[fvc-wat-disc] CPC op-ed on the referendum

Sat Jul 7 20:52:35 EDT 2007

I've found Regulation 211. It's not easily found - Google hasn't a clue
where it is.

However, a quick search at www.gov.on.ca will reveal its location:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Source/Regs/English/2007/R07211_e.htm

2007/7/7, Paul Nijjar <pnijjar at sdf.lonestar.org>:
>
>
>         Eleanor forwarded me this press release. I am sending it along
> because it makes even stronger claims than I was with respect to political
> parties campaigning in the referendum -- it says that parties and
> candidates can't even mention the referendum in their literature!
>
>         Is this true, or is the press release misleading us? Can we track
> down this "Regulation 211"?
>
> - Paul
>
> --
> Paul Nijjar - http://www.fairvotecanada.org/WaterlooRegion
> Next electoral reform info night: Tuesday July 10, 7pm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mart4
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 6:29 AM
> Subject: 'Putting a gag order on Democracy!' Fw: CPC (O) Referendum OP ED:
> "Loading the Dice on the Referendum"
>
>
> Forward from mart
>
> IMPORTANT!
> PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY!
>
> 'Putting a gag order on Democracy!'
>   - mart
> ------------------------------------
>
> CPC (O)  Referendum OP ED:
> "Loading the Dice on
> the Referendum"
>
> ============================
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Liz Rowley  rowley at cpc-pcc.ca
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 4:51 PM
> Subject: OP ED article on the
> Referendum: CPC (O)
>
> Communist Party of Canada (Ontario)
> Parti communiste du Canada (Ontario)
>
> 290A Danforth Avenue,
> Toronto, ON  M4K 1N6
>   Tel: 416-469-2446
>
> July 5, 2007
>
> News Directors, Opinion Page and
> Editorial Editors:
>
> The following is an article written by Elizabeth
> Rowley, leader of the Communist Party of
> Canada (Ontario) regarding the October 10th
> Referendum. Ms Rowley can be reached at
> 416-469-2446, or 416-694-4976.
>
> Loading the Dice on the
> Referendum
>
> By Elizabeth Rowley, Leader,
> Communist Party of Canada (Ontario)
>
> On July 10th you won't be able to read the
> views of any political party, candidate or
> incumbent on the subject of the October 10th
> referendum on Mixed Member Proportional
> Representation - an electoral reform proposed
> by the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform.
>
> You won't see anything in candidates' or parties'
> election material either.  There will be nothing on
>   their websites and nothing in their campaign
> advertising.
>
> That's because the McGuinty government has
> issued Regulation 211 (an implementation
> directive from the government to Bill 155 on
> the Referendum) making it illegal for political
> parties and their candidates to "campaign to
>   promote a particular result in the
> referendum"
>
> Regulation 211 defines all written commentary
> on the Referendum as third party advertising.
> Parties are banned from putting their positions
> forward, and candidates who want to express
> an opinion in their election material, campaign
> ads, or website, must register as Registered
> Referendum Campaign Organizers under the law.
> They will be required to act as third parties as well
> as candidates, will be required to raise and spend
> funds as third parties; will be required to file
> financial reports with Elections Ontario as third
> parties. This is in addition to the Elections Act
> requirements for candidates and parties to file
> audited financial returns for the election period
> with Elections Ontario.
>
> Clearly the intent of Regulation 211 is to ban
> political parties, and gag candidates, from
> participating in the very significant and
> important public debate on MMP leading up
> to October 10th.  This is an extraordinary and
> possibly unconstitutional limit on free speech
> and public debate. In fact, broad and probing
> public debate is exactly what is needed in
> considering the proposed change to our electoral
> system.  The public has a right to know where
> the parties and candidates stand before they vote;
> and the parties and candidates have a
> responsibility to state where they stand.
>
> In view of the fact that the government and
> the official opposition voted together last
> spring to require a super majority of 60%
> for the referendum to pass, the public has
> a particular interest in knowing where
> these two parties stand.
>
> Subsequently, the government has worded the
> referendum question in a confusing way so
> that the only possible answer is "yes", as in "
> Yes I support this", or "Yes I support that".
> That's why opponents of MMP argue that
> there isn't a No campaign.   Literally true
> perhaps, but cynical, political double-speak
> nonetheless.
>
> In fact, concerns about a well-financed
> media campaign against MMP in the weeks
> leading up to October 10th are well founded.
> There are no spending limits for third parties
> campaigning in the referendum, and no real
> time disclosure of financial contributions to
> those campaigns.  Corporations and
> individuals opposed to electoral reform are
> likely to have very deep pockets, and there
> is nothing to prevent them from using the
> limitless contribution rule to purchase big
> media ads in the last weeks of the campaign.
> But the public won't know who financed the
> big ad campaigns until 6 months after the
> vote is over.
>
> Meanwhile, voting in the referendum is
> about to get very difficult for 650,000
> students, many of whom will be first-time
> voters or on campuses October 10th.
> Those living away from home will find it
> hard to get on the voters' list, and to get
> their referendum (and election) ballots,
> despite the hype about getting out the
> youth vote.  New requirements for voter
> identification put the onus on voters to
>   prove their eligibility to vote, while old
> requirements refusing students living on
> campus the right to vote on campus, leave
> students the option of going home to vote
> in advance polls or giving their proxy to
>   someone else.   Expect long line-ups at
> polls, as young and not-so-young voters
> try to get their ballots.
>
> So what is this really about?  Why so many
> obstacles?  The answer is that the Liberals
> (who claim to be neutral) and the Tories
> (who claim not to have a position) do not
> want to be seen as opposing a popular
> electoral reform that, if passed, could
> sharply reduce the number of Legislative
> seats each will have in future.
>
> The heart of the matter is that MMP will
> distribute Legislative seats on the more
> democratic basis of the popular vote that
> each party receives.   This will end the
> century-long practice of majority
> governments elected by a minority of voters.
>   It will open the door to coalition government
> and a more productive Legislature.  And,
> despite the 3% threshold, it means many more
> votes will be counted, opening the door to
> small parties with big ideas, such as the Green
> Party and the Communist Party, neither of
> which is currently represented.
>
> Polls show that the public supports electoral
>   reform in Ontario (and nationally).  Leading
> into the election, Ontario's Liberal
> government and Tory opposition want to
> appear to support democratic reform.  But
> their actions don't support their words.
>
> Facilitating democracy would mean rescinding
> Regulation 211 which gags candidates and
> parties, rescinding the super-majority required
> for the referendum to pass, capping third party
> spending and requiring real time disclosure so
> that contributors financing the referendum
> campaigns would be publicly known before
> the vote, requiring spending on lawn signs to
> be included in candidate and party election
> spending limits, introducing new rules to
> allow  young people to vote where they live
> on election day, and replacing new voting
> ID requirements with regular enumeration
> and voting cards.
>
> Post-script:  Elections Ontario has just
> effectively raised spending limits for
> candidates in the October 10th election,
> without even a whisper in the Legislature
> or the media.  Worth ten to twenty
> thousand dollars to Liberal and Tory
> candidates, election lawn signs purchased
> and planted on or before September 9th
> will be excluded as an election expense
> because the Writ period begins September
> 10.  In a 29-day election campaign, money
> counts.  Democracy, not so much.
>
> - 30 -
> ==============================
>
> _______________________________________________
> fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20070707/074880fd/attachment-0002.htm>