John Andrus, Executive Director of Project Confederation - this is an excerpt from a presentation he made:
Back in 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled - in the Quebec Secession Reference - that in the event any province passed a resolution on the floor of their legislature regarding a specific constitutional point, as long as that resolution was clear, that the country had a “duty to negotiate†with that province. This is why the referendum question is worded in this way:
"Should Section 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 — Parliament and the Government of Canada’s commitment to the principle of making equalization payments — be removed from the Constitution?"
That’s a clear question. There are those that have proposed changes to the equalization formula, however, that is entirely set and controlled by Parliament - which, as I pointed out earlier, is represented by 199 out of the 338 seats in the House of Commons. Attempts to renegotiate or change the formula would - from a legal perspective - hold no weight, as the Supreme Court ruling in 1998 outlined, since the formula is not in the constitution.
The principle of equalization, however, is outlined in Section 36(2) of the Constitution - which reads:
“Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.â€
So, why a referendum?
The simplest explanation for this is that, according to Alberta provincial law, as outlined in the “Constitutional Referendum Act,†The Alberta Legislature cannot pass any constitutional resolution without first having the approval of the Alberta public, as ascertained through the holding a constitutional referendum with a clear question. Therefore, according to law, the only way to trigger Ottawa’s duty to negotiate the issue of equalization is to hold a referendum to remove section 36(2) from the constitution, and win that referendum with a clear “Yes.â€
This is by no means a meaningless referendum. It is the opposite. It is entirely necessary in order to advance the cause of independence - whether that be independence within the country or independence outside of it. For Ottawa to ignore the results of the referendum would be a clear signal from them that they do not care, that we are nothing but a colony to them used solely to take our money, minimize our power and rule us as if we are simple subjects without a say. If that’s what they think of us, then it will become clear to the majority of Albertans who voted on October 18 to remove section 36(2) that Ottawa is not listening, and will never listen. This is possibly the most important provincial referendum we have ever voted in.
The only way to demonstrate clearly that constitutional reform is required to strengthen national unity and give Alberta an equal footing in this perhaps doomed confederation is to win this referendum.
A loss would be a major setback, not just for those fighting for a fair deal, but for those who believe in independence, too. It is not a “red herring,†nor is it a waste of time. It is absolutely essential to the entire subsection of the Alberta population who believes that Alberta is not getting a fair deal.
If we lose this referendum, whether you like it or not, we are screwed. And for the separatists who I know are going to be coming at me for this, I leave you with this:
How do you expect to win a referendum on independence if we can’t even win a referendum on equalization?
Whether you want more independence for Alberta within Canada or complete independence for Alberta outside Canada, the equalization referendum is only the first step.
But in either scenario, it is an absolutely necessary step and one we cannot afford to lose.
So vote yes.
https://www.projectconfederation.ca/
Back in 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled - in the Quebec Secession Reference - that in the event any province passed a resolution on the floor of their legislature regarding a specific constitutional point, as long as that resolution was clear, that the country had a “duty to negotiate†with that province. This is why the referendum question is worded in this way:
"Should Section 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 — Parliament and the Government of Canada’s commitment to the principle of making equalization payments — be removed from the Constitution?"
That’s a clear question. There are those that have proposed changes to the equalization formula, however, that is entirely set and controlled by Parliament - which, as I pointed out earlier, is represented by 199 out of the 338 seats in the House of Commons. Attempts to renegotiate or change the formula would - from a legal perspective - hold no weight, as the Supreme Court ruling in 1998 outlined, since the formula is not in the constitution.
The principle of equalization, however, is outlined in Section 36(2) of the Constitution - which reads:
“Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.â€
So, why a referendum?
The simplest explanation for this is that, according to Alberta provincial law, as outlined in the “Constitutional Referendum Act,†The Alberta Legislature cannot pass any constitutional resolution without first having the approval of the Alberta public, as ascertained through the holding a constitutional referendum with a clear question. Therefore, according to law, the only way to trigger Ottawa’s duty to negotiate the issue of equalization is to hold a referendum to remove section 36(2) from the constitution, and win that referendum with a clear “Yes.â€
This is by no means a meaningless referendum. It is the opposite. It is entirely necessary in order to advance the cause of independence - whether that be independence within the country or independence outside of it. For Ottawa to ignore the results of the referendum would be a clear signal from them that they do not care, that we are nothing but a colony to them used solely to take our money, minimize our power and rule us as if we are simple subjects without a say. If that’s what they think of us, then it will become clear to the majority of Albertans who voted on October 18 to remove section 36(2) that Ottawa is not listening, and will never listen. This is possibly the most important provincial referendum we have ever voted in.
The only way to demonstrate clearly that constitutional reform is required to strengthen national unity and give Alberta an equal footing in this perhaps doomed confederation is to win this referendum.
A loss would be a major setback, not just for those fighting for a fair deal, but for those who believe in independence, too. It is not a “red herring,†nor is it a waste of time. It is absolutely essential to the entire subsection of the Alberta population who believes that Alberta is not getting a fair deal.
If we lose this referendum, whether you like it or not, we are screwed. And for the separatists who I know are going to be coming at me for this, I leave you with this:
How do you expect to win a referendum on independence if we can’t even win a referendum on equalization?
Whether you want more independence for Alberta within Canada or complete independence for Alberta outside Canada, the equalization referendum is only the first step.
But in either scenario, it is an absolutely necessary step and one we cannot afford to lose.
So vote yes.
https://www.projectconfederation.ca/
Comment