Premier pushes back against referendum court review as Alberta’s chief electoral officer defends decision
EDMONTON — Alberta’s chief electoral officer is defending his decision to refer a proposed referendum question on provincial separation to the courts, even as Premier Danielle Smith and her justice minister accused him of creating unnecessary delays.
Gordon McClure announced this week that he had asked a judge to determine whether the proposed question, which asks Albertans if the province should become a sovereign country, violates sections of the Constitution. He said in a statement the issue is “serious and significant” and requires judicial oversight given its potential impact on the province.
Smith and Justice Minister Mickey Amery took to social media Tuesday urging McClure to reverse course, saying Albertans should be able to begin gathering signatures for the petition without what they called red tape. Amery said the referral to the court was premature, arguing the government would ultimately be responsible for implementing any referendum result.
McClure countered that he is required under the Citizen Initiative Act to determine whether proposed referendum questions contravene constitutional rights before they can move forward. He said seeking an independent opinion from the court is an established and authorized part of that process, adding that Elections Alberta’s work is conducted in a neutral and non-partisan manner.
The group behind the question, the Alberta Prosperity Project, must collect 177,000 signatures within four months if the proposal is approved. A court hearing must be scheduled within 10 days of the referral and McClure will have 30 days after any ruling to decide whether the application meets the remaining requirements under the law.
Opposition NDP deputy leader Rakhi Pancholi accused Smith and Amery of undermining the rules they enacted in order to appeal to separatist voices within their party. She said Albertans deserve leaders who will respect independent oversight on issues with constitutional implications, even if the process takes time.
Comments