All the debates surrounding referendum clarity are well known in Quebec. In this regard, the question posed by Jason Kenney’s government to delete section 36 (2) of the Canadian Constitution concerning equalization responded to this need for clarity. The first preliminary results suggest a strong Yes victory in Calgary (58%), even more important in cities in the south of the province. We will have to wait until October 26 to know the official results. On the other hand, the Alberta referendum exercise already shows that the clarity of a question can, paradoxically, produce confusion on a subject as complex as that of equalization.
In this campaign which did not take place, we can clear three camps. The first camp, that of the “hard-core”, has been asserting for several decades now that Canada’s institutional architecture obeys principles of representation and mechanisms for redistributing Alberta’s wealth in favor of provinces like Quebec.
From the perspective of those who were for a strong and firm Yes, Equalization is almost irreformable and is in fact the tip of the iceberg of a deeper problem, one that Alberta is at a disadvantage. systemic fiscal. Alberta contributes, but never receives anything, and what is more, provinces like Quebec and British Columbia are ungrateful in opposing the construction of pipelines.
Thus, economist Jack Mintz asserts that the principle of equalization enshrined in the Constitution “does not make sense”, as he wrote again recently in the National Post. Another, Ted Morton, former Minister of Finance, took the opportunity to reactivate criticism of bilingualism, which would be tailor-made, guess for whom: Quebec.
Without sharing this approach, there are all those Albertans who, in agreement with the principle of equalization, say to themselves that it should be reviewed. How and when? We do not really know. But given that Alberta contributes greatly to the wealth of the country as a whole, changes are necessary to take into account the new economic situation, the province being grappling with difficulties and changes in its economy, in particular the economy. Calgary side. As predictions of a bleak future for the energy sector multiply, it is time to send a message that equalization is a problem. They are “ninists” who are neither for the withdrawal of equalization nor for the status quo.
But there are also those who, representing the No camp, claim that it is the referendum, described as “ridiculous” by the former mayor Naheed Nenshi, which hardly makes sense.
Another well-known Alberta economist (Trevor Tombe) argues that Alberta remains a wealthy province, which is why it does not receive equalization and the Alberta government has all the tools to get out of the doldrums. The problem would therefore not be equalization, but the failing political will to carry out the necessary reforms, those to diversify the economy and, above all, to diversify the sources of revenue by adopting, for example, a provincial sales tax, as modest. be it. For this camp, the referendum was an exercise in distraction serving in particular to camouflage the carelessness demonstrated by Jason Kenney in the management of COVID-19.
It is with these groups in mind that we will have to decode and interpret the official results of the referendum and carefully examine the participation rate as well as the regional distribution of the vote in favor of the proposal. Instead of coming out of a clear common position, the result could even, one cannot yet exclude it, weaken the already precarious position of Jason Kenney.
It is that beyond the force of the Yes, the big problem of this referendum exercise lies in the very person of Jason Kenney.
When this referendum proposal was put forward, Kenney could ride the convincing victory of April 2019 and the 55% of Albertans who voted for the United Conservatives. Now the Conservatives seem disunited and Kenney is highly unpopular with just 22% approval, according to Angus Reid.
Under these conditions, the balance of power that the Prime Minister hopes to achieve with his referendum lever could vanish if there is a polite but reserved reception from Ottawa. From both the point of view of Justin Trudeau and the premiers, the issue that is likely to dominate is rather that of health transfers, not that of equalization, which was not a subject debated during the last federal campaign. . Whatever the final result of this referendum, it may not be enough to get the Liberals moving significantly. If so, then Jason Kenney, who was hoping to turn around his declining popularity with a strong referendum result, could be accused of failing to fulfill his commitments.
What do you think? Express your opinion