A-G endures (gasp!) questions about referendum

Vaughn Palmer

Vancouver Sun, April 6, 2002

VICTORIA - Attorney-General Geoff Plant is fielding questions from reporters on day three of the referendum campaign and already sounding irked by the exercise.

What about the complaint that the questions are poorly worded?

People should read the ballot "carefully," he replies.

Has he heard that religious leaders are urging their congregations to vote no? "A special interest group," he calls them.

His response to native leaders, who've burned ballots and urged the public to do the same? "To tell you the truth I don't see much difference between burning ballots and burning books," he replies. "Burning ballots is a flagrant rejection of this process."

What is so sacred about the his government's referendum on native land claims? Aren't people free to flagrantly reject this process?

"No," he says. "I think the best way of respecting democracy in this case is to take the ballot seriously."

What if you think the process is ridiculous? "Vote no," says the attorney-general.

What if you don't like the questions? "Vote no," he repeats, sounding like he's rehearsing sound bites for the "anti" side.

Except Mr. Plant isn't as concerned about no votes as he is that people might not vote at all, thereby making the referendum a laughingstock.

Hence his determination to concentrate on the importance voting. "I believe a majority of British Columbians want this opportunity to participate," he tells reporters again and again.

But don't ask him if he therefore expects a majority of British Columbians to participate by mailing in their ballots. I witnessed Mr. Plant ducking questions about turnout half a dozen times this week.

The closest he came to answering was on Thursday. "Here's the way a referendum works," he instructed reporters. "If only 200,000 people vote, then the result is binding, so what I am going to do for the next six weeks is to encourage all voters to participate . . . ."

Two hundred thousand is "a pretty low turnout," said one reporter, seizing on the first hard number to emerge from Liberal lips during the campaign. That hit a sore spot with the attorney-general, who has been known to run out of patience with reporters on other occasions.

"The only fear that exists with respect to this issue is in the media -- around the possibility that we could expand our conception of democracy in a way that is new and that engages the citizens directly in public policy-making," he replied with disdain.

News organizations, he went on to suggest, ought to devote themselves to the importance of participation. "I am confident that as voters recognize that the outcome will make a difference, then we will get a turnout that will ensure that we have the mandate to move forward," Mr. Plant said.

As lead minister for the Liberals on the referendum, Mr. Plant faces another five weeks or so of these exchanges before May 15, the cutoff date for balloting. By then, he'll probably be feeling that the premier owes him big time for having endured the process.

There was an alternative.

One can readily imagine a press conference where the premier, flanked by native leaders, announced the referendum was being put on hold because of an agreement to fast-track claims negotiations.

But now that the Liberals have stubbornly decided to press ahead, Mr. Plant would understandably prefer that those who agree with the issues as framed by his government vote yes.

He's less persuasive in addressing those who disagree -- either with the timing, the questions, the Liberal position on native land claims, or the idea of holding a referendum at all.

Given the arbitrary wording of the questions, skewed in favour of Liberal party positions, a no vote is close to meaningless in terms of providing guidance on policy.

But a no ballot and even one that is deliberately spoiled will nevertheless count as part of the turnout and thereby contribute to the credibility of the referendum.

A ballot that is not returned will save both the postage and the cost of counting it, while lowering the turnout and thereby helping to discredit the whole exercise.

If you agree with what the Liberals have done here, by all means mail in your vote.

If you don't agree, the recycling bin could be the more appropriate repository your ballot.

And if you need to cast the act in positive terms, think of it as a striking a blow in favour of the environment.

Back to Top