Politicians are never so complimentary about the intellect of voters as when citizens first send those same politicians to their reward. In the view of the newly elected officials, voters have made an eminently wise choice - brilliant actually, to recognize the superior governing skills of the rookie politician. Strange then, that somewhere between elections, politicians become more suspicious of voters' wisdom.

Case in point The provincial government recently unveiled draft legislation to rework how cities are funded and governed. The Community Charter has some fine ideas and some not-so-great points. (I weighed in on some of those last week.) But it also contains a gaping accountability hole. The Charter, as proposed, would give cities a plethora of new taxing powers and possibilities, but at the same time reduce the number of matters in which voters must first approve a city council action.

Rather than restrict the number of times voters can weigh in on local matters, the provincial government ought to move in the opposite direction, i.e., giving voters the chance to weigh in on matters they - and not local politicians - deem necessary to debate and vote on directly. The usual objection is that matters of public policy are too complex for voters to be involved directly.

There is some validity in that, but what's the real-world experience In Rossland B.C., voters have had the right (through a local bylaw) to initiate referendums via a petition since 1990. That's in addition to council-initiated referendums. Whenever enough signatures are gathered, and providing the issue falls within the bylaw's boundaries, a referendum is triggered. And in the 1990s, Rossland voters cast votes on a number of issues with some referenda triggered by council and others by citizens.

In Rossland, local voters weighed in on a number of issues from expanding city boundaries (approved) to increasing councillor's indemnities (declined). And far from proving that citizens will reflexively oppose any tax increase even at the risk to their own health, citizens approved a $100 per property tax increase to fund a replacement water filtration system.

Legendary Canadian apathy exists in part because many voters feel that nothing much they say or do matters to politicians. One way to change that cynicism is to provide for direct voter input. Granted that most people don't care to be consulted on most minor policy issues - that is why we elect politicians and hire bureaucrats. But voters could and should at least have the option for direct input when they so desire, not just when council deems it "appropriate." (Consider voter-initiated referenda a lever which voters can pull when they deem necessary.) The draft Community Charter outlines when councils must hold a referendum but offers no guaranteed mechanism for citizens.

In Alberta, the provincial government has long guaranteed municipal voters the right to initiate a binding referendum on local issues. The process is simple: sign up 10% of the voter's list and a referendum is guaranteed. For example, voters in many Alberta cities demanded and received the right to vote on whether to allow Video Lottery Terminals (VLTs) in their cities back in 1998. While that example was technically not a locally controlled issue, the provincial government agreed to respect the vote.

In B.C., the government will soon hand massive new taxing powers to city councils. That new power must be counter-balanced by a right of citizens to challenge and initiate bylaws via the referendum process. Government MLAs undoubtedly think voters were wise in electing them to office. And voters already have the right to initiate referendums at the provincial level, a right the B.C. Liberals said they wanted to strengthen. Surely such politicians would agree that voters, when faced with local issues, deserve the same right.