When Albertans go to the polls on Oct. 19, they should ask themselves why all the problems they are being asked to vote on are caused by Ottawa or by immigrants, when many of the most important problems they face are caused right here in Edmonton.

Indeed, the referendum deliberately avoids several of the issues that history and political science suggest are actually most suitable for resolution by a referendum in a parliamentary system.

These include: absence of a clear mandate for an issue of fundamental importance; overcoming political deadlock; permission for breaking a promise; and making decisions where there are clear conflicts of interest. Examples of each in the Alberta context suggest four questions that would be truly worth the human effort and financial cost being exacted by this referendum process:

1. Do you support a single-payer health-care system that is fully consistent with the Canada Health Act?

Leading health economists (e.g. Robert Evans at UBC and the late Uwe Reinhardt at Princeton University) and health policy experts (e.g. Theodore Marmor at Yale and the 2002 Kirby Report by the Senate of Canada) have stressed that it is not the single-payer system that is to blame for the under-performance of the Canadian model, but rather the way that the single-payer system articulates (or fails to articulate) with fee-for-service delivery, among other factors.

We are stuck in the rut of a deep-but-narrow health-care system, in which we queue in hospitals and doctors’ offices while the federal government shovels
money to the provinces. Yet it is far from clear that adding a private financing component is the answer. Since the UCP government did not campaign on dual-payer health care in the last provincial election, a referendum campaign could supply the needed debate and the missing mandate.

2. Do you authorize the government to implement a provincial sales tax to stabilize revenues and better grow the Alberta Heritage Trust Fund?

There is actually a surprisingly broad intellectual consensus in favour of a sales tax in Alberta, ranging from Jack Mintz and the Fraser Institute on the right, to the Premier’s Council on Economic Strategy in 2009-10, to the Parkland Institute and the Canadian Centre on Policy Alternatives on the left.

The problem is a classic first-mover’s dilemma: Each party is afraid to take the blame in an election campaign for appearing to raise taxes. A referendum can break the impasse.

3. Do you wish to restrict the pre-emptive use of Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

The Government of Alberta has recently invoked the Section 33 override clause to order teachers back to work without the benefit of arbitration; restrict access to gender-affirming care; regulate the use of pronouns in schools; and ban participation of trans-gender females in female amateur sports. It has threatened to use it a fifth time to penalize medical assistance in dying (MAID).

Pre-emptive use of Section 33 shields a law from judicial review and deprives us of the opportunity to see for ourselves whether “Trudeau-appointed judges” are departing from precedent or acting unreasonably. By requiring approval of the override by a super-majority of the legislature, at least in those cases where a court has not yet rendered a decision, the integrity of the Charter of Rights can be restored.

4. Do you instruct the government to undertake the following electoral reforms?

Governments are in an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to choosing the rules that govern voting. Alberta’s present situation illustrates this and suggests two reforms for consideration:

Restore the old referendum threshold for citizens’ initiatives, (i.e. 20 per cent of all registered electors across Alberta), in order to reduce costly and unnecessary votes that aim to avoid prior deliberation by the legislature;

Repeal the 2026 amendments to the Citizens Initiatives Act that completely ban citizen-led initiative activities for a year before and a year after provincial elections. These aim to avoid citizen interference with the government’s policy agenda.

Mark Crawford is an associate professor of political science at Athabasca University.