Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is asking voters on Oct. 19 to weigh four constitutional proposals, but premiers and territorial leaders contacted by The Canadian Press have offered few direct views on whether they would support the changes. The proposals are among 10 questions in the provincewide referendum, and three would likely need approval from seven provincial legislatures representing more than half of Canada’s population, as well as Parliament, under the 7/50 amending formula.

Smith’s proposals are to abolish the Senate; have Alberta rather than the federal government select provincial Court of King’s Bench and Court of Appeal judges; let Alberta withdraw from federal programs without losing the related funding; and give provincial laws precedence over federal laws when the two levels of government dispute jurisdiction. The premier’s office says the latter proposals have support elsewhere and argues that Albertans should give the government a mandate to pursue them.

The government acknowledges on its referendum website that abolishing the Senate would require unanimous support across the country and approval from the Senate itself, making it unlikely to win over other political leaders. Smith’s communications adviser Ryan Fournier said provinces want more authority within Confederation. “Provinces across the country are tired of federal overreach and want more authority within Confederation, not less,” Fournier said. “We believe this conversation is a vital step towards a fairer Confederation.”

The Canadian Press asked premiers across the country about Smith’s ideas, but many did not answer repeated requests. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s office said it would not comment, while leaders who did respond avoided directly endorsing or rejecting the proposals.

A spokesperson for Northwest Territories Premier R.J. Simpson said the referendum is for Albertans to consider. “This is a matter for Albertans to consider through their referendum process,” the spokesperson said. Nunavut Premier John Main said the territory would monitor the outcome closely and connected Nunavut’s resource economy to Alberta’s circumstances.

“Like Alberta, Nunavut is rich in resources that benefit the rest of Canada and the world, and we need external supports to bring those resources to market,” Main said. “We intend to make our mark in partnership with other governments and private industry, and support measures that build a stronger Canada.”

Yukon Premier Currie Dixon said he looked forward to hearing Albertans’ views on the Constitution without stating his position on Smith’s proposals. He did address the referendum’s leading question on separation, saying he hoped Alberta would remain part of Canada.

“While I know Albertans have a number of grievances with the federal government, it’s my hope that Alberta will continue to stay in Confederation,” Dixon said. “Canada, including the Yukon, would be negatively affected if Alberta were to leave.”

Gerard Kennedy, a constitutional law professor at the University of Alberta, said Smith’s office may be right that other provinces could support two of the proposals: provincial selection of provincial judges and the ability to leave federal programs without financial penalties. “It’s extra provincial power. Why wouldn’t they want it?” Kennedy said.

He said the federal government’s agreement could be the greater obstacle, because Ottawa would have to give up authority without receiving anything in exchange. Smith, Moe, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and former Quebec premier François Legault pressed for a change to judicial appointments in a letter to Ottawa in March. They asked that provincial Appeal Court and Superior Court judges be chosen from pre-approved lists submitted by the provinces.

Federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser quickly rejected the idea, saying Ottawa was not considering changes to the appointment process. He pointed to advisory committees across the country that review judicial applications and advise on appointments, noting that provincial governments appoint some of the members and therefore already have input.

Kennedy said the proposal to make provincial laws prevail over federal laws in jurisdictional disputes was unlikely to advance. He said no federation in the world had that arrangement. Even if Alberta found support for some constitutional changes, he added, negotiations could bring forward demands from other provinces and make an agreement harder to reach.

“The problem if you open up constitutional negotiations is that some other provinces are going to have their pet projects and they’ll say, ‘well, we won’t agree to amend the Constitution on terms favorable to Alberta unless they’re also amended on terms that are favorable to New Brunswick or Quebec,'” Kennedy said. “And then you end up having a package and too many provinces won’t like some part of the package and then it doesn’t get through.”

Kennedy described another possible route: some amendments can be made with approval from Parliament and the province directly affected. He cited the 2001 constitutional change that renamed Newfoundland as Newfoundland and Labrador. Alberta could attempt a similar process, he said, but it would likely face a court challenge because granting Alberta special privileges not available to other provinces would conflict with the presumption that provinces are treated equally.

Smith and her office have suggested the government would lobby other provinces if the four proposals receive majority support on Oct. 19. Yet Calgary-based political scientist Duane Bratt questioned whether the premier would follow through. Smith has presented the referendum as a plan to improve Alberta’s place in Confederation and discourage voters from turning to separatism. She has also blamed federal immigration policy for putting pressure on the province’s health and education systems.

Bratt, a professor at Mount Royal University, said the constitutional questions seem secondary to the government’s other referendum issues. He said he might assess the government’s intentions differently if Smith emphasized the proposals more in her public remarks or in the government’s $4-million advertising campaign. In his view, that campaign and the premier’s messaging focus more heavily on five immigration proposals also on the ballot.

“She’s not really talking about the Constitutional questions,” Bratt said in an interview, pointing to recent speeches by Smith. “It’s immigrants who are the scapegoats and the villains here.” He said the limited attention to the constitutional ideas, combined with the work required to put them into effect, made him doubt the government would act after the vote.

“Where is their energy? Is their energy (on) building pipelines, restructuring the health-care system, or constitutional change? Because I don’t think they could do all of that,” Bratt said.

Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi also questioned Smith’s intentions. He said this week that he believed the premier was trying to find new opponents to blame for Alberta being treated unfairly. Speaking to reporters Tuesday about the proposed constitutional reforms, Nenshi said: “She doesn’t want to get those things,” and added, “She wants to complain about not getting those things. She wants the other provinces to say no.”

Based on reporting by Global News Edmonton.