Why we are voting NO to the 9

Immigration Questions

Question 1

This question has several elements. It proposes that Alberta take increased

control over immigration. Alberta would then decrease immigration to “more sustainable levels,” prioritize economic migration, and give Albertans priority over new employment opportunities.

Let’s unpack that.

Increased control over immigration. Under the Constitution, responsibility for immigration is shared by the provinces and the federal government. This question doesn’t propose any change to the constitution, so it is just talking about doing what Alberta is already authorized to do! If the Alberta government thinks it should be doing more, it should just get on with it.

Decreasing immigration. In the recent past, we have faced unsustainable levels of immigration. However, the government has reversed course over the past two years, and immigration has decreased significantly. Growth of the population in Canada over the past year has been the lowest in decades. Economists and business leaders say further decreasing the level of immigration would pose risks for the Canadian economy.

Prioritizing economic migration. Canada’s immigration policy already prioritizes economic immigration. What else does the government have in mind? The question references “migration”, not “immigration”, suggesting that it also applies to Canadians from other provinces. That would impinge on Charter-protected mobility rights, just at the time we are looking to break down economic barriers between the provinces.

Giving priority to Albertans over new employment opportunities. Again, Canadian immigration law is already structured to give Canadians priority over employment opportunities. This question proposes giving priority to Albertans. It isn’t at all clear how that would work, but it suggests the government would tell employers who they can hire for any job opening (what about all those Maritimers working in Fort McMurray?). And again, this would impinge on Canadian mobility rights. If every province followed this approach, Albertans would have a hard time finding jobs in the rest of Canada.

We are voting NO to Question 1.

Questions 2 , 3 and 4

These questions share a common theme – making it more difficult for refugees, temporary foreign workers, and foreign students to access publicly funded services, such as health and education. If implemented, a child of a temporary foreign worker could be denied an education. A refugee suffering a stroke could be turned away from the emergency room at the hospital. Those are not Alberta values.

The government’s explanation for these proposals is that the cost to provide services to this group of people is greater than the taxes they pay. We have never limited publicly funded services to those who pay enough tax to qualify! Those who most need publicly funded services often are those least able to pay, including the elderly and people with disabilities.

In recent years, the Alberta government has encouraged people to move to Alberta, including through the Alberta is Calling advertising campaign, without building the infrastructure to support the resulting growth in population. The solution to overcrowding in our schools and hospitals is to build that infrastructure, not to deny access by a relatively small group of people.

We are voting NO to Questions 2, 3, and 4.

Question 5

This question proposes that Albertans should be required to show proof of Canadian citizenship, like a passport or a birth certificate, before we are allowed to vote. For Albertans who already have a passport or a birth certificate readily at hand and in their current name, this proposal isn’t particularly burdensome. But many Albertans don’t have a passport, and many may not have a copy of their birth certificate readily available (and if they are married, the birth certificate might not have their current name). For those without that documentation, some of the most vulnerable persons in our province, this could prevent them from exercising their right to vote.

Why is this being proposed? It’s a solution in search of a problem. There is no evidence of voter fraud in this province.

The proposal is straight out of the MAGA playbook. Donald Trump’s key legislative aim is to enact the so-called SAVE America Act, requiring proof of citizenship to vote. This legislation has been blocked in the US Senate because of the impact it would have on the right of vulnerable US citizens to vote. Courts in the US have found time and time again that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, including voting by non-citizens. Equally, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Canada.

Ironically, the “anti-red tape” government wants to create a new, unnecessary bureaucratic process that could deny people the right to vote.

We are voting NO on Question 5.

Constitutional Questions

Question 6

This question proposes that the Alberta government should spend time and energy to try to convince other provinces and the federal government to change the Constitution to transfer the power to appoint judges of two levels of court from the federal government to the provinces.

The provinces already appoint judges to the Alberta Court of Justice, which hears most of the legal cases in this province. Why is the Alberta government now seeking the power to appoint ALL judges? Because occasionally it doesn’t like the decisions those judges make? This proposal for additional power suggests the Alberta government hopes that judges it appoints will more often reach decisions that it does like.

Let’s be clear. The role of judges is to act independently and with integrity to interpret and apply the law. In reaching their decisions, it is irrelevant which government appointed them or what result the government might wish them to reach. (Judges are not elected for the very reason that their decisions must be driven by the law, not by considerations of what they need to do to get re-elected.)

There is no evidence that judges appointed by the province have been better than those appointed by the federal government.

There is no valid reason to change the existing system for judicial appointments and it’s doubtful that other provinces and the federal government would support Alberta on this. The focus of the government should be on issues that matter to Albertans, not on issues doomed to fail.

We are voting NO on Question 6.

Question 7

This question proposes that the Alberta government should spend its time and energy trying to convince other provinces and the federal government to abolish the Senate. The structure of the Senate may not be perfect, but the Senate continues to play an important role in our democracy. Senators from Alberta help to represent the interests of our province in Parliament.

Would we be better off if the Senate didn’t exist? The answer is simple: no.

What are the chances that the Alberta government would succeed in abolishing the Senate? Again, the answer is simple: none. This would require the consent of all provinces, the House of Commons, and the Senate itself.

As with Question 6, the focus of the Alberta government should be on issues that matter, not on issues that are doomed to fail.

We are voting NO on Question 7.

Question 8

This question proposes that the Alberta government spend the time and energy required to convince other provinces and the federal government to change the Constitution to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs for health care, education, and social services and still receive federal funding for those services.

This proposal would risk the loss of standards applicable across the country for the provision of services, like health care and subsidized day care, aimed at ensuring that every Canadian, regardless of circumstances, has the essentials to live a life with dignity. If Alberta were to have the right to receive federal funding without an assurance that certain standards are met, so would every other province, to the detriment of the country as a whole.

In fact, systems are already in place for a province and the federal government to agree on the use of federal funding for particular services untethered from federal standards. If the Alberta government wishes to do that with programs in the future, it should make its case and negotiate an agreement to that effect, instead of seeking a constitutional amendment that has no chance of success. Why would the federal government agree to place no standards on the programs it funds?

We are voting NO on Question 8.

Question 9

This question relates to an obscure principle of constitutional law.

The federal government has jurisdiction over certain areas of law. Each province has jurisdiction over certain other areas of law. In some areas of law, both federal and provincial governments have jurisdiction. In that case, if the federal law and the provincial law conflict, the provincial law is inoperative to the extent of the conflict, under a principle called paramountcy.

Question 9 proposes that this rule should be flipped, so that provincial law would have paramountcy over federal law. Conflicts giving rise to application of this principle are very rare. Courts have developed precedents over decades to address any such conflicts, and where possible, the laws will co-exist.

It is extraordinary that the Alberta government is spending the money required for a referendum and is proposing to spend further time and energy seeking a constitutional amendment on such an obscure point – a proposal that the federal government is certain to oppose.

And be careful what you ask for. If Alberta law were to have paramountcy over conflicting federal law in areas of shared jurisdiction, so would British Columbia. Do we really want to grant British Columbia the right to override federal law designed to facilitate a pipeline to the west coast?

We are voting NO on Question 9.

WE ARE VOTING NO to the NINE