Herald Column: Nothing to Fear from Direct Democracy

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at whether a call for citizen-intiated referendums is anything to be fearful of:

With the growing possibility that the Tories could be defeated on April 23, it’s to be expected that questions would arise as to what we might expect from those who could form the next government. 
As polls have shown the Wildrose surging, the focus has shifted to what exactly the party represents and what sorts of policies it might implement.
But those who would criticize the policies of the Wildrose should be careful about casting aspersions on the people of this province.
Certainly for the beleaguered Tories, the opportunity to shift attention away from their own record is a welcome one, and they’ve certainly done their part to help strike an ominous tone to the questions being raised around Wildrose policy.
Premier Alison Redford, for example, spoke last week of how she was “frightened” by the Wildrose policy on “conscience rights”. Presumably, however, Redford is aware of the fact that one of her most senior cabinet ministers once attempted to legislate “conscience rights”, and I see no indication that Redford is fearful of Ted Morton.
Perhaps what the Premier most fears is not the Wildrose Party itself, but rather the prospect of losing to them.
It is certainly fair game to question the idea of “conscience rights.” Last year, for example, Saskatchewan’s highest court ruled that marriage commissioners who are public servants cannot refuse to provide that service to gay couples. So that issue is likely a non-starter, as it should be.   The “conscience rights” controversy, though, has morphed into a broader controversy about Wildrose policy, and that has drawn in the issue of citizen-initiated referendum.   It is certainly worth noting that this is a power available to voters next door in B.C. Whether the Wildrose proposal would mirror B.C.’s remains to be seen, but the question of what such a law might lead to needn’t be hypothetical.
B.C. voters have, for example, forced a vote on the province’s HST. They have not, however, forced a vote on abortion. 
To then turn a debate over direct democracy into a debate over abortion is unfortunate and more than a little disingenuous.  A question of delisting abortion could theoretically arise, but so, too, could many other issues. In terms of what might arise as a ballot question — and what might actually be approved by voters — speaks not to the views of one specific party but rather to the concerns and values of Albertans as a whole.
Adding fuel to this fire, however, was a response from a Wildrose representative to a specific question from a Calgary blogger about access to abortion and coverage of abortion. 
Jeff Trynchy, identified as the chief administrative officer for the Wildrose Party, responded that “the legalities of abortion fall under federal jurisdiction. We respect that Albertans view social issues differently, which is why Wildrose would immediately introduce legislation allowing citizens to put issues like abortion to a citizen initiated referendum. “
The Wildrose Party has sought to further clarify the matter by issuing a statement declaring that they have “absolutely no intentions of legislating on abortion, and that includes delisting.”
Nonetheless, Wildrose leader Danielle Smith has been pressured to explain her position on delisting abortion, but just how many hypothetical referendum questions should Smith have to take a stand on? 
The Wildrose statement also notes that “any initiative must first be vetted by a federally appointed judge to determine whether or not it is constitutional.”
That’s important to note, because basic rights should never be subjected to popular votes. That might need to be pointed out to the Wildrose candidate in Barrhead-Westlock-Morinville, who thinks the Morinville school question and the rights of non-Catholics should be subject to a plebiscite.
Direct democracy already exists at the municipal level, as plebiscites can be triggered if enough signatures are gathered in a specific time frame. There’s no reason we should be fearful of applying that principle at the provincial level to the very same voters.
The notion that we must take citizen-initiated referendum off the table because of potentially uncomfortable questions and debates is absurd. The notion that the idea must be off the table to protect us from ourselves is an egregious insult.