Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Can someone explain to me what a provincial referendum is going to do other than count how many pissed off and not-pissed off Albertans there are? Provincial referendums in Canada are traditionally consultative or advisory in nature (i.e., plebiscites), even if we would like to treat them as binding.
Seems like a waste of time.
|
I thought similar until I heard an interview with Ted Morton, who explained the benefits of doing so:
Quote:
In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada, faced with the Quebec referendum on separation, declared that in a provincial referendum on a proposed amendment to the Constitution, if the voting results in “a clear majority … on a clear question,” the federal government has “a constitutional duty to negotiate” the issue. Indeed, the court said that Ottawa (and the other provinces!) must all negotiate “in good faith” to fulfil this constitutional obligation.
While this rule was laid down in the context of the 1995 Quebec referendum to secede from the rest of Canada, the court went out of its way to phrase its ruling in terms that apply equally to a referendum in any province to amend the Constitution.
|
As equalization is a constitutional matter, a clear majority of Albertans voting against the current scheme would compel the federal government to at least renegotiate the terms of the program. Obviously this is only one interpretation of the SC reference, but I think it would be worth a shot. Especially if a re-think of the program gains traction in Ontario and Saskatchewan.
For the record, I think that equalization is important on a conceptual level - ensuring a baseline equality of service across the federation is a noble goal. There just needs to be an overhaul of the formula - right now equalization incentivizes and rewards poor fiscal policy decisions by the provincial governments on the receiving end of these transfers.