Alberta’s equalizing vote will not force changes. This is what you need to know | The Canadian News

The results of Alberta’s referendum on equalization payments are likely not entirely clear until next week, but in the meantime, constitutional experts say it is important to note that a “yes” vote will not rule out the program. often controversial, nor will it force changes. to how it works.

Alberta Prime Minister Jason Kenney has called the vote one that would give the province “leverage for constitutional negotiations” with the federal government on equalization, that famous and thorny formula by which Ottawa hands over some of the money that obtained through taxes to some provinces.

“It’s about whether or not Alberta should go out of its way to get a fair deal,” Kenney said.

That concept of fairness is often raised whenever the issue of equalization comes up, abhorred among many Albertans who feel they are being treated unfairly.

READ MORE: Alberta got ready to vote on rejection of equalization; premier says it’s about leverage

However, in reality, a “yes” vote in the referendum has no legal weight to force the federal government to scrap the equalization or change the way it calculates which provinces are eligible.

“A change in the Constitution requires something close to full consensus across Canada,” said Eric Adams, a University of Alberta professor specializing in constitutional law.

“I don’t think it’s a surprise to anyone that Alberta isn’t anywhere close to reaching that consensus on equalization, and I don’t think that’s going to change.”

The question on the ballot asked Albertans: “Should section 36 (2) of the Constitution Act of 1982 – the commitment of the Parliament and the Government of Canada to the principle of doing matching payments? “

That section is the one that specifically commits the federal government to providing matching payments to the provinces – in other words, payments intended to ensure that each province can provide a comparable level of service to its residents, even if they have very different tax situations.

What is equalization?

Money returned to provinces receiving matching payments comes from federal taxes instead of provincial taxesand the question of which province gets what amount is calculated by weighing what is known as “fiscal capacity.”

The Department of Finance defines this as a measure of “the revenue that a province could collect if it were to tax at the national average rate.”

“Equalization supports provinces that have a lower than average fiscal capacity,” says the department. “Provincial spending decisions and overall fiscal results do not affect equalization.”

This measurement of fiscal capacity is based on five things: taxes on the income of individuals in a province; business taxes; consumption taxes; Property taxes; and income from natural resources.

In other words, if a province with abundant natural resources and taxes below the national average rates is struggling financially, but has also chosen not to increase those taxes, it will not necessarily be considered a province that “does not have” eligible for tax payments. equalization.

Come in, Alberta.

What’s behind the referendum?

The province is currently ineligible for matching payments, a longstanding point of contention that has grown increasingly bitter for residents amid the sharp economic recession linked to falling oil prices and challenges in bringing its resources. to international markets.

Kenney has repeatedly expressed frustration that provinces like Quebec and BC, which oppose many of the pipeline projects that he says would help Alberta stabilize its key industry, do qualify for compensation payments.

The current formula was last adjusted when I was a cabinet minister in Stephen Harper’s former Conservative government.

READ MORE: The equalization referendum largely misunderstood by Albertans

Many Albertans share their anger, but some also seem to have little understanding of the fact that the question on their ballot would not actually translate into stopping the matching payments.

“There is a substantial proportion of people who plan to vote ‘yes’ who believe there will no longer be a match if the vote wins, or who believe that this is a way for Albertans not to pay into the matching system,” said Lisa Young, a political science professor at the University of Calgary, in an interview with Global News on Oct. 13.

“That is simply not true.”

What makes it so difficult to change the Constitution?

What is clear is that doing what the referendum proposes – eliminating an entire section of the Constitution – is not a decision that a province has the power to make on its own.

Seven of the 10 provinces that make up at least 50 percent of Canada’s population, plus the federal government, would have to agree.

Quebec, Ontario and BC also has veto power by virtue of a provision that establishes the requirements for regional and provincial acceptance of constitutional amendments.

Under that same provision, two or more prairie provinces representing at least 50% of the region’s population would also have to agree, as would two maritime provinces representing the same.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, one of the advocates involved in the “yes” campaign said the hope is that a “yes” result could serve as a pressure relief valve for frustrated Albertans, and that it could push other provinces to demand changes. to the equalization formula.

“It can get the ball rolling,” said Bill Bewick, director of Fairness Alberta.

However, pushing for change and getting the federal government to sit down and talk about it are two very different things, and it is not clear that a “yes” vote would force that negotiation.

Those who argue that the referendum should force Ottawa to negotiate point to a 1998 Supreme Court Reference Case that followed the referendum of that province on the separation of Canada.

The federal government asked the court to rule on “whether Quebec has the right to unilateral secession.”

In instructions provided by the court, the justices said that a “clear majority vote” in favor of Quebec’s secession would provide democratic legitimacy to the claim, and that other parts of the Constitution would have to recognize it and engage in “negotiation based in principles “.

However, the question posed to the court in that case was limited: it focused specifically on secession, not on the amendments to the Constitution itself on other issues.

Adams explained that the requirement was taking into account very real concerns that ignoring a vote on an issue as powerful as secession could trigger political violence and social instability.

“The Supreme Court said that, to avoid all those worst-case scenarios, the rest of the country has to sit down and negotiate. That’s not what they said about any old constitutional referendum on any old constitutional issue, ”he said.

“That doesn’t apply to an ordinary Alberta proposal to change a feature of the Constitution.”