Who’s the boss? Albertans to vote on whether provincial laws should trump federal ones when the two conflict | CBC News

Question part of October’s referendum, but ‘yes’ vote alone can’t flip the script

Picture this scenario: an uninsured Alberta driver causes a car crash. 

The provincial government compensates an individual injured in the incident, and then seeks reimbursement from the uninsured driver.

Later, under federal bankruptcy law, the driver is granted a full discharge from his debts, including the province’s claim.

Despite that, the provincial government continues to suspend his driver’s licence and vehicle permits under its provincial traffic law until he pays up on the debt.

It’s a landmark Alberta case that landed in court in 2015 tied to what’s known as federal paramountcy in Canadian constitutional law.

Put simply, it means when a federal law and a provincial law are in conflict, federal law wins out.

That conflict played out in the case of the uninsured driver. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled the driver shouldn’t be forced to pay the debt in order to renew his licence.

This sort of conflict, of course, isn’t exclusive to traffic disputes. 

Debate over interprovincial pipelines, for instance, often involves discussion around how to weigh interests from provinces like British Columbia against projects deemed to be in the national interest.

This October, the question of federal primacy will be one of four constitutional questions put to Alberta voters — the other three being questions about abolishing the Senate, opting out of federal transfers, and whether Alberta should appoint the judges who sit on the province’s higher courts.

The issue here, according to the provincial government, is that the Constitution grants provinces authority over certain areas, like natural resources and electricity.