12/06/2025
Alberta’s UCP government has proposed changes to the rules surrounding referendums in the province, but they’ve done that whilst a legal challenge has been running through the courts about the current proposed referendum on Alberta separating from Canada
Court Of King’s Bench Justice Colin Feasby has been tasked with looking at the constitutionality of a proposed referendum question on Alberta separating from Canada, and he has stated that the proposed question goes against the rules about referendums, but now the government of Alberta is attempting to pass a law that would render the findings of Feasby pointless.
The proposed law would change the rules around referendums and would allow those seeking separation to collect signatures despite any future court rulings. Justice Minister Mickey Amery said Thursday that his bill provides a "reset," as the government doesn't want to see the courts delay direct democracy.
The bill would allow those behind the separation campaign to reapply with their question at no cost, while also removing a number of factors Elections Alberta had to consider before allowing the signature collection process to begin, including whether the question to be asked is constitutional.
"If those seeking independence believe that they have the support for it, this is their chance to prove it," Amery said on Thursday.
The question that was being reviewed by Feasby was sent to him by Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer, as required by Alberta election law, however Danielle Smith and the UCP are saying that the Electoral Officer is creating red tape for no reason.
Feasby has stated that the government trying to end the proceedings before they have run their course is "extraordinary" and views it as an attack on the rule of law. Feasby says that while the government does have the right to change the rules, they’re not respecting the rule of law, or the resources and time of the court. "The rule of law plays a critical role with respect to the democratic process where stability of the governing legal regime enhances legitimacy and public confidence in the outcomes of elections and referendums," Feasby stated..
"Changing legislation to circumvent a valid legal process commenced by the independent officer of the legislative assembly responsible for administering democratic processes is the antithesis of the stable, predictable and ordered society that the rule of law contemplates, and democracy demands."
The Minister of Justice then attacked Feasby by saying that the judge had “interfered with well established democratic processes”. Amery also said, "the separation of powers is an important constitutional principle,"
"The assembly has been elected by the people of Alberta to freely debate and pass legislation in the public interest."
However, Feasby released his decision. Feasby wrote that he decided to issue the decision because the bill hasn't become law yet, and because Albertans deserve to understand the complex legal issues at play if the province was to quit Confederation — or at least if they were ever asked to vote on doing so.
"These reasons are delivered despite the anticipated change to the law because reason giving is democratic," Feasby wrote.
"The public is entitled to the fruits of this process that has been conducted largely at their expense so that if they are asked to vote on Alberta independence, they have a tool that may help them make sense of the legal dimensions of the secession of Alberta from Canada."
Feasby also stated that until the bill passes, the rules surrounding citizen-initiated referendums prohibit referendums on separation because separating would violate the Constitution and treaty rights unless the Constitution was amended, which he wrote is a necessary step for a province to separate anyways.
Feasby also said this doesn't mean Alberta could never have a referendum on independence, it just means one couldn't be spurred directly by citizens under the current rules. However, Feasby wrote, that prohibition doesn't exist in a separate provincial law that governs referendums initiated by the government.
According to the decision, those behind the separation push, the Alberta Prosperity Project, argued that the limitation they were subject to wasn't fair. Lawyers for the government agreed with the group, and argued that Feasby's interpretation of the law was wrong. "The government’s interpretation of its own laws may or may not be legally correct," Feasby wrote. The 65-page decision touches on a number of considerations about what would need to happen or what could happen if Alberta were to become its own country, however the judge ultimately concluded that separating from Canada would contravene treaty rights.
Jeff Rath, a lawyer for the Alberta Prosperity Project, said in a statement Friday that the judge's decision wasn't unexpected, and he's calling on the government to walk back the change Feasby noted.
"Justice Feasby has provided us with a road map to an independence referendum," Rath said.
"I am pleased that both the conclusion of the court proceeding and (the government's new bill) will allow ... Albertans for a free and independent Alberta to start gathering petition signatures in January."
The Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations applauded the decision for recognizing that treaty rights are binding. Trevor Mercredi, the grand chief of Treaty 8 First Nations, said in a statement that he, too, commended the decision and that he expects the province to respect Feasby's decision.
"Decisions that affect treaties cannot be advanced through political shortcuts, legislative manoeuvring or processes that exclude the peoples whose rights are at stake," Mercredi said.
"The sovereign chiefs of Treaty 8 will continue to defend the promises our ancestors made with the Crown, for our children and for all future generations, for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow."
Now in my personal opinion, I have no problem with Alberta leaving the country if they so choose, but it brings up a lot of questions that I don’t think Danielle Smith and her cronies have answers to. What currency will they use? What are they going to do when it comes to defence? What about all the millions of dollars that Albertans have paid into CPP and EI that they will no longer be able to access? There are many other questions that need answers as well.
I also think that the Albertan government is also subverting the rule of law, which they have been doing pretty consistently since they took power. They’ve used the Notwithstanding Clause more times that I can count, even using it four times in a month, so that they can shut down discussions about bills and prevent the public voice from being heard. The Danielle Smith government likes to bitch and whine about “the voice of the people” but only when it affects them. Just like Doug Ford in Ontario, it’s okay when she does something, but it’s not okay when someone else does it. She’s corrupt, inept, and ignorant, and she needs to be stopped. Danielle Smith has no respect for the people she is supposed to serve, she only cares about Donald Trump, her rich donors and herself. Let me know what you think below.
