Prime Minister Mark Carney says the House of Commons won’t be weighing in on Alberta’s fall referendum question that could pave the way for a vote on the province’s separation from Canada.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pledged last week that her province would hold a referendum in October essentially asking if voters want a second binding referendum on separation at a later date.
Carney said Tuesday he’s been advised that the federal law which gives the House of Commons an oversight role over a separation referendum hasn’t been triggered by that proposed question.
“I just heard from the council of experts on the applicability of the Clarity Act and it does not apply on the question on the question in Alberta,” Carney said in French during question period.
The federal Clarity Act, passed in 2000, says the House of Commons needs to determine if a proposed separation question can lead to a clear indication of a province’s willingness to separate from Canada.
If the House agrees that a question isn’t clear, then the federal government can’t negotiate secession with that province, regardless of the outcome of the vote.
Carney’s comments on the Clarity Act came in response to a question from Bloc Québécois MP Christine Normandin. Normandin and her party have said the federal government shouldn’t get formally involved in the Alberta referendum.
Carney says Alberta separation question is a ‘dangerous bluff’
Normandin told reporters on Monday that the Clarity Act treats the provinces with “disdain.”
“Being from the nation of Quebec, I should have no say on how Albertans will decide. It’s only up to them. The same way it will be up to Quebecers to decide on their future without any say from [the federal government],” she said.
Bloc MP Rhéal Fortin followed up Normandin’s Tuesday question to the prime minister with a call to repeal the Clarity Act outright.
In the wake of the 1995 Quebec separation vote, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the question of a province pulling out of the federation. The court issued its ruling in 1998, and Parliament followed up by passing the Clarity Act.
The court case and act came after some debate over whether the question in the 1995 referendum was a clear enough indication that Quebec wanted to leave Canada. That vote asked Quebecers to decide whether the province should become sovereign only “after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership.”
The question on the ballot in Alberta this fall will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”
Stéphane Dion, who drafted the Clarity Act, told CBC News on Tuesday that the Alberta question shouldn’t trigger the act because it’s not yet asking voters if they want to separate.
“[Smith is] asking to Albertans: ‘Do you want to stay in Canada or do you want me to trigger a process by which a referendum on succession may happen?’ So if there is indeed a referendum on secession in Alberta … then the Clarity Act will apply,” Dion told host Andrew Nichols.
Smith herself said Monday that her referendum question shouldn’t trigger the act.
“This is a decision for Albertans — not Ottawa — and Albertans’ frustrations have been fuelled by the last 10 years of disastrous policies from Ottawa under [Carney’s] predecessor, Justin Trudeau,” she said.
“I would also remind all Canadians that we should not dismiss the legitimate grievances of Albertans. Instead, we should focus on addressing these issues, restoring hope in Canada and demonstrating that our country can work and is working.”
Alberta premier defends referendum question after Carney criticism
Smith was responding a question about Carney calling the proposed question a “dangerous bluff.”
“Is it helpful to ask these fundamental questions? No, it’s not helpful,” Carney told reporters at a news conference.
Carney, who was the governor of the Bank of England when the U.K. crashed out of the European Union, said he has seen how referendum questions like this can spiral out of control.
“In these separation issues, it is often advanced that, ‘vote for this and it is a free option,’ or ‘vote for this, and we will strengthen our hand in a future negotiation.’ That is a very dangerous bluff,” he said.
“I saw it firsthand in the U.K.,” he said, adding that the country is “still trying to undo what people didn’t think they were voting for.”
