EDMONTON—Experts say that Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is using a referendum on equalization as a political weapon to strong arm Ottawa, but that in the end, the vote would be an expensive piece of theatre that holds no legal implications.

Kenney and Quebec Premier François Legault butted heads this week over equalization.

The two premiers clashed after Legault said that equalization was part of the original constitution in Canada and that his province was owed that money. The formula was actually drawn up in 1957 and has changed significantly since. Alberta receives no federal transfer payments and Quebec currently receives about $13 billion.

In a statement Monday, Kenney refuted several points made by Legault, then reiterated his intention of holding a referendum vote on the constitution which enshrines the system of equalization.

The crux of Kenney’s position is the fact that Albertans don’t receive the payments and contribute a lot to them, while provinces like Quebec do receive the payments, but their governments also raise opposition to Alberta’s development of energy resources.

“Our call for a fair deal in the federation simply means this: If Ottawa and other provinces want to benefit from Alberta’s resources, then they must not oppose the transport and sale of those resources,” Kenney said in a statement on Monday.

He then said his government was ready to hold “a referendum on Section 36 of the Constitution Act — the principle of equalization — if we do not see substantial progress on coastal pipelines and a repeal of devastating policies like Bill C-69, the ‘No More Pipelines Act.’ ”

Daniel Beland, a professor at McGill University and equalization expert, said a referendum would likely cost Alberta taxpayers several million dollars only to amount to “a big show” since it wouldn’t have any legal effect.

“It’s a pretty clever political strategy in a way, because it’s also to make this claim that there is a relationship between equalization and environmental and energy policy, which is not the case concretely,” he said.

That referendum would take place in October 2021, long after the next federal election is slated to take place this October, with a chance that the federal Conservatives could take power from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals.

Kenney has acknowledged in the past that the referendum’s aim isn’t to amend the constitution or do away with equalization — simply to bring the conversation onto the national agenda. But political observers have criticized his rhetoric as misrepresenting what a referendum could really accomplish.

Equalization is a complex formula written into the Canadian constitution. It sets a baseline for how well a province is doing economically and if it falls below that threshold, it can start receiving federal transfer payments through the equalization program. There’s about $20 billion in federal revenue attached to the program.

People are often confused about where this money comes from, Beland said, explaining that Canadians as individuals pay taxes into the federal government’s general revenue stream.

Equalization payments stem from that, not from bags of money Alberta hands over to the federal government.

Beland noted that Albertans are the wealthiest Canadians in the country and said they end up paying more because they make more.

But he also said that Kenney appears to hang many of Alberta’s grievances with the federal government on equalization, citing examples such as the lack of oil pipelines, a carbon tax and the economy.

As for a referendum on equalization, “It’s really an agenda setting device,” said Beland. “It’s not in and of itself a constitutional tool.”

Vince Calderhead, a human rights and constitutional lawyer based in Halifax, N.S., said for the constitution to be amended would take significant support from most provinces.

Legally, a referendum “would have zero impact,” he said.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“It’s like saying, ‘What’s your opinion about Tim Hortons doughnuts?’ ”

For an open and honest referendum to take place, the Alberta government would have to outline the extremely complex amending formula that would be needed to rewrite the constitution, he said, adding that would be “very impractical.”

Calderhead also explained that there’s nothing written into the constitution saying that other provinces can’t be against the economic interests of another province and it’s not grounds for a revamp of the rules.

“Those are fair sort of political points or ethical points, but they have zero relevance in the legal world,” he said.

Beland said he found it ironic that Kenney was in Stephen Harper’s Conservative government when the formula was last changed. Trudeau recently signed off on the formula again, but it remains the same as it was under Harper.

“When Jason Kenney was a federal minister, equalization was OK; now it’s the same program with the same formula, but now it’s really bad,” he said.

However, he noted that it makes sense that a federal leader wouldn’t want to harp on equalization too much.

“Bashing equalization if you’re a federal leader is political suicide, at least in four or five provinces,” Beland said, referring to Quebec, Manitoba and Atlantic Canada, provinces that typically receive the transfer payments.

In Red Deer, during Alberta’s election campaign, Kenney also appeared to misrepresent to voters how a constitutional referendum would work.

“We are going to make it very clear to Prime Minister Trudeau that if we do not get the completion of a coastal pipeline, we will give Albertans an opportunity on voting to remove equalization from the Canadian constitution,” he said to a wave of applause and cheers at a campaign stop last March.

But it’s impossible for one province to dictate a rewrite of the country’s constitution, said Beland, and furthermore, a referendum wouldn’t give Kenney anything other than a piece of paper to wave at Ottawa.

“It’s political science fiction,” he said.

Read more about: