Referendum doesn't offer citizens a real say

by Barbara Yaffe

COLUMN: Vancouver Sun , April 12, 2002

Voting is a personal matter. Hence the longstanding tradition of the private ballot. It's nobody's business whether or how you vote.

But I'm prepared to toss confidentially when it comes to the treaty referendum. I'm freely acknowledging that I placed a blank ballot in my "secrecy envelope" before mailing it off to Elections B.C.

It's not that I'm apathetic or don't care. Rather, I've thought it through and have decided to reject the exercise.

I recognize others may feel differently, that many have felt shut out of a costly process that will lead to changes that could affect them in significant ways. They want to have a say.

But the referendum ballot doesn't offer citizens a real say.

It's a condescending and manipulative set of questions designed to prompt respondents to mark X in the yes box for all eight questions.

Polling whiz Angus Reid has called the $9-million venture "a flimsy exercise." The questions, he wrote, are one-sided, amateurish, motherhood.

This suggests the province has made up its mind where it stands, decided on positions it intends to take at the treaty table. I don't consider this to be giving citizens a real say.

If this were a genuine exercise, space would be left for comments. After all, not every question can be answered yes or no.

For example, the referendum question about hunting being ensured on Crown land: I oppose hunting. I'd vote no, but it would have nothing to do with the treaty issue.

Further, a ridiculous situation exists under the Referendum Act that obliges B.C.'s government to respect referendum results only if there is a yes vote. If there's a no vote, the results are not binding on government. That hardly seems fair.

Another problem -- the average person cannot be expected to have sufficient information to answer all questions. Let's be honest here; most citizens lack familiarity with court precedents that could influence matters raised by the referendum.

Remember, it's Ottawa, not B.C., that's responsible for native Indians under the Constitution. The notion of aboriginal self-government, supported by the feds, has never been constitutionally tested.

The B.C. Liberal party, which prefers municipal-style government for Indians, opposed the Nisga'a deal in part because of self-government provisions. The matter was to be legally tested but the Liberals dropped their court action after winning the 2001 election.

How is the average person to determine the legality surrounding issues of self-government? How then to answer question 6, whether Indian self-government should be akin to local government?

Finally, I won't be voting because this exercise is likely to damage the province's relations with many native people. At a time when reconciliation and trust are desperately needed to move stalled treaty talks, the referendum has infuriated some aboriginal groups.

Those feelings are bound to surface in future talks. The province also could be damaging its negotiating relationship with Ottawa since the feds firmly oppose the referendum.

Referenda proponents argue that in a democracy the majority rules and that having a majority vote on minority rights is legit.

Let's consider that for a moment. When democratic votes are held, they're associated with elections -- in which individuals are selected to govern everyone.

Or proposals are tested -- should we ban zoos in Vancouver, for instance?

Seldom is a majority asked to vote on rules for an ethnic minority group. More thought needs to be given as to whether this is a healthy undertaking.

The only guiding principles the province needs as it dispatches its negotiators is that settlements be workable and affordable, that they provide certainty, finality and equality.

Interestingly, those principles are all mentioned in the referendum preamble -- none is subject to a vote by the citizenry.

If those common-sense principles are upheld, it's hard to see how B.C.'s negotiators could go wrong. Tying their hands any further will only make talks more onerous.

And so, my secret envelope has been stuffed into two other envelopes and mailed; a blank page meant to express both concern and displeasure.

Back to Top