"Governing by referendum is a major copout." - Mayor Sam Katz in a post-debate scrum.

"This type of thing is so foreign to Canada and so anti-democratic, I don't know why anyone would support it." -Councillor Jae Eadie.

These pearls of wisdom were shared during this week's council debate on whether the city should have a referendum on term-limits. A motion brought forward by Coun. Peter De Smedt, supported only by Coun. Russ Wyatt would have seen a vote, in conjunction with the next civic election in October, on limiting the number of terms city councilors can run for office - De Smedt suggested two terms, but later accepted an amendment Wyatt put forward increasing it to three.

With all the vitriol shared by the 14 members of council who rejected the motion for a referendum, Coun. Eadie, who has been on council since the former Norrie Administration, gets top marks for his prosaic regurgitation of a vacuous quote by ex-Coun. George Fraser who said that referendums are "lazy democracy." Coun. Eadie went on to denounce term limits as anti-democratic suggesting limits restrict voter choice.

So following his logic, term-limits restrict voter choice, how then can he suggest referendums are lazy democracy Isn't constraining a referendum to citizens also anti-democratic

Lazy democracy is when we ask citizens to participate in their democracy once every 4 years at the ballot to elect a councillor, but remain spectators the rest of the time incapable of passing judgment on specific issues that affect their pocket book and community. What's lazy is to think citizens wouldn't carefully consider the merits of any proposal and check a box for or against it. It's lazy to think that an attitude of entitlement doesn't creep in after 10 or 20 years in office, and it's lazy to dismiss out of hand the advantage of incumbency at the ballot box.

As for the Mayor's comment "governing by referendum is a major copout" perhaps he should be reminded Canada has a rich tradition of referendums on issues: giving women the right to vote, daylight savings time, liquor prohibition, regulation of the sale of liquor, military conscription, public health insurance, direct democracy legislation, balanced budget legislation, and constitutional change.

National referendums were held on liquor prohibition (1898), mandatory military conscription (1942), and constitutional changes proposed in the Charlottetown Accord (1992).

In a 1916 referendum, men in British Columbia voted 68 percent in favour of giving women the right to vote. In a plebiscite held concurrently with the 1991 provincial election, over 80 percent of British Columbians voted in favour of having legislation to enable citizens' initiative as well as the recall of MLAs. In 2005 BC held a referendum on how they elect politicians - supported by 58 percent of the people, but rejected by the government supported by 46 percent of the people.

Manitobans have voted on liquor-related issues (1892, 1902, 1916, 1923 (twice), and 1927) and the marketing of coarse grains (1952). In 1991 residents in the RM of Headingley overwhelmingly supported a referendum question to secede from the City of Winnipeg.

Alberta has a municipal citizens initiative law in the Municipal Government Act with stringent guidelines; is Mayor Katz suggesting Alberta politicians are copping out of their responsibilities because citizens are allowed to bring forward proposals for referendums

The question remains who does our democracy belong to - the citizens or their representatives Referendums would not replace the role of representatives, they would complement them on important and divisive issues.

Regardless of one's personal feelings on term-limits, not allowing the citizens of Winnipeg a debate on the issue is a pathetic endorsement of the status quo, particularly since no one complains about having too much democracy - the problem is we don't have enough.