Violated UOIT/Durham College Students must act to Protect the Freedoms of Canadians

I have always been one to speak up for democratic justice and act to protect the sanctity of the rights and freedoms we have as Canadians. Thus I worked for a number of years to successfully bring ward voting to Oshawa personally presenting the case at a 21 day OMB hearing in the early 80’s.

This effort was important in bringing accountable and representative government to our city and the change was important in bringing vibrant progress to this city and a breed of politician whose electoral success was dependent upon serving the needs of people.

The first ward elections turfed half of the council out of office because ward elections require politicians to work to solve constituency problems and are accountable to voters to do this. General vote politicians got turfed out because they concentrated only on promoting their name since that was the name of the game in getting elected.

Today, I am addressing another injustice in Oshawa…the recent searches through UOIT/Durham College student housing to find leasing documents.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

1) Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. (Part 1, s8)

2) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. (Part 1, s24 (1))

3) Where, in proceedings under subsection 24 (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.(Part 1 s24 (2))

Despite Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the articles cited above, City officials with police and locksmith in tow entered student residences to find evidence to charge property owners with bylaw infractions. In so doing, they subjected students to unreasonable search and seizure contrary to protections guaranteed by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the basic Constitutional Law of the country.

The above sections of Canada's constitution clearly state that those whose basic Canadian rights were violated can seek recourse through the courts and in this article, I am counselling those students affected to do just that. I am counselling them to seek legal recourse to protect their rights and those of their fellow Canadians and am working to distribute this information to UOIT/Durham College students. Interested readers should read the Canadian Civil Liberties Association statements regarding citizens right's of privacy.

Students affected need simply file a complaint at the closest police station or to a police officer dispatched to their home that their rights of unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been violated by the City of Oshawa who took unreasonable actions against student privacy when in fact the action should have taken place against the property owners whom the city felt were skirting city bylaws and whom they wanted to hold to account.

Only the police can lay the charge, but they need a "complaint" in order to begin their investigation. Once the case has been investigated, a charge, if warranted, is laid against the offenders, and then the case is passed to the Crown Attorney to prosecute the case which is the first stage in the students getting retribution for the offence.

Offended students can seek this legal recourse without cost and legal awards may very well pay the bulk of their tuitions and other educational and housing expenses.

City politicians must learn that they cannot take advantage of the vulnerable…that they cannot simply run over ratepayers and citizens as they have done with the ward/general vote issue.

Had the politicians been properly advised, they would have known that Section 24 (2) of the charter prohibits any evidence seized through these unreasonable searches from being used in a court of law to prosecute infringements of city bylaws in any case and so the action by the city supported by the mayor and politicians was singularly and unbelievably ludicrous in this country, an affront to the rights and freedoms of Oshawa residents as delineated in the Charter, a public relations disaster, and no doubt made our city council once again the laughing stock of the nation.

The problem becomes even more outrageous when one realizes that the city itself was party to the infringements that they are now trying to reel in through renovation approvals they gave throughout the building process.

Affected students should review the following of many “Unreasonable Search and Seizure” Supreme Court Cases of a much more serious nature than having rental housing arrangements that were problematic for the city and indeed decide to take police and legal action against the unjustified invasion of their privacy.

1) A school vice principal detained and searched a student in presence of police officer and confiscated drugs…found to be illegal search and seizure

2) Police installed tracking device in car of suspected murderer…less intrusive search in car than in home but still found to be too intrusive..Supreme Court found evidence obtained through tracking device inadmissible in court

3) Investigation and Enforcement Officer of the Ministry of Environment compelled Inco employees to submit to questioning and to produce documents and other materials related to dumping of chemicals and other materials into waterway. The Supreme Court found the Enforcement Officer in an abuse of process as he had no statutory authority to compel Inco employees to submit to questioning or to produce documents related to the issue in question.

4) Police attended at a residence at 4:00 a.m. and executed a search warrant as part of an investigation for possession of a firearm and stolen property.
Six police officers entered the suspect's residence, two of whom had guns drawn. The firearm was subsequently found to be permitted and registered to the plaintiff. The court found that the police violated the plaintiff’s rights to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by s. 8 of the Charter as the circumstances did not justify a night search of a private dwelling, the degree of force used was unreasonable, the investigation of the firearm registration was careless, and police seized numerous items outside the scope of the search warrant. Compensatory damages in excess of $3000 were awarded to the complaintant.

We have cited a variety of search and seizure complaints all of which were upheld by the Supreme Court and all of which would seem to be far more serious than city bylaw infractions and the attempt by the city to find and seize housing rental documents in order to prosecute owners of rental units.

RCMP spokesmen described the whole search and seizure investigation process acceptable under Canada’s constitution at a recent international crime symposium.

Like our fight to retain ward voting for Oshawa which serves people and the city best, we have a responsibility to future generations to be ever vigilant to protect our liberties to ensure that our country remains the best and free-est in the world.

Bill Longworth's Request for an Audit on City Council's efforts to prepare voters for the plebiscite question

The following is Bill Longworth's presentation to Oshawa City Council's Finance and Administration Committee, Nov. 13, 2007

"I am here this morning to request City Council to direct Oshawa's Auditor General to perform an audit on City Hall’s communication, information, and education efforts to properly prepare Oshawa voters for the General Vote Plebiscite question.

In a democracy, the result of a vote is valid only if it comes from an informed electorate. Thus voter information about the plebiscite question prior to voting is the only input that could validate the plebiscite result.

In this country, we have access to information legislation protecting citizen's right to "know". In the face of this "right" protected by law, how could Oshawa politicians withhold important voter information about the general vote plebiscite--Why the question was asked when no disatisfaction with ward voting was ever expressed; What was meant by the term "general vote"; What the consequences of the general vote were to the city; Why were satisfactory attempts not made to ensure voters understood the question; Why did council refused to circulate information brochures to the public on the issue, etc., etc., etc.

We think it important to establish if Oshawa measured up to the communication standards expected by the Supreme Court of Canada, Elections Ontario, Elections Canada, and Access to Information Legislation in its awareness campaign leading up to the General Vote Plebiscite.



There seems to be a great disconnect between the expectations of these bodies and public pronouncements from the Mayor that the city had no responsibility to inform the public, to define the terms used in the plebiscite question, to provide a rationale for the change, to explain why the question was asked since the question was not in response to any expressed public concerns about ward voting and to explain the ramifications of the change to Oshawa ratepayers.

The mayor insisted it was the public's responsibility to fundraise and organize public awareness campaigns despite the fact that Section 39 of the Municipal Elections Act places significant legislative restraints in the Municipal Elections Act against such "third party" campaigns. Such groups have to register with the clerk, can fundraise only after such registration and continuing up to the voting day, and are subject to the same spending limits and reporting requirements as candidates

While the supreme court says voter information is a basic right in a democracy, and the mandate of Ontario’s election commissioner leading up to the Provincial Plebiscite on Electoral Reform was:

a) To insure that voters receive clear and impartial information about the referendum process;

b) To increase awareness of the referendum question; and,

c) To educate voters about their choices.

None of this was done in Oshawa…the Mayor said the city had no responsibility to communicate any of this to the voter. Councillor Joe Kolodzie said he’d never heard of a government body providing information about a plebiscite question.
Along with Mayor Gray and Councillor Kolodzie, Councillors Sholdra, Pidwerbecki, Parkes, Marimpietri, and Henry consistently voted against providing any information to the public. Obviously, they didn't respect Oshawa voters enough to provide the information.

Are city politicians heads in the sand so they simply overlooked their communication responsibilities to insure an informed voter…or did they purposely and systematically design a system to keep the voter in the dark until they were confronted with the complex and confusing question for the first time in the voting booth not knowing even what was meant by a general vote or its ramifications.

In either case, those who voted to deny voter information are unfit to govern.

At the very least, Oshawa politicians should have insured that voters were aware of what was meant by the general vote. A likely interpretation of the general vote to many voters is like a general election where everyone votes in constituencies for their area representative. And this is a perfectly legitimate interpretation for someone unfamiliar with political terms.

Interestingly, Oshawa’s Strategic Initiatives committee is presently establishing a committee to study how City Council can receive more direct communication from the upper levels of government. Isn’t it hypocritical for a local government that refuses to communicate important information about a plebiscite question to voters to get their considered and valid opinion itself to complain about what they consider to be inadequate communication from senior levels of government?

Council is also establishing an accountability and transparency committee as required under Bill 130.

Isn’t it hypocritical also for council to establish an accountability committee when it has voted to introduce the less accountable general vote system to the city. And isn’t it hypocritical for council to establish anything having to do with transparency when it hid the plebiscite question and details about its implications from the public as best they could.

And isn’t it hypocritical when council publishes brochures on topics like downtown ethnic restaurants, walking paths, and the 60 page Infosource document complete with politician’s mug shots delivered as a re-election document by Canada Post to everyone’s doorstep only to land in their recycling bucket and then be collected and disposed of at taxpayer expense when they refuse to provide information about major electoral reform being proposed for Oshawa?

And so I’m asking council to direct Oshawa’s Auditor General to perform an independent and thorough audit on Oshawa’s plebiscite process and City Council’s efforts to inform and educate the public about the referendum process and question to establish with some certainty the validity of the plebiscite result…to see how well Oshawa City Council measured up to the information expectations of both Canada’s Supreme Court and Elections Ontario.

In the survey, I’m asking that:

a) The auditor compare Oshawa’s communication efforts with other Canadian Federal, Provincial and Municipal administrations that wanted to secure a measure of public opinion through the plebiscite process,

b) The auditor commission a survey of Supreme Court cases having to do with the availability of voter information leading up to elections,

c) The auditor commission questionnaires and surveys to establish the degree of voter knowledge about the plebiscite questions, its meanings and ramifications leading up to the vote,

d) The auditor commission independent and random surveys of Oshawa voters to establish ratepayer’s knowledge of the change and their degree of satisfaction with its ramifications,

e) Survey questions should include:

i) if respondents agree that they were fully and sufficiently aware of the details and ramifications of what they were being asked on the plebiscite question,

ii) if respondents agree with the removal of local or neighborhood ward representation,

iii) if respondents agree that they could make knowledgeable choices of the merits of up to 100 general vote candidates for different offices on an election ballot,
iv) if respondents agree that members of local council should have constituencies twice the size of those of their provincial and federal government representatives

v) If respondents agree that governments have responsibility to inform the public of details and ramifications of questions they are being asked…or do they agree with mayor gray who says the city has no responsibility to inform and all of the efforts at communicating details of the city question should be left up to private citizens to fundraise and organize the information campaign

I would ask that any audits commissioned on this issue be completely independent of city council, that reports and study design be completed without input or approvals of city politicians, and that the results be widely distributed to the public."

And so what was the result of this suggestion? It was the expected. No action! The committee recommendation is to receive and file this request. They don't want any study of their undemocratic, irresponsible, and self-serving actions that cannot be supported on any rational grounds whatsoever. So I will be making the same request of the full council at their November 26th meeting.

I am predicting that the recalcitrant intractable and obstinate
seven---Mayor Gray and Councillors Sholdra, Pidwerbecki, Parkes, Mariempietri, Kolodzie, and Henry will vote against any objective study of the sense of their decision to move to the general vote while such a study will probably be favoured by Councillors Lutcyk, Neal, Cullen, and Nicholson.

So you ask why would I continue to knock my head against the wall when I can predict the result with a high degree of certainty?

I have to document and exhaust as many lines of potential positive action as I can and every roadblock I reach is mounting evidence of council's resistance towards any reasoned and responsible action. All of this will be useful as pleas for democracy escalate to higher external authorities with Canada's Supreme Court at the pinnacle.

Protecting the Ideals of Remembrance Day

I was struck this morning with the drama and emotions and ideas presented in a Toronto Star Article, How can we forget that sacrifice.

A WWII veteran recounts his war experience describing first hand observations of his war experiences...the sights, the sounds, the smells, the terror, and the raw emotions of war. And what it was like to see your comrades fall beside you.



Throughout our nation, we have to protect the spirit of what our heroes were trying to preserve for the world.

And maybe these efforts and sacrifices were all for nought in Oshawa.

Our soldiers were fighting to liberate the people and preserve their freedoms...and in the free world the meaningful vote that has power to determine political leadership is the icon of all of this.

The "real" and "meaningful" vote is the very essence of a democracy.

And on this Remembrance Day, not only should we remember our heroes, but we should remember what they were fighting for--the democratic vote that determines political destiny.



Unfortunately, with Oshawa City Council's return to the General Vote, we will lose all of this.

Oshawa's history with the General Vote demonstrates that politicians could not be defeated so voting was an exercise in futility. And like non-democratic systems everywhere, all political power became centralized to a few...and in Oshawa under the General Vote, all political power became centralized in a few of the richer areas leaving vast areas of the city unrepresented, disenfranchised...and forgotten!



The devastating and un-Canadian effects of the General Vote in Oshawa cited above is not speculation. It is Oshawa's history!

Let us not forget this plea, "If ye break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep though poppies grow in Flander's Fields."

Cullen Garden Miniatures Fiasco Raises Important Questions & Some Ethical If Not Legal Issues!

If you're not an Oshawa taxpayer, Oshawa City Council's purchase of the Cullen Garden Miniatures is a laugher. For those of us in Oshawa, it says something of City Council's ludicrous priorities and their ability to manage our city.

At this time when council is trying to keep our tax increases below 9%, the tax money they blew on the miniatures purchase seems like a spending rounder of a drunken sailor. It has every appearance of being an inside job.

Without any idea of what they would do with them, council voted to spend $234,000 of our hard earned tax dollars on the 182 unit collection of the Cullen Gardens miniature buildings. This comes out to an average price for the "dollhouse" buildings at $1285 each.

Of course to make the purchase far more palatable to the politicians, Oshawa City Council were given an appraised value of the collection at $678,000. So at $234,000 the price seems like a great bargain.

Only problem was, the appraisal was provided by a Cullen Gardens insider; the guy who designed, built, and managed the collection for Cullen Gardens.

I guess you could tell this Oshawa Council gang anything and they would believe it. Hopefully they are more astute shoppers with their own money.

But that's not the end of the story. They bought the stuff in a "private meeting" without any public knowledge or information about the potential purchase.

Remarkably they were prepared to spend another $120,000 for restoration and an additional $2,400,000 to develop a site to house them---Only trouble is: What were they going to do with them? Where they going to put them?

Council's first idea for a site was Lakeview Park where they would probably last a week before destruction, and then they suggested Camp Samac where the public has been barred for the last number of years due to liability concerns. Other sites considered were the Oshawa Valley Botanical Gardens and the Oshawa airport south field.

For a council that wants to limit its responsibility to do important things like informing the public about the plebiscite question on Oshawa's move to the general vote, why do they want to get into the business of developing tourist attractions. Even Whitby which had housed the miniatures for years refused to cough up the bait to buy the collection.

The whole charade stopped when council debated spending an additional $50,000 to hire a consultant to prepare a plan. Maybe they had in mind hiring the Cullen Gardens "insider" who had built and then appraised the things for valuation purposes.

The result? Oshawa will now try to sell the things.

I wonder how much they will get for them. I think it is doubtful that they would get $1000 for the Parkwood miniature which the insider said cost $22,000 to build and is now appraised at $17,600, requires $3,400 in repairs, and we are told has a replacement cost of $29,000. Amazingly, the $22,000 build cost is about the same build cost as my full size home in Beau Valley which in all probability was built about the same time.

Even if they are given away at a !00% loss of taxpayer's $234,000, this is still a blessing to Oshawa since, according to Mayor John Gray, who supported the miniatures purchase in the first place, $4,000,000 has to be carved out of the budget to keep our tax increase to 4%. Even throwing these miniatures in the dumpster will provide a savings of close to $3,000,000 of that in budgeted development costs. I guess Mayor Gray earlier thought that a 9% increase was justified if we could keep the Cullen Garden miniatures.

The real question? One city councillor, who from all press coverage took a leading role as an advocate of the purchase by the city admitted in the October 2nd meeting of Council's "Finance and Administration Committee", according to a Letter to the Editor published in the October 24th issue of Oshawa Express, that her company did consulting work on behalf of Cullen Gardens and the Cullen Family.

One might legitimately ask the question then whether this councillor had a conflict of interest as a protector, defender, custodian, and guardian of taxpayer's money and her role as an advocate and consultant for the Cullen Family.

If she indeed had a conflict in her role as city counsellor and with her business relationship with the Cullen family, did she declare it on occasions when the issue of the Cullen miniatures was discussed and excuse herself from all discussions on the purchase?

Press reports indicate that she took a leading role in the discussions.

If the councillor had a conflict of interest, what is the responsibility of other councillors and the city to take action to report on the situation and seek corrective action?

Something indeed may be rotten in the State of Denmark!

Hitler, Mussolini, & Mao had centralized control too!!!

Hitler, Mussolini, & Mao had centralized control over information flow. And so did a host of other despots throughout history.

They built their power by controlling what the people could think, say, and know.

They instituted this control first through a series of perks, privileges, and power they dispensed to government members and finally extended it to the citizenry as they instituted thought control throughout their nations.

We cannot allow this to happen in Oshawa!

But thought control and information restraints are already upon us.

First city council conspired together under the mayor's leadership to withhold plebiscite information from the people. Along with a gerrymandered and convoluted plebiscite question designed to manipulate plebiscite results, city council has returned the general vote to Oshawa.

While this system limits democracy and accountable politics in Oshawa, it does serve the politicians by assuring their council seats until their death or resignation.

It does nothing to serve the people or the city. If the general vote was better in serving the city, wouldn't it be used widely? Instead, Oshawa will be the largest city in the country using it without political parties which, with the exception of Vancouver, are not used in Canada.

In terms of the plebiscite, Mayor John Gray said it was not the city's responsibility to inform the citizens about details of the plebisicite question, why it was being asked, what the general vote meant for the people, why the general vote was better, or indeed even to insure that the people understood the question they were being asked by City Council. He said all of this was up to the citizens themselves. He said interested citizens had to fundraise and organize the communication plan themselves to inform the public. Does this sound sensible or democratic to you?

Under Mayor John Gray's leadership, city council refused citizen appeals to communicate plebiscite details to the public and when they refused to do so, turned down citizen requests for city funding to carry out the communication job that city council refused to do.

And now Mayor John Gray wants to muzzle city council. He wants to limit what city council members can say to the press and wants such communications to be submitted to his office for prior approval.

These "muzzles" on city politicians will effectively put "blinders" on the people.

But all of this is an attempt to further centralize all of the municipal political power in this city and keep the people in the dark.

So how is this much different than Hitler, Mussolini and Mao?

Request for Audit on City Council's Plebiscite Efforts

Mayor and Council,
c/o City Clerk,
Oshawa City Hall

Cc:

Hon. D. McGuinty, Premier of Ontario
Hon J. Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Members, Oshawa City Council
Local News Media

Canada’s Supreme Court says that information for voters is a basic right in a democracy, and Elections Ontario guarantees the democratic voting rights of all Ontarians.

John Hollins, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Ontario, states in regard to the recent Provincial Electoral Reform Plebiscite, “Our mandate, as defined by law, is to ensure that Ontario voters receive clear and impartial information about the referendum process, the date of the referendum, the referendum question and the content of the choices in the referendum,” and, he continues, “Our focus over the remaining days leading up to the referendum is continuing to increase awareness of the referendum question and educating voters about their choices.

With the priorities placed on an informed voting public by both the Supreme Court and by Elections Ontario, I am requesting that Oshawa’s Auditor General be directed by City Council to perform an audit on how well the City of Oshawa measured up to these ideals.

The auditor general should include a comparison of Oshawa’s efforts with those of other civic and provincial jurisdictions that included recent plebiscites on their election ballots.

In addition, the auditor should commission a survey of Supreme Court cases having to do with the requirement for voter information leading up to elections and the Supreme Court rulings in this regard.

Further an independent polling service should be commissioned to establish the knowledge Oshawa voters had of the plebiscite question prior to voting.

The poll should have enough random respondents in all parts of the city to reach the 95% confidence level and should ask Oshawa residents:

1) If they agree with the removal of local ward representatives elected by their communities;

2) If they agree that they could become knowledgeable enough of up to 100 candidates for election on a general vote ballot in order to make an informed choice;

3) Whether citizens were aware prior to voting that a plebiscite question was to appear on the election ballot;

4) If citizens agree that they were fully and sufficiently aware of the details and ramifications of the what they were asked on the plebiscite;

5) Whether informing the voters of details and ramifications of a city plebiscite is the responsibility of the city or of private citizens who must personally finance an information campaign; (This question is especially important because Mayor Gray says it’s not the city responsibility to inform the public…it’s up to the public themselves to fundraise and organize an information campaign, and Councillor Kolodzie who states he’s never heard of a government providing information about a plebiscite question!—this film clip is under preparation!)

6) Any other questions a professional polling organization deems useful given their expertise in the area of political and public opinion polling.

I would ask that any audits commissioned on this issue be completely independent of city council, that reports and study design be completed without input or approvals of city politicians, and the results be distributed widely to the public.

I understand that I must first propose this audit to a committee of council and await details of when I can make this presentation.

Bill Longworth
Chair and Founder
VOTES (Vote To Eliminate Self-serving Politicians)

Is the Vote a Joke in Oshawa?

Aren’t we fortunate in Canada to get a vote. We should take this privilege very seriously because it is something that the majority of people in the world do not have.

Many people in the world would give their life for a democratic vote to have a voice in their political destiny…and you only have to read the news to know that many are doing so daily to win the privilege. Still others are giving their lives to help bring the democratic vote to places that don’t have it.

The vote is a serious matter and we have to take the whole process seriously. No one expects you to vote randomly picking and choosing without the necessary background information on any vote in question.

Random voting would be considered irresponsible as would not being informed about the vote you were about to cast.

Candidates and parties (in the case of Provincial and Federal Elections) campaign by informing voters of their beliefs and viewpoints on the various issues of the day. Similarly, when governments seek public opinion by way of plebiscite, they have a responsibility to provide background information for voters.

The only valid vote is one cast by a knowledgeable voter. Everyone knows this. So if a government is seeking public opinion on an issue, they know they must provide background information on the issue and promote public dialogue, debate, and discussion.

If they're not serious about getting an honest measure of public opinion, then they don't provide the information. They try to keep the issue as quiet as possible. They may even gerrymander a complex question to skew results in a way they favour. All of this was the case in Oshawa when they had a plebiscite about electoral change on the ballot.

Because city hall was not interested in getting a valid plebiscite result, they didn't provide any information for voters.

Democracy depends upon an informed voter and cannot function without it. Indeed Canada’s Supreme Court says voter information is a basic right.

So what do you think of a government in Canada that refuses to provide information to the voter…a government that didn’t want their citizens to know anything about a question they were asking their citizens...a government that treats the vote as a joke. I’d suggest you’d think this was impossible in Canada.

But you haven’t heard of Oshawa, Ontario, Canada.

Oshawa’s local government wanted to seek citizen opinion about a potential change to its electoral system…but refused to provide any background information about the question. They said giving information to voters was not their responsibility. Indeed Oshawa's Mayor publicly stated this. Unbelieveable!

So if you were a council member and a motion was made “that staff be directed to prepare an information brochure on the pros and cons of the ward system vs central vote methods of election and that a copy of the brochure be circulated to each household in the City of Oshawa prior to any public meeting on this issue,” how would you vote on this question?

Does it seem reasonable that council would defeat such a reasonable motion?

Well you are not aware of Oshawa.

Watch this film clip and “Prepare to be Amazed!”

VOTES files complaint with Ontario Ombudsman

COMPLAINT FORM

All fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required
________________________________________
*First Name: Bill
*Last Name: Longworth
Rest of Contact information removed!


The Ombudsman Office hours of work are Monday to Friday, 9:00am-4:30pm (EST). Please indicate the best method and time to contact you for information:

Any time



1. What government body is your question or complaint about? (please identify by name)

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing---Insufficient oversight and supervision of irresponsible and undemocratic actions of Oshawa City Council



2. Who have you dealt with in this organization with respect to your complaint?

Hon. J. Gerretsen, Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Hon. D. McGuinty, Premier of the Province of Ontario



3. Please summarize the matter you are complaining about and include any relevant dates.

City of Oshawa's Bylaw to move to a general vote for the election of Municipal Council. In this city of 160,000 people, the impossible election ballot will contain upwards of 100 candidates and give members of council constituency sizes twice the size of our Provincial and Federal Government members.

Officials of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing have been quoted as saying that the maximum size of a municipality for a general vote is about 20,000—about the size of Oshawa’s present wards. At 160,000 population, Oshawa will be 8 times larger than the maximum general vote size suggested by the Ministry.

Changes to Provincial Legislation give municipalities authority to determine their own governance but insufficient provincial guidelines are provided to municipalities to insure adequate public communication including rationale for the proposed change, definitions of terms used in referendum questions, levels and quality of information to promote understanding and public debate to insure that citizens are adequately prepared for informed plebiscite voting.

An informed public is a requirement in a democracy and a basic right of voters according to both Canada's Supreme Court and Elections Ontario.

In Oshawa's case, city council introduced a plebiscite question in terms of Oshawa’s governance and then acted irresponsibly in providing no information, stimulating no public debate, and gave no rationale for the plebiscite.

In view of the fact that no dissatisfaction was ever expressed with the existent ward voting system, voters are entitled to know why the question was asked.

All of the suggestion and initiative for abandoning ward voting in favour of the general vote came from the politicians who then tried to keep it a non-issue.

They then designed a referendum question to skew the vote to the result they favoured.

The mayor publicly supported city council's “secret” strategy by saying city council had no responsibility to inform the public.

Because of the way the issue arose from council, the "secret" strategy they followed to catch voters "cold" in the voting booth and the convoluted question in which they were required to vote "NO" to preserve their existent system, we must assume that the change is self-serving to councillors...they want a system that serves them rather than the people they are supposed to serve.

Oshawa City Council’s actions are an affront to democracy and because of the severely flawed process I feel that the Provincial Government should step in and postpone Oshawa's moves to the general vote until after the next election and only then after calling another referendum after satisfying the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that they have a plan to sufficiently inform the public and promoted public debate about the change.

It does not make any sense whatsoever that Oshawa's local government that is supposed to be closest to the people has councillor constituency sizes twice the size of our Provincial and Federal government members.

There is no appeal process for Oshawa Council's action because their bylaw changing to the general vote includes retaining the present ward boundaries. These wards will not be used but have only been retained to avoid an appeal to the OMB.

Because wards are associated with ward voting in Ontario, and Oshawa is moving to the general vote, for all practical purposes they are effectively reducing all of our presently defined wards to one for voting purposes.

This practical change to one ward for voting purposes should be appealable to the OMB.



4. Summarize what steps you have taken to try and resolve your complaint including any grievance, appeals and/or requests for reconsideration you have submitted and what response you received.

1. Letters to city council committee in charge of the referendum strategy to provide information flyers to all households giving:

a) the rationale for change,
b) consequences of the change,
c) benefits to accrue from the change.

2. Addresses to council

a) problems with the change,
b) shortcomings of the referendum process,
c) requests for funds to have a brochure independently prepared and distributed to do the communication job that council refused to do.

3. Numerous letters to the Mayor and Council

4. Letters to the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Premier

5. A website oshawaspeaks.ca
5. If you have received a final decision on an appeal or request for review or reconsideration of your complaint, please indicate what the result was and why you feel this was unfair.

Council has approved a bylaw to move to a general vote despite considerable objection in the community and receiving inordinate amounts of public comment and letters that the plebiscite question was confusing, not understood, and that after many exclamations by voters who felt they had voted the wrong way.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is taking no apparent action.



6. Describe the result or outcome which you would like to see for the matter you are complaining about.

1. Oshawa's general vote bylaw declared invalid because of a severely and purposefully flawed process and an "engineered" plebiscite question tailored to skew results the way council wanted.

Oshawa city council should be told that if they feel the general vote is best for Oshawa that they should have another plebiscite question on the issue at the next election but only after they have satisfied the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that they have provided sufficient information and promoted public debate.

2. The Municipal Act revised to insure that sufficient communication is provided and debate is promoted prior to any plebiscite on municipal governance systems.


7. If you consider the matter urgent, please explain why.

City Council's self-serving manipulation of the people is fostering a loss of confidence in this council to the point where they will be rendered ineffective in providing adequate government for this city.

Oshawa will be the largest city in the country using the general vote without political parties and it will be undemocratic to have an impossible general vote ballot approaching 100 candidates.

I believe that those drafting legislative changes to the Municipal Act did not foresee the shortcomings of the changes in terms of the potential of allowing an irresponsible council to introduce governance changes to make local government far less accountable to the people, far less representative of the demographics of the city, and that a city the size of Oshawa at 160,000 would pick up on these shortcomings to reduce democracy and take city government further from the people that our Provincial and Federal Government Members.