Brief to the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform Submitted by Communist Party of Canada (Ontario) 290A Danforth Avenue Toronto, 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.