Options Canada Pseudo Scandal

[Riverwind]

The G&M has a good editorial rebutting the so called options canada scandal.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...ment/Editorials

Key points:

Ottawa had given Option Canada only as much money as Quebec spent to fund the Conseil de la souveraineté du Québec, a separatist group that advertised heavily for the Yes side. And Quebec's government

And Quebec's government ... spent $100-million to promote secession by, for instance, commissioning studies on the impact of sovereignty.

But in October, 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Quebec's referendum law as unconstitutional because it unreasonably restricted freedom of speech and freedom of association.

If Mr. Duceppe is truly keen to revive scandals from the 1995 referendum, he should start with the worst of the bunch: the calculated rejection of thousands of No ballots.

I wonder if the French language media will bother to discuss these points.

[Bakunin]

I disagree with the article, first most of the studies about sovreignty is more likly to promote unity because of their result... Its not correct to say it was money to promote secession.

Second, the supreme court accepted the 5millions limit of spending for both side.

Third, the scandal is that an undercover organism with gomery's actor violated the law, however it is so hard for the die hard federalist, they are acting like if they agree with it and they agree to violate democracy to promote their goal wich is a total lack of respect IMO.

[Riverwind]

Second, the supreme court accepted the 5millions limit of spending for both side.

This statement is false. The supreme court of canada ruled in 1997 that:

The freedom of expression protected by s. 2( of the Charter must be interpreted broadly. Unless the expression is communicated in a manner that excludes the protection, such as violence, any activity or communication that conveys or attempts to convey meaning is covered by the guarantee of s. 2(. The impugned provisions at issue here infringe freedom of expression. The appellant wishes to express his opinions on the referendum question and convey meaning independently of the national committees by means of "regulated expenses". This is a form of political expression that is clearly protected by [the charter]

The french translation is:

La liberté d'expression protégée par l'al. 2b) de la Charte doit être interprétée largement. À moins que l'expression ne soit communiquée d'une manière qui exclut la protection, telle la violence, toute activité ou communication qui transmet ou tente de transmettre un message est comprise dans la garantie de l'al. 2b). En l'espèce, les dispositions contestées portent atteinte à la liberté d'expression. L'appelant souhaite exprimer ses opinions au sujet de la question référendaire et transmettre un message de façon indépendante des comités nationaux par le biais de «dépenses réglementées». Il s'agit d'un moyen d'expression politique qui est manifestement visé par l'al.

The entire judgment can be found here:

English: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/p...7scr3_0569.html

French: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/fr/p...7rcs3_0569.html

[Bakunin]

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20060109...25/CPACTUALITES

En vertu de la loi québécoise sur les consultations populaires, ces dépenses sont illégales puisqu'elles n'ont pas été comptabilisées. Les règles approuvées par la Cour suprême du Canada limitaient à 1,00 $ par électeur, soit environ 5 millions $, le financement de chaque camp.

Here are 2 articles that explain evrything it all and this is from the CUC website wich is anything but pro-sovreignist.

http://www.uni.ca/library/option_canada.html

http://www.uni.ca/library/option_canada2.html

The federal government secretly spent close to five million dollars in Quebec towards the 1995 referendum by way of an appointed organization called Option - Canada. This is according to documents of the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec obtained by Radio-Canada through the Freedom of Information Act.

For a period of six months, investigators appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec, have attempted to discover how these funds have been spent. However, they have had to abandon their inquiry, due to the judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada, which struck down part of the electoral law in Quebec...

The former administrators of Option-Canada have categorically refused to provide balance sheets, financial statements, expense books and bank accounts of the organization to Quebec investigators. They have never been able to establish how $4.8 million was spent. The minister of Heritage Canada, Sheila Copps, refuses to explain the allocation of these funds except to say that they had been used to defend the unity of the country.

I hate it when i see ppl that refuse to see the scandal, its a bit like the sponsorship scandal, maybe you don't like sovreignist but if you like democracy you should be worried about what was going on.

[August1991]

I hate it when i see ppl that refuse to see the scandal, its a bit like the sponsorship scandal, maybe you don't like sovreignist but if you like democracy you should be worried about what was going on.

Bakunin, here I will disagree with you, on two counts.

First, the Quebec government's referendum legislation requires that Yes and No committees be formed and then restricts the expenditures of these two committee's. This legislation is undemocratic, and in fact is unrealistic and unenforceable. In a future referendum, what will stop someone setting up a web site at great expense on a server abroad to promote either sovereignty or federalism? With satellite radio and TV, what stops someone from placing advertisements abroad but broadcast into Quebec? Ultimately, what stops someone from standing on a street corner and yelling.

I know that Harper and NCC lost a decision before the Supreme Court on just such an issue concerning third party spending during a federal election (oh, the irony) but the Court's decision is unworkable and anti-democratic.

I know too that in Quebec and on the English-Canadian Left, there is a perception that the rich and powerful can "buy" a public opinion. US politics offers evidence to the contrary. It is littered with rich men and women, from Ariane Huffington to Malcom Forbes to John Kerry, who have bought nothing. Advertising works, but not in the way the Left simplistically imagines.

In this, I'm inclined to agree with Lysiane Gagnon that the giant Anglo rally in October 1995 in Dominion Square probably helped the Yes vote more than the No vote.

Second, the perception in Quebec is that the national question is purely internal to Quebec. The idea of letting outsiders get involved is met with the same indignation as letting the US get involved in a Canadian debate about free trade. Nevertheless, I have learned from this forum that people in the rest of Canada have an interest in a Quebec referendum, and they feel that they have the right to get involved. Whatever the law says in Quebec, they will get involved.

The Option Canada scandal concerns fraud on one hand (like the sponsorship scandal) but it also involves an organization spending money to promote the Yes side in violation of Quebec's referendum law.

The perception of Option Canada is going to be very different in English Canada from what is in Quebec, particularly among sovereignists.

True democracy requires freedom of speech. That means people who set up a web site, stand on a corner and yell, distribute pamphlets door-to-door, knock on people's door and talk to them if they agree, or take out ads on billboards, on TV or in newspapers. A restriction on free speech is not true democracy.

[Riverwind]

I hate it when i see ppl that refuse to see the scandal, its a bit like the sponsorship scandal, maybe you don't like sovreignist but if you like democracy you should be worried about what was going on.

The Clarity Act is the law in this country yet the PQ/BQ has stated that they will ignore it. Why isn't that a scandal? If ignoring the Clarity Act is ok then why is it wrong to ignore a Quebec law that was later ruled unconstitutional?

Personally, I am appalled that seperatists quietly ignore the deliberate conspirasy to reject no votes yet obsess about over spending. From my perspective, manipulating ballot results is a much more serious affront to democracy.

[Guest eureka]

In this, I'm inclined to agree with Lysiane Gagnon that the giant Anglo rally in October 1995 in Dominion Square probably helped the Yes vote more than the No vote.

I agree completely with that post, August. The part I cite was an embarrassment and I wrote and said so when it was planned. It was about as effective as the Liberal advertising in the current campaign.

Sometimes, I wonder what all our leaders in most fields are made of!