Alberta separatists call court review of separation question a “delay tactic”

The Alberta Prosperity Project is accusing Elections Alberta of using a “delay tactic” after the province’s CEO referred the group’s independence referendum question to the Court of King’s Bench.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

The Alberta Prosperity Project is accusing Elections Alberta of using a “delay tactic” after the province’s Chief Electoral Officer referred the group’s proposed independence referendum question to the Court of King’s Bench for a constitutional review.

In an update posted Monday, Elections Alberta confirmed that it has formally submitted a question to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench under Section 2.1(1) of the Citizen Initiative Act.

The court is being asked to determine whether the Alberta Prosperity Project’s proposed question—“Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?”—contravenes Sections 1 to 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The group behind the referendum push addressed the update quickly.

“This acts as a delay tactic that will be responded to in Court as required,” said the Alberta Prosperity Project. “The concern is, how can a question that strictly complied with s.1(3) of the Clarity Act be ‘unconstitutional’?”

Section 1(3) of the Clarity Act reads, “In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall consider whether the question would result in a clear expression of the will of the population of a province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada and become an independent state.”

Both the applicant and Alberta’s Minister of Justice have been formally notified. The Court of King’s Bench will now schedule proceedings under the Act, and a case number will be posted once received.

The Alberta Prosperity Project’s official petition was only recently submitted to Elections Alberta after Bill 54 was proclaimed into law. The group had requested that Elections Alberta withhold submitting its petition until Bill 54 was passed, as the petition now falls under the reduced threshold of 177,000 signatures, to be collected within a 120-day window.

Conversely, former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Thomas Lukaszuk will proceed under the old rules because he officially filed the petition before Bill 54 was passed. Due to this, Lukaszuk will have 90 days to collect 293,976 signatures.

Elections Alberta told True North this was the required number of signatures, based on 10 per cent of provincial electors on the post-election day list of electors.

According to Elections Alberta’s website, legislative or policy proposals require support from 10 per cent of electors, while constitutional referendum proposals must meet a higher threshold — 20 per cent, or 587,952 signatures. This has led to the widely cited target of 600,000 signatures.

Therefore, Elections Alberta considers Lukaszuk’s question a legislative or policy proposal, not a constitutional referendum.

General counsel for the project, Jeffrey Rath, also deemed Lukaszuk’s petition illegitimate.

“The question is not a proper referendum question to be used on a constitutional issue,” he said. “Furthermore, to the extent that the question seeks nothing more than to preserve the status quo, it is not a suitable question for determination through a citizens' initiative referendum.”