, what stands out to both van den Brink and Wesley is the Constitutional nature of the question. To trigger Constitutional change, seven out of 10 provinces need to agree, among other requirements, and van den Brink has doubts that other provinces will want to work with Alberta. “What makes that so incredibly tricky is you’re going to have to get, for example, at least one Maritime province who has a very different understanding and relationship with the federation than, for example, Ontario, who’s much more autonomous, or certainly could be much more autonomous,” he said. “Concretely, it’s impossible. It’s not going to happen, certainly not with anything that’s remotely zero sum,” he said. Van den Brink argues that if provinces would open the ‘Pandora’s Box’ of Constitutional change, each province would bring issues specific to that province alone, so he says “it’s hard to picture any coalition of seven provinces that could agree on a Constitutional change.” “The only world we’re going to get a Constitutional change is if truly everyone is on board for something that we just haven’t thought of yet,” he said. “They’d be wise to keep in mind that if they do open up the Constitution for discussion, other provinces and the federal government will come with their own list of demands. It’s unclear whether the Smith government will be willing to trade off things like control over natural resources or other things, in return for a more decentralized form of fiscal federalism.” Despite these challenges, Smith believes it’s worth pushing forward, saying she would “love for this to be an established constitutional principle,” regarding separating provincial and federal jurisdiction. “To ensure that this becomes an enduring principle for how our country works, we would need a Constitutional change,” she said. “If we can identify a handful of things that we can agree on together, advance them through our legislatures, advance them through the House of Commons and Senate, we can indeed change our Constitution. “I think it’s worth trying.” CTV News reached out to all nine other provinces. Of those, the Government of Saskatchewan responded by saying it “will decline the opportunity to comment,” and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador said in a statement it “recognizes both the autonomy of provinces and territories in their areas of jurisdiction and the importance of a strong and united country.” “Alberta has made the decision to address certain issues through a referendum, and I respect the democratic rights of Canadians and the processes that exist within our federation. Until Albertans have had the opportunity to express their views, we will not speculate on hypothetical scenarios or comment on what actions governments may or may not take in the future,” said Kathy Dicks-Peyton, communications director with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The referendum vote will take place on Oct. 19, and Smith believes the province should vote to remain in Canada, saying Alberta is “on a roll right now,” in regards to reversing what she called “terrible” federal policies. “I know people feel hurt over the way we were treated by the federal government for the past 10 years, but I hope they also recognize that we can make changes, and it’s worth working on,” she said.
