CTV News Calgary has reported:

Alberta voters will be asked on Oct. 19 whether the province should work with other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution so provinces can opt out of federal programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction and keep the associated federal funding. Political scientists say the aim of giving provinces more control over programs is familiar, but making it a constitutional change would make the proposal difficult to achieve.

The question is one of 10 on the ballot in the approaching Alberta separation referendum. It asks: “Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education, and social services, without a province losing any of the associated federal funding for use in its social programs?”

Premier Danielle Smith says federal programs can conflict with provincial services and are not always administered effectively. “The problem with the federal government is that they create new programs not in their jurisdiction, they implement them badly, and then they don’t match well with the programs that we have,” she said.

Smith said Alberta would prefer to administer its own programs and receive the funds Ottawa is prepared to spend on comparable initiatives elsewhere. “We would take the view that it’s far better if they want to achieve those objectives, just allow us to be able to administer the programs that we have and give us the resulting amount of dollars that they’re prepared to pledge in other provinces. That would be a far better way of managing areas that are not in their jurisdiction.”

University of Alberta political scientist Jared Wesley said using federal transfers to support provincial programs that serve similar or identical purposes has precedent. He cited a policy under the Chrétien government that allowed provincial programs to opt out of national programs unless a majority of provinces supported them. Wesley said “the federal government has treated federal-provincial transfers in the way the Smith government is asking them to do.”

Wesley described the government’s constitutional approach as “a bit dubious.” He said past federal-provincial practice shows a constitutional amendment may not be required to achieve the goal. “Most experts would tell you in intergovernmental relations, you don’t need to change the Constitution to change practice. And in fact, we’ve had these kinds of arrangements in the past where the federal government has agreed not to introduce any new programs and to fund provincial programs that are equivalent to the ones that it does want to introduce.”

He added: “And so a Constitutional amendment may not necessarily be in the cards or necessary in order to affect this kind of change.” The distinction, in Wesley’s view, is between the policy objective of directing funds to provincial programs and the proposed method of embedding that arrangement in the Constitution.

Timothy van den Brink, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Moncton, also said greater provincial autonomy over matters assigned to provinces is not a new idea. “This idea of Alberta just simply having more autonomy over policies that are constitutionally its jurisdiction is not a new idea. But framing it as a Constitutional point certainly is,” he said.

Van den Brink has published several works on national identity and Alberta regionalism. He said concerns about perceived “federal overreach” have a history, pointing to the Firewall Letter co-authored by Stephen Harper and several professors before Harper became prime minister. The referendum question also reflects ideological differences between Alberta’s United Conservative Party and the federal Liberals over social programs.

Wesley said the proposal is also connected to Alberta’s argument that the province contributes more to the federal system than it receives in return. “In principle, it makes sense. These aren’t Ottawa’s dollars, these are Canadian taxpayers’ dollars. The provincial government here in Alberta has been making the case that Albertans and Alberta businesses send more money out of the province than they get back in return, and this is one way where they’re trying to ensure that Alberta gets what they see as its fair share of federal transfers back from Ottawa,” he said.

Both political scientists identified the constitutional route as the central obstacle. An amendment requires agreement from seven of the 10 provinces, among other requirements. Van den Brink questioned whether Alberta could secure that support, particularly because provinces have different relationships with the federation and different interests.

“What makes that so incredibly tricky is you’re going to have to get, for example, at least one Maritime province who has a very different understanding and relationship with the federation than, for example, Ontario, who’s much more autonomous, or certainly could be much more autonomous,” he said. He concluded: “Concretely, it’s impossible. It’s not going to happen, certainly not with anything that’s remotely zero sum.”

Van den Brink said opening constitutional negotiations could prompt each province to bring forward concerns specific to its own circumstances. “The only world we’re going to get a Constitutional change is if truly everyone is on board for something that we just haven’t thought of yet,” he said. He added that Alberta should expect the federal government and other provinces to bring their own demands to any constitutional discussion.

“It’s hard to picture any coalition of seven provinces that could agree on a Constitutional change,” he said. Van den Brink said it is unclear whether Smith’s government would be prepared to trade matters such as control over natural resources for a more decentralized form of fiscal federalism.

Smith nevertheless said she wants the idea to become a lasting constitutional principle separating federal and provincial jurisdiction. “To ensure that this becomes an enduring principle for how our country works, we would need a Constitutional change,” she said. She said agreement on a limited number of issues could be advanced through provincial legislatures, the House of Commons and the Senate. “If we can identify a handful of things that we can agree on together, advance them through our legislatures, advance them through the House of Commons and Senate, we can indeed change our Constitution. I think it’s worth trying.”

CTV News contacted the other nine provincial governments. Saskatchewan’s government said it “will decline the opportunity to comment.” Newfoundland and Labrador said in a statement that it “recognizes both the autonomy of provinces and territories in their areas of jurisdiction and the importance of a strong and united country.”

Kathy Dicks-Peyton, communications director with the Newfoundland and Labrador government, said the province would wait for Albertans to express their views before discussing possible future action. “Alberta has made the decision to address certain issues through a referendum, and I respect the democratic rights of Canadians and the processes that exist within our federation. Until Albertans have had the opportunity to express their views, we will not speculate on hypothetical scenarios or comment on what actions governments may or may not take in the future,” she said.

The referendum is scheduled for Oct. 19. Smith has said Alberta should vote to remain in Canada, arguing that the province is “on a roll right now” in reversing what she has called “terrible” federal policies. “I know people feel hurt over the way we were treated by the federal government for the past 10 years, but I hope they also recognize that we can make changes, and it’s worth working on,” she said.