(The following article is from the August 1-31, 2007 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St. Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)
By Elizabeth Rowley, Leader, Communist Party of Canada (Ontario)
After July 10th, you won't be able to read the views of any political party, candidate or incumbent on the subject of Ontario's October 10 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 10. 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 10 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 six 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. 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 10 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 9 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.