rs

2 a = G a. _

—

~ 4 aa

DERA kicks off driv
for ward referendum

A major campaign has been
launched in Vancouver for the
holding of a referendum on the
revamping of the city’s electoral
system and the establishment of a
ward system.

Initiated by the Downtown
Eastside Residents’ Association, a
call was sent out last week signed
by DERA president Libby Davies
and vice president Bruce Eriksen,
and thre city council members,
announcing the holding of a
meeting at DERA’s headquarters,
616 E. Cordova St.,on January 5, to ,
launch the campaign.

The call to the parley is
significant in that it represents a
joint action by three members of
council who can give the proposal
considerable support at city. hall.
The three council members signing
the call are Ald. Mike Harcourt,

Ald. Harry Rankin and Ald.
Darlene Marzari.

It is expected that the meeting
early in January will kick off a
drive to have city council adopt a
motion to hear representation in
favor of the ward system, and to
adopt a motion to hold a referen-
dum on the subject.

The call has been sent to
representatives of every segment
of the population, including unions,
community groups, church
leaders, political groups, tenants
and other organizations concerned
with improving civic government
in Vancouver.

During the recent civic elections
COPE candidates and_ in-
dependents Harcourt and Marzari
campaigned for the ward system.
Now they have combined forces,
providing new possibilities to win
electoral reform in 1977.

By ALD. HARRY RANKIN

The ballots for City Council,
School and Park Boards, with a
total of 117 candidates which were
handed to the voters on election
day were utterly ridiculous. Many
of the 117 candidates had appeared
on the scene only weeks before the
election; had absolutely no record
of civic or community in-
volvement; were virtually
unknown and unheard of by the
vast majority of eligible voters.

The aldermanic ballot alone,
with fifty-six candidates to choose
from, made it almost’ impossible
for a rational, intelligent choice. It
was a difficult and confusing ex-
perience for many voters,
resulting in thousands of spoiled
and rejected ballots and thousands
more with only one or two choices
indicated.

Faced with this situation in
every Vancouver civic election, is
it any wonder that we have such a
low voter turnout? Can we expect
voters to turn out in droves to elect
representatives, most of whom
they never heard of? Can we ex-
pect voters to relate’ en-
thusiastically to issues and can-
didates they cannot identify with

their own circumstances and-

communities? We say no!

Mayor-elect Jack Volrich has
suggested that the answer to this
problem would be to require a
deposit of $1,000 for mayoral
candidates and $50 for all others, to
ensure that only serious candidates
would stand for election. We
disagree! Large cash deposits
would not ensure that civic can-
didates were credible nor that they
wouldrepresent the interests of the
majority of the voters, or that they
have no ties or obligations to
private interests.

Cash deposits would only
guarantee the continuation of the
present unfair, antiquated, un-
democratic and confusing at-large
system of electing our civic
representatives and would further
erode civic democracy by ensuring
that only the affluent would be
eligible to stand for election.

We suggest to the voters of this
city and to Mayor-elect Jack

. “Civic electoral system
needs complete change’

Volrich that the only answer to the
problem of low voter turnout, an
overabundance of candidates, and
confusion at the polls is. a
revamping of our electorial

system, to allow for true
democracy through area
representation.

In federal and provincial elec-
tions, Vancouver is divided into
constituencies. Yet in municipal
elections, Vancouver continues as
just one huge constituency of ©
400,000 people with all of our
representatives elected at large.
Vancouver is the only large city in
Canada that continues with the
antiquated at-large system. It just
doesn't make sense! Would we
advocate electing our federal
government at large to represent
the twenty-two million people of
Canada? Would anyone in their
right mind consider electing our
provincial government at large?
Of course not!

It4s clear that the voters of this

‘city must demand a referendum to

allow revamping of our electoral
system for truly democratic area
representation through a ward or
constituency system.

The advantages of area
representation are so numerous
and obvious that they must no
longer be denied. :

Each area of the city would be
represented on City Council,
School and Park Boards. Voters
would feel a real sense of par-
ticipation in civic affairs and would
turn out in droves on election day.

Those elected would report back
to and be accountable to the voters.

McEwen column

The Editorial Board regrets to
advise its readers that long time
columnist and former editor, Tom
McEwen, has been compelled by
recent illness to lay aside his pen
for the time being. :

Readers of the popular column
and a host of friends not only in
B.C., but across the country, will
join in-wishing the dean of labor
and Communist journalists a
speedy recovery and a quick
return to his weekly column.

new low

. allowing

area

Voters would demand that the
needs or grievances of their
communities be raised in Council
and acted upon by their elected
representatives. ee

Voters would demand that their
representatives have a wide
knowledge of civic issues, i.e.:
housing, rapid transit, GVRD
liveable regions, and airport ex
pansion, and that they would be
able to communicate with other
levels of government and elected
officials.

Candidates would have a real
opportunity to debate the issues of
the communities and demonstrate
their knowledge of civic affairs,
voters to choose |
representatives in an intelligent,
rational manner, based on
knowledge of the candidates rather
than personalities.

The candidates would have to —
live in and be a part of the com-
munity and. be personally known
by the voters.

The ballots handed to the voters
would have only a few names on it
and the voters could easily be
expected to be fully aware of each
candidates record of participation _
in civic and community affairs,
rather than being reduced to
buying a “‘pig in a poke” as hap-
pens under ‘the present system.

Mayor-elect Jack Volrich and
several of the newly-elected
aldermen are opposed to area
representation on the questionable _
grounds that the voters rejected
the referendum several years ago.
We might point out that the voters
rejected two previous referendums ;
on the five-year plan. Yet this
didn’t prevent Council from re- _
introducing the referendum this | -
year. ;

It is our. contention that the
previous ballot-put to the voters on
representation was
deliberately designed to confuse
the voters. The voters do want
democratic area representation
and, that, given the opportunity to
vote a simple “‘yes”’ or ‘‘no”’ to the
question, “Do you favor area
representation through a ward or
constituency system’’?, the answer
would be a resounding yes

arn

_ PACIFIC TRIBUNE—DECEMBER 3, 1976—Page 2

By MAURICE RUSH
“Vietnam does not meet the humanitarian
obligations of membership in the United
Nations...”
] Ss it possible for decent-minded people to imagine
anything more cynical or hypocritical than this
Statement made Nov. 15 by the U.S. ambassador to the UN
at a Security Council meeting where the U.S. used its veto
to bar Vietnam from membership in the world body?
It staggers the imagination to believe that the U.S. is so
completely out of touch with world public opinion that
ambassador William Scranton could, with a straight face
and no. obvious embarrassment, mouth the above

Statement as the reason why the people of Vietnam should _

be denied a voice in the world organization. ;

This world power, the U.S.A., which invaded a small,
backward nation without any moral or legal right, killed
hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in the
most inhuman and one-sided wars in history while em-
ploying all the latest devilish inventions of destruction of
which U.S. science was capable, now dares insult world
public opinion with the claim that the people of Vietnam
do not meet the ‘humanitarian obligations” to be ad-
mitted into the world community.

Surely ambassador Scranton must have felt some
twinge of conscience when he held up his hand in the
Security Council to cast the lone vote against Vietnam.
Had he forgotten Mai Lai and other massacres of Viet-
namese civilians, some of which will never be known?
Had he no thought of the millions of Vietnamese left
homeless and orphaned by U.S. bombings and napalm
attacks; of the millions of crippled young men, women
and children ; of the destruction of their land by chemical
warfare which turned much of Vietnam into a desert.

U.S. morality sinks to a

- Struction of Vietnam.

Having visited Vietnam in 1965, and seen destroyed
towns, hospitals, kindergartens, schools, factories, and
met with Vietnamese mothers who wept as they told of the
death of their young ones, I could not but feel deep in-
dignation and disbelief when I read Scranton’s statement.

The reason given by the U.S. ambassador for voting
against Vietnam was that it was withholding information
about Americans missing in action during the Vietnam
war, of which the U.S. claims there are 800. The Viet-
namese have turned over extensive information about
Americans missing in action, and have offered
negotiations with the U.S. to solve _the remaining
problems as part of resolving other issues left over from
the war. But, as the Vietnamese observer at the UN
pointed out, “‘The attitude of the American government
shows no serious desire to solve this problem.”

The U.S. government is obviously using the missing in
action issue to continue its aggressive attitude towards
Vietnam and as a convenient smokescreen behind which
to block solution of the larger issue of the war: U.S.
responsibility in meeting its obligations under the Paris
Agreement to pay restitution and help in the recon-

The U.S. could use this issue forever to hold up
negotiations with Vietnam. Recognizing the nature of the
war in Vietnam, with its jungle terrain, is it hard to
imagine that some of the U.S. dead cannot and probably
never will be accounted for? :

Is it not true that in both Canada and U.S. monuments
have been erected in memory of “the unknown soldier’ —
those who died or disappeared without trace in the horrors
of modern war? But in this case the U.S. is using it asa
pretext for refusing to face up to its responsibility to pay
the bill for its genocidal war in Vietnam.

What if the situation were turned around and the
Vietnamese demanded that the U.S. account for all the
Vietnamese who disappeared and have never been ac-
counted for in the areas under U.S. occupation during the
years of the war? There’s no doubt that U.S. authorities
would have to account for more than 800 Vietnamese, and
Vietnamese are no less important human beings than
Americans.

If the U.S. has any doubt about where world opinion
stands on this issue, it was cleared up last Friday when
.the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on
the Security Council to favorably reconsider Vietnam’s
application by a vote of 124 to 1 — the one vote being that
of the U.S. Only Britain, West Germany and Israel ab-
stained. Canada, to its credit, stood with the rest of the
world and voted for the resolution.

This latest caper shows how far U.S. morality has sunk.
But surely by now Washington should begin to see the
writing on the wall as far as Vietnam is concerned. :

Editor — MAURICE RUSH .
Assistant Editor SEAN GRIFFIN :
Business and Circulation Manager — MIKE GIDORA

Published weekly at Ford Blidg., Mezzanine No. 3,
193 E. Hastings St., Vancouver 4, B.C. Phone 685-8108

Subscription Rate: Canada, $8.00 one year; $4.50 for.six months,

All other countries, $10.00 one year
Second class mail registration number 1560

rrr