CTV News Calgary has reported:

Alberta’s referendum question targets the constitutional principle that gives federal law priority when valid federal and provincial laws conflict in areas of shared jurisdiction. The word “paramountcy” does not appear on the ballot or in the Constitution, but Canadian courts have long recognized the legal concept. It applies when laws from both levels of government are valid and cannot be reconciled.

“Under the Canadian Constitution, under sections 91 and 92, if there are shared jurisdictions between the federal government and the provinces, the federal law does have paramountcy,” said Errol Mendes, a constitutional law professor at the University of Ottawa. The Alberta government wants to alter that arrangement, although direct constitutional conflicts between Ottawa and provinces are relatively uncommon.

“Typically, provincial laws and federal laws are read to be consistent to the extent possible and seldom are they actually a true conflict,” said David Wright, an environmental law professor at the University of Calgary. He said disputes have nevertheless been significant in environmental management, environmental governance and natural resources, particularly between Alberta and the federal government.

“There has been a lot of tension between provinces, particularly Alberta and the federal government, in this legal space of environmental management, environmental governance and natural resources,” Wright said. Premier Danielle Smith has included federal-provincial jurisdictional overlap among what she calls Ottawa’s “nine bad laws.” Wright identified the federal Impact Assessment Act, previously Bill C-69, as legislation that has drawn criticism in Alberta.

“Bill 69 that became the Federal Impact Assessment Act has been a target for a lot of criticism for those who are interested in expanding oilsands extraction, expanding natural gas extraction and combustion, building more mines, also further expansion of coal mining and combustion and so on,” Wright said. He also cited a case in which paramountcy helped Alberta: British Columbia’s unsuccessful opposition to the original Trans Mountain pipeline, when federal law overrode provincial objections.

“And so, in that context, perhaps ironically, in light of this referendum question, federal paramountcy was to the benefit of Alberta’s interests,” Wright said. Smith is seeking a mandate to ask the other premiers to support a constitutional amendment. CTV News Calgary contacted the nine other provinces to gauge their interest. Most did not respond or said the referendum was a matter for Albertans.

Newfoundland and Labrador said in a statement that it would not speculate about hypothetical scenarios. The province said it “continues to focus on fostering constructive dialogue and strengthening partnerships among provinces, territories, and the federal government.” A yes vote could be more symbolic than practical, Mendes said, because changing the constitutional framework would face a major hurdle.

“How is that ever going to happen? Well, I can tell you the chances that especially zero, because for something as massive as that, you would need to have under the amending formula, seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population and pass through the federal Parliament.”