Brief

to the

Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform

Submitted by

Communist Party of Canada (Ontario) 290A Danforth Avenue , ON M4K 1N6 Tel: 416-469-2446 Email: [email protected]

January 2007

Mr Chair, Members of the Assembly:

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss proposals for meaningful electoral reform in Ontario, and proportional representation in particular.

First, we would like to introduce ourselves: The CPC (Ontario) is a registered political party in Ontario. We became a registered party in 1975 after a mass province wide campaign to collect 10,000 signatures of registered voters, each of whom agreed that the CPC (Ontario) should be registered, should have the right to continue to participate in provincial elections and in the electoral life of the province.

In fact, the CPC has participated in the political life of this province since its birth in Guelph, Ontario in 1921. We are one of the oldest parties in Ontario, and in Canada.

Until 1972, parties were not required to register provincially or federally; they simply put forward their policies and candidates following the requirements for nomination of candidates, which at that time were a nomination deposit, nomination signatures, and a financial accounting following the campaign.

When provincial legislation was passed in the early 70s requiring political parties to register in order to participate in provincial election campaigns, the requirements for registration were that the party seeking registration either had to have members already elected to the Legislature; or had to collect the signatures of at least 10,000 qualified voters who supported that party’s registration.

These requirements were so onerous that it was evident to all that the legislation was actually intended to restrict the number of parties able to participate to those already represented in the Legislature. This self-serving legislation passed by three parties in the Legislature, aimed to exclude all others, and to tilt the playing field to such an extent that only they could participate in the political process and the political life of the province.

The CPC (Ontario) was the first party to pass this undemocratic and restrictive hurdle. Others later followed.

Our first recommendation to you is that undemocratic hurdles such as this, aimed to prevent new parties or small parties from registering and participating in the political life of the province should be eliminated.

The broad public support that the CPC (Ontario) received in 1975, in its campaign to register, was a very public demonstration of the public’s opposition to undemocratic restrictions prohibiting the participation of political parties. The message was that criticism of the status quo is desirable, that new policies and ideas are useful, and that democracy and the public interest is better served when there is a spectrum of political parties - in and out of the Legislature, which the public can hear from, join, and support financially, politically, and with their vote.

This public expression of discontent with the hurdles in the Legislation was echoed in the federal sphere, with several reports on electoral reform advocating the idea that electoral legislation should facilitate the birth of new political parties which have a role other than government or opposition, and in particular, the introduction of new policy ideas, sharp critique of government and opposition, and the involvement of the public in a broader spectrum of political life. Participating in the life of a broad spectrum of political parties during and between elections was seen to be an important part of democracy, and in the public interest.

In the 1993 Figueroa case, brought by the Communist Party of Canada in Figueroa vs the Attorney General, such hurdles at the federal level, including a 50 candidate threshold, $1,000 non-refundable candidate deposits, seizure of assets and dissolution of the party for failing to comply, were found to be unconstitutional; an abrogation of the right of all Canadians to freedom of speech and freedom of political association.

Despite two appeals and 10 years of litigation by the Attorney General, the substance of the lower court ruling in favour of the CPC was not overturned, though the CPC was denied the rights of a registered political party through 3 federal election campaigns to identify its candidates and policies to voters, to free-time and paid political broadcasts, to receive donations and to issue tax receipts, and to participate in public political debate and discourse.

While appealing the CPC’s court victories, the federal government to introduce new hurdles for new and small parties, in the form of a financial windfall for those parties currently in Parliament through the transfer of public money to political parties which have received more than 2% of the popular vote, at a rate of $1.75 per vote. Of the 15 federally registered parties, only the Green Party was finally able to pass the hurdle and receive public funding “grants” from Elections Canada (which it could forfeit at any time if its vote declines). Simultaneously, restrictions on contributions have made it virtually impossible for the small parties to raise sufficient funds to mount the kind of campaigns necessary to win an election.

Unable to access Elections Canada per vote funding, and prevented from accepting donations over $1,100 from individuals or public organizations such as trade unions, the small parties have been deliberately relegated to the political backwaters – not because of their ideas, but because of legislation drawn up and passed by those parties who have a direct and vital interest in preventing their competitors from seeing the light of day.

In response, several of the small parties including the CPC acted together in 2006 to challenge the 2% threshold; and once again the courts upheld the challenge as unconstitutional. Further, in an unusual legal move, the Attorney General has appealed the decision and asked the court to withhold the payments to the small parties which are entitled to as a result of the court decision, until the government’s appeal is heard. Or perhaps, based on the CPC’s experience, until all avenues of appeal are exhausted and new hurdles can be put in place by the losers – that is, those political parties who make the rules and pass the bills in the House.

Our second recommendation to you is to remove the current thresholds in the provincial legislation which require candidates and parties to receive 5% of the popular vote as a condition for financial re-imbursement of expenses and for payments which only those in the Legislature currently receive. We are opposed to any threshold which provides financial and other benefits to some parties, and excludes others.

Third, we recommend that you oppose any proposals to impose limits on contributions. Instead we recommend you propose strict and low limits on election spending, including spending between elections. This would help to level the electoral playing field, reducing paid advertising and the sense elections are won or lost with advertising spots (negative or positive), and returning the election process to community meetings and debates on policy issues with all of the candidates present and participating.

Fourth, we recommend that you oppose any proposals to introduce a provincial voter’s identity card. This will reduce electoral participation, and those most likely to be excluded are young voters, tenants, the homeless, and those who move frequently. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the CEO of Canada, has stated repeatedly that voter fraud is not a significant problem in Canada, and that every single case of voter fraud reported to Elections Canada has been followed up and found to be not fraudulent.

On the other hand, the federal Conservative Party was found to have “erred”, in under-reporting to Elections Canada half a million dollars in donations. Fraud?

An identity card will restrict eligible electors from excercizing their constitutionally protected franchise. It is not coincidental that the largest majority of those who will denied the right to vote with the introduction of an identity card, would not be casting a vote for the status quo, and are much more likely to support the opposition including the small parties.

Fifth, we recommend that public debates, which are the essence of public participation, must be accessible to all candidates nominated in a riding, and to all parties in leaders’ debates and party debates.

Sixth, we recommend that the Broadcast Act be amended to allow all political parties equal access to Free Time political broadcasts, and to paid political broadcasts at the lowest rate. This should include access to time during and between elections.

Seventh, we recommend that accountability can be best be addressed by legislating right to recall legislation that would allow the public to intervene between elections and to assert itself with a recall in the event of mass public opposition. This would be useful in addressing such seemingly common practices as a member crossing the floor.

Eighth, we recommend that a system of Mixed Member Proportional Representation should be introduced in Ontario this year.

We believe that you have already heard extensively from organizations and individuals appearing before you about the serious problems of the first-past-the- post system and the undemocratic results that accrue from elections governed by this system. We do not intend to repeat these arguments, but draw your attention to the facts laid out in the Dubious Democracy Report prepared by Fair Vote Canada, which is attached.

We urge you to adopt a remedy – Mixed member proportional – that will help correct the gaping inequities in the current system; strengthen parliamentary democracy in Ontario; and increase and strengthen public participation in the political life of the province, including the election of greater numbers of women, youth, Aboriginal Peoples and visible minorities.

The cynicism about political life and elections is growing as a result of widespread public perception that voting does not change much, that the parties in office are not significantly different and not significantly accountable, that the choices are narrow, and that voting for a small party or a new party is more likely to result in a lost vote than in any real change.

Most Canadians, including those living in Ontario, share the view that politics is a dirty business, that the real power lies outside the legislatures, in the corporate offices and outside the country. The evidence for this is that after the election, the political agendas of those in the legislature tend to blur and merge, as in the case of Public Private Partnerships and the privatization of Ontario hospitals and health care, for example.

The differences between the Tories and the Liberals on P3s in 2003 have evaporated in 2007.

The public is looking for other voices and other political vehicles, including small parties and new parties, to hold the parties in the Legislature to account, on important matters of public policy. The public is also looking for new ideas, which those currently in office are often unwilling to generate, and with only three parties in the Ontario Legislature feel no compelling pressure to change.

When Communists have been elected in the past, in the Ontario legislature, and in the House of Commons, their presence has altered politics in Ontario, and in Canada. The fight for unemployment insurance, for the baby bonus, for socialized medicine (medicare) and for public pensions led directly to the election of Communists and others, who helped lead the struggles for those historic and vital benefits enjoyed by all of us today.

Communists have always played the role of innovators in policy development, and conscience for Canada. Our ideas have never been small. Nor have the efforts to prevent our ideas from being heard – or voted for – been small.

We are not the only party with ideas. Small parties, including the CCF and the NDP at one time, the Greens today, and CAP, the Marxist Leninists and other small parties at the federal and provincial levels, also play an important role in bringing new ideas forward, and in challenging existing ideas and encouraging public debate about public policy.

MMP would ensure that all ideas are heard, and debated, and that the public would have the authority and the opportunity to ensure that the ideas advocated by the small parties would be heard and debated – in and out of the Legislature.

No vote would be wasted.

For those concerned that racist or fascist parties would be elected as a result of MMP, there are criminal laws that apply and should be vigorously applied in the event.

For those who have raised the issue of stability of government, the current period of great volatility and minority government is the real situation under the first past the post system.

Stability or instability has more to do with the policies and directions taken by government, and public dissatisfaction with these policies and cynicism about politics and government per se, than with any government based on MMP.

MMP would ensure that women, minorities, Aboriginal peoples, people of Colour, would have a much better chance of being elected. Almost every party and politician have stated that this outcome would be of benefit to the whole country, and would strengthen democracy, governance, and equality in Ontario, and in Canada. For this reason alone, MMP should be embraced.

Concerning the subject of thresholds, that may be being considered in terms of a minimum level of votes which would be required before a party could elect any members, we are strongly of the opinion that if any threshold is put in place it will negate the democratization that the public seeks with proportional representation.

The 2% threshold for party financing put in place federally, and recently struck down by the courts, eliminated every small party except the Green Party which fought very hard to pass the 2% threshold initially, and could fall below it at any election. This is what happened to the Conservative Party in 1993. No party is immune to the ebb and flow of support that comes with Canadian elections.

Ontarians have indicated that they want change. Thresholds would prevent change, and would effectively maintain the status quo.

We strongly recommend that you reject thresholds of any sort that all have the effect of shutting out the small parties, while continuing to rob electors of their right to vote for the party of their choice, whether their choice has the support of 2% or 10% of voters. Every vote must count.

In conclusion, we wish to express our opposition to the Legislature’s decision to require a double majority support in the October 2007 referendum. This is a new hurdle, which the BC experience shows could very well be enough to stop proportional representation despite the fact that a majority of electors want it and will vote for it.

The Legislature should revoke this decision, and leave it to the democratic impulse of the electorate to decide.

Respectfully submitted,

Elizabeth Rowley, Leader CPC (Ontario)