A minister writes...

There has been some misunderstanding around the implications of a "yes" and "no" vote in treaty principles referendum.

British Columbians have been asked whether the province should adopt principles to guide its participation in treaty negotiations. As a matter of law, the answer to the question on each principle is binding on the government if more than 50 per cent of the validly cast ballots vote the same way. Under the Referendum Act this means that the government is required to take steps that it "considers necessary or advisable to implement the results."

If a principle receives more "no" votes than "yes" votes the province will not adopt that principle as a guide in treaty negotiations. In the event of a "no" vote result, the province would advance negotiating positions that are consistent with the provincial public interest without necessary being linked to any particular principles.

The use of a binding principle to guide treaty negotiations does not pre-determine the outcome the negotiations. There could be a variety of agreements that would be consistent with all of the principles. A "yes" vote does not mean that the government is legally prevented from considering possible exceptions to a principle. For example, in rare circumstances the expropriation of a parcel of private property may be the difference between reaching agreement or not, and the public interest in achieving certainty, finality and course will be to seek agreements that are consistent with the principles. Ultimately, the voters will hold us to account for our own adherence to these principles. I believe we will make better progress with principles supported by a direct electoral mandate, than without them.

Spoiled ballots are not validly cast within the meaning of the Referendum Act and do not count as "no" votes for the purpose of determining the outcome of the referendum.

Referendum good

I was thrilled to get my copy of the referendum.

I know, the questions are not what we would have asked, but cut the provincial Liberal government some slack. They're new at this bottom up democracy thing. I can't remember the last time a senior level of government did this. (Did they ever?) (Yes, the Charlottetown Accord referendum-ed.)

Also, politicians think that we're a bunch of morons. The only brilliance they ever see from us is when we elect them in that popularity contest they hold every four or five years.

That's why it's so important that we vote. If we all fill the questions out properly (I checked mine six times), and send them in, they might consult with us on other policy items.

I know this is pretty optimistic, but that's what some books say. Catch them doing something even close to right and reward them.

Referendum not good

At a cost estimated between 7.9 to 9 million health care and education dollars, citizens have been receiving the much debated referendum questionnaire.

For most British Columbians, this is not, and never will be, justice. So, what do we do? A spoiled ballot will not "count"-the winning side will be 50 per cent plus one of the unspoiled ballots received.

I suggest we do just as the NDP has decided to do, and that is to support the First Nations peoples who have caucused and made a decision that will work best for them. Boycott this divisive process. Do not legitimize this process by participating.

If you do not agree that decisions affecting minorities are made by majority decision and not through respectful negotiation, do not send this questionnaire to government.

Strata article didn't tell the whole story

Re: "The trouble with strata," page 3, The Richmond Review, April 14.

I am a resident homeowner of Sharon Gardens. The article in last Sunday's Richmond Review has really upset me.

I have lived in Sharon Gardens for almost three years and I love it. My neighbors are great and the strata council has worked extremely hard volunteering their time to help maintain the rules and regulations we as owners, have made.

The article has upset me, because Mrs. Carolina Abramovich has bothered other owners and council members. Originally she wanted permission to park her motor home on common property, which was denied. She did not feel the ruling was fair and began sending multiple letters, demanding additional information.

She has also distributed monthly newsletters insulting residents, owners and council members.

I do not feel the article was researched accurately, taking the word of one person as the voice of an entire strata.

The council members of Sharon Gardens are fantastic hard working people and I am proud to live in such a great building.

Librarians also facing cuts

I am concerned that the articles on proposed cuts in Richmond schools did not include much mention of the cuts to teacher-librarians.

The proposal is to cut 17 full-time equivalent teacher-librarian positions from the school district. This would result in all secondary teacher-librarians being half-time and for 12 FTE teacher-librarian positions to be cut from the elementary schools. The proposal includes the hiring of five additional library technician positions to help keep secondary libraries open.

This pre-supposes that secondary teacher-librarians can perform their professional tasks in half the time, while teaching social studies, English, science, or whatever, the other half of the time. They would also be required to prepare report cards, meet with parents, and all other tasks performed by classroom teachers. Another alternative is for teacher-librarians to travel between two schools and provide for all the professional needs of two large libraries.

Professional teacher-librarians are very necessary at all levels of education. They are no longer merely the "keepers of books." They provide reading guidance, teach research skills and how to gather information. They work with staff to create resource-based learning units and assignments that promote student success.

I am the teacher-librarian at McMath Secondary School, a school of more than 1,000 students. My days are busy ones now. On average, more than 350 students per day visit the library, with most of them coming for instruction of some kind and for research work with their classes in all subject areas and all grades.

If this proposal passes, half of these students will not have access to the services of a professional teacher-librarian for instruction in searching the Internet, using encyclopedias effectively, finding the right book for their project, etc.

I urge the board to reject this proposal that would have serious long-term impacts on the libraries in Richmond schools and on all students.

Hold on to Hydro

Since the announcement of the provincial referendum on land claims negotiations I have seen many letters to the editor expressing that it is an exercise by the government to fulfill a campaign promise, but will accomplish little or nothing.

The fact that many of the issues will be settled in the federal jurisdiction lead me to speculate why has it come to pass. Has the government chosen to start meeting campaign promises at any cost? Sadly I think not.

I propose that there may be another purpose attached to what many see as an hollow referendum: "Souring the public's taste for holding referenda."

The government is poised to begin dismantling the publicly-owned Crown corporation BC Hydro. Call it deregulation, elimination of a "public" monopoly, or opening of the energy market, it all spells the same thing-the end of the public ownership of the power industry in this province and eventually the shift to a "private" monopoly.

The B.C. public is still the ultimate shareholder of BC Hydro. If any issue is worthy of a referendum, it is this one. Do not let the taste of a bad referendum spoil your hunger for democracy.

Some racers still don't the get the point

I attended the Street Racing Forum held at Hugh Boyd Secondary Tuesday.

Upon entering the gymnasium, I was so very pleased to see the significant number of young people in attendance. Perhaps the message was starting to get through.

We had the opportunity to hear from those who knew first hand, the horrific results of street racing and high risk choices made by our youth.

My pleasure at seeing the youth in attendance, was turned to dismay when the opportunity was given to the public to voice their suggestions and questions. It quickly became apparent that some young adults, not only did not get the point, but quite defiantly, and proudly admitted that they were "street racers," and that they had no intention of stopping. This is the latest form of "Extreme Sports" for them. They even went as far as to suggest that unless they were provided with an affordable, alternative venue, they would continue to defy the law.

While I believe that we should explore the possibility of creating a controlled racing environment, I don't appreciate the hint of being held hostage. In the end, will this even solve the problem, when we are dealing with such defiance?

One of the most profound comparisons given, was from a gentleman, who pointed out that just because he owned a rifle, that did not give him the right to fire it in his community, because it did not provide him with a shooting range. Both activities were illegal, and should be treated as such. Bravo!

As the parents of four children, we made a conscious decision not to let them drive before they reached the age of 18. This decision was made, by realizing that people under that age are statistically the worst drivers, and that automobile accidents are the number one cause of fatalities among our young people. This was not something that our children understood, nor appreciated, but we stuck to it because of our love for them and our wish to see them live long and happy lives.

It is my hope that all parents give the statistics consideration, when it comes to making the decision to let their child get behind the wheel of a machine that could turn into a deadly weapon.

Some racers still don't the get the point

I am perplexed over the recent reaction of young adults and drag racing. When did children begin dictating to adults and when did adults allow this to happen. There should be no discussion.

When young adults say they are going to drag race no matter what, they have to realize that they are breaking the law. It shows their immaturity and that they may not be ready for the responsibilities of a drivers license. We all have to follow the law. That's the way life is!

We as adults need to direct the behavior of children and young adults. We need to start holding individuals accountable for their behavior. Parents need to stop saying "kids will be kids."

When we start holding individuals accountable for their inappropriate behavior, we may be surprised that changes in behavior may occur.