Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
There seems to some confusion on Kenney's approach to the issue, here's the basics:
There's a clause from a Supreme Court Case of Quebec Secession in 1998 that states if a Province votes in favor of a referendum with a clear question that triggers immediate good faith negotiations on behalf of the Federal government in regards to that question. So voting on a referedum question on equalization obligates the Feds to negotiate, basically it just forces them to the table. So it's not about getting Provinces to join or lead a mutiny, just trying to make the Feds uncomfortable and make the case that if Alberta is continually unconstitutionally blocked from generating prosperity for the country we shouldn't be forced to pay disproportionately in to this program.
|
This is a very incomplete understanding of what that ruling was.
First, it was about a secession referendum, it isn't clearly defined if that would apply to all referendums. If effectively declared that a province can unilaterally secede, provided certain conditions are met (one being that there has to be a clear question, in this case the federal government would have to approve it to be bound by it).
It is also clear that the other provinces are brought in, because that is necessary for a Constitutional change to allow it to happen. For this to kick in, it obligates the feds
and the other provinces to negotiate. If the other provinces aren't in the negotiation, you can't have a constitutional change, which again brings us back to the question:what is the referendum trying to achieve?