According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the court has rejected the idea that a majority voting on an ambiguous referendum question automatically establishes a democratic mandate. The question must be free from ambiguity — i.e. it must be a “clear question.”The court decision reads: “The referendum result, if it is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will, must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves.” (1998 2 R.C.S. Renvoi Relatif a La Scedssion du Quebec, p. 265 column a.)Premiere Danielle Smith has mounted extensive efforts to persuade Albertans that referendum question 10, option 1 (“remain”), is the best choice. However, Prime Minister Mark Carney has undermined her efforts. Question 10 reads as follows:“Should Alberta remain a province in Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”The option 1 referendum question was “inspired” by the petition initiative question “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?” The key problem in the referendum question is the word “Canada.” It appears twice, thereby rendering the question doubly ambiguous. In logic, this is known as the fallacy of the complex question. It requires a direct response to what some scholars term a “loaded question” — that is, a question whose direct answer necessarily involves responding to two distinct questions. By answering the assumption regarding the meaning of “Canada,” one also accepts the premise of the now-modified meaning of “Canada” without acknowledging the change in meaning.The assumed meaning of the word “Canada” in the question is that of a sovereign nation located in North America, characterized by its distinct history, customs, laws, symbols, and honours that have been won through great sacrifice. For many Canadians, it is the place where their personal history, family, loved ones, memories, and patriotic heart are situated. That Canada no longer exists..Carney announced that Canada will join a “unique alliance” with the EU. This is nothing more than propaganda designed to portray the secret arrangement as something other than an associate “membership” — a description the Wall Street Journal used. Furthermore, this is the exact term that President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen used. The EU does indeed maintain an “associate agreement” rather than an “associate membership”; certain benefits flow from the agreement, although there is no standardized list. An “associate membership” is a new category. The absence of a standard list for associate partners permits the EU to incorporate unique features tailored to each partner nation. It can be expected that a “membership” would be more involved. The list applicable to associate partners generally includes potential rights of associate citizens to live, work, or study in EU countries; access to EU service markets; opportunities for investment and financial activity; participation in EU programs like Horizon Europe; formal consultation and participation in selected EU policies or programs; and various trade benefits. The final item is not significant for Canada, as parties already operate under the CETA agreement. An associate country must incorporate Single Market EU legislation; permit the free (A) movement of goods; (B) movement of services; (C) movement of people; and (D) movement of capital; impose restrictions on anti-competitive behaviour and subsidies; accept external supervision and enforcement; make financial contributions, and contribute to mechanisms for reducing economic disparity and promoting social cohesion. Associate countries do not receive voting privileges. Regardless of the terminology employed to describe the encompassing agreement, it entails that the partner country must surrender a degree of sovereignty in exchange for certain benefits. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is agreeing to this arrangement without a mandate, and the detailed terms have not been released. For Alberta, the arrangement fundamentally alters the meaning of “Canada.”What it no longer means is the Canada in which the reader grew up — the Canada of personal memories, the Canada with its distinctive customs and laws, nor a completely sovereign Canada. What it will become is unknown because the details are unknown. It would be imprudent to assume that the EU will not demand obligations and provide benefits.On October 19, option 1 of question 10, (“remain a province in Canada”) can mean the following: one is willing to accept the EU’s determination of immigration policy; one is willing to accept unrestricted EU capital acquisitions of Canadian assets; one is willing to accept EU standards on anti-competitive behaviour and subsidies; one is willing to accept EU supervision and enforcement; one is willing to accept providing financial contributions to the EU; one is willing to accept contributing to EU economic (redistributive) programs; one is willing to accept the EU concepts of social cohesion and mechanisms through which it is pursued; one is willing to accept changes to Canadian law to conform with the EU legislation, and most importantly, one is willing to accept that Alberta wealth will be sent to the EU because where else will the Prime Minister get the money needed to pay for membership. All of this without voting rights. In short, one would not be voting to remain in the Canada of personal memory, but would be voting to make Canada subservient to the EU. It would become impossible to be “strong and free,” because the EU would render Canada anything but.There are good reasons why Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Hungary, Czechia, Poland, Norway, Liechtenstein, and Iceland have resisted EU integration, whether as member or associate partners.The question 10, option 2 (“commence the constitutional process”), addresses the ambiguity arising from the second use of the word “Canada.” It could be understood as: “should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from “Canada” (before it becomes an associate member or enters into a unique alliance with the EU)?”Carney has altered the meaning of the word “Canada,” rendering the question posed by Premier Smith on the referendum ambiguous. It may be too late to make changes to the question, but it is hoped that readers will educate those around them regarding the true implications of both options.Dr. A.W. Barber is the former Director of Asian Studies at the University of Calgary. He is internationally active and has wide-ranging interests.
