In a previous post I pointed out why referendums are perhaps the worst instrument democracy has in its tool box. Rather than repeat the argument here, I refer the reader to that piece.

Quite aside from their weaknesses as a decision-making tool, there is the question of why we have them at all. We elect representatives to make decisions for our communities, we pay them well, we provide ample resources to do their research on issues, and then they dump the decisions on us? This is audacity compounded by offence.

Our Alberta UCP government has dumped not one question but 10 for us to decide upon, this coming October 19th.

The question attracting all the attention is the one about having another referendum (yes, a referendum to decide on a referendum—this is Alberta, after all) on whether or not to break up one of the most successful countries in history. An easy decision here.

Five of the questions deal with immigration. One of them is about giving the Alberta government more control over immigration, another about requiring proof of citizenship to vote, something no province currently requires—you have to be a citizen to get on the registry in the first place.

The remaining three of the five deal with limiting immigrants access to social services including health and education. This discrimination against immigrants has a MAGA flavour to it, redolent of the casual cruelty toward perceived outsiders practiced by the Trump administration.

One thing a referendum should not be held on is basic human rights. I don’t expect to be asked by my government if my neighbour should have the same rights I do. Should my neighbour’s child be allowed to go to public school? Should my neighbour get the health care he needs regardless of his ability to pay? How could I in good conscience say no? Yet these are the kinds of questions being asked about immigrants, apparently the current era’s preferred scapegoats for the populist right.

The remaining three questions deal with “the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Constitution” to give provincial governments the right to appoint judges to provincial King’s Bench and Appeal courts, abolish the Senate, and give provincial laws priority over federal laws if they conflict. The one about abolishing the Senate is the only one I might consider for a yes.

The idea of resurrecting constitutional debates is likely to give most provincial governments cold chills, so finding “other willing provinces” might be a challenge.

One comic aspect of the referendum is that the province has had to look to other provinces for help in counting the 45 million ballots (one for each 10 questions). Ironic for a referendum on independence.

Not so comic is the cost. The government hasn’t offered figures, but a former Elections Alberta chief electoral officer estimates it could be as high as $130 million. The last provincial election cost $37 million. Not only have decisions politicians were elected to make been foisted on us, but we get stuck with a whopping bill.

One positive note is the news that former Alberta Premiers the Honourable Jason Kenney and the Honourable Rachel Notley have teamed up to co-chair the Canadian Chamber of Commerce campaign Alberta and Canada: Stronger Together. The objective of the campaign is to “make the economic case for a strong Alberta within a strong and united Canada.”

I, for one, would like to see more of politicians of different stripes working together rather than constantly disparaging each other, so here is at least one good thing to come out of Danielle’s tomfoolery.