An article in the Edmonton Journal entitled “Alberta referendum pitches likely to face constitutional hurdles if enacted” offered analysis from the Alberta branch of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) on the 10 proposals being presented to Albertan voters this fall.

Questions six to nine all expressly call for measures that require constitutional amendments. They don’t ask Alberta to appoint Court of King’s Bench judges tomorrow, abolish the Senate by statute, or declare provincial law supreme over federal law.

Each one begins with the same phrase: whether Albertans support the government “working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution.” The ballot itself tells voters these are campaigns for amendment, not bills waiting for royal assent. Lawyers weren’t required to determine intent for constitutional change.

The headline observation that enactment would face constitutional hurdles restates what the questions already disclose.

Question 10 speaks to Alberta beginning the constitutional process of moving toward a binding secession question. Again, the constitutional nature of the proposal was not obscure.

Questions one through five are different. They talk about introducing provincial laws on program eligibility, waiting periods, fees, and voter ID. Theoretically, the proposals in those questions could be legislated without dealing with the constitution. The CBA interpretation then breaks those down and lists the other challenges from shared jurisdiction, federal paramountcy, Charter equality, and the Canada Health Act. All of those items would cause potential challenges to enacting the proposed policies, but they aren’t insurmountable. The article’s implication is that legal friction makes the vote pointless.

Lawyers are sure to be involved, and there are sure to be legal challenges to every one of the ten proposals if the Alberta government were to act upon them. That is the nature of the legal industry.

The article follows a pattern increasingly seen from status quo defenders. They imply that change would be too difficult to achieve, so it’s best to just accept things as they are. With the referendum questions expressly calling for constitutional changes, it is assumed that making such changes in Canada is nearly impossible. And that’s probably true.

That then leads people to take a stronger look at Question 10. If the system itself blocks the ability to make any significant changes to it, then perhaps it’s time to break free from the system altogether.

None of the proposals in the referenda will be easy to accomplish even if a supermajority of Alberta citizens vote in support of them. Albertans didn’t need lawyers to tell them that. Citizens are being tasked with choosing policy paths and constitutional changes along with a possible move toward provincial independence. They are under no illusion that these things are going to be simple. But they are considering whether they are worth pursuing nonetheless.