|
|
|
|
||
|
LIBERALS CONTINUE ATTACK ON ELECTORAL RIGHTS
PV Ontario Bureau
(This article is from the March 16-31/2000 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, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)
WHILE CANADIANS WERE watching Paul Martin's budget, the federal Liberals slipped through Bill C-2, the new Canada Elections Act, by limiting debate and finally invoking closure. The "housekeeping" bill was pushed through on budget day, Feb. 28, by a vote of 148 to 99. Of the four opposition parties, only the Tories voted with the government.
Bloc Quebecois MP Stephane Bergeron charged in the House that the government's decision to limit debate had gagged the opposition parties.
Reform MP Ted White, who has backed the Communist Party's Charter challenge to sections of the Act, demanded to know why the government had ignored an Ontario court decision striking down significant sections of the Act. White referred to Government House Leader Don Boudria's comments that the government was appealing that ruling on the 50-candidate rule because the current electoral system "works just swell the way it is."
The NDP parliamentary caucus also opposed C-2, but closure was invoked on third reading before they could debate the bill.
Just days later, on March 2 and 3, the federal government appeared in Ontario Appeals Court to try to overturn the March 1999 decision by Madame Justice Molloy, who found that the Canada Elections Act infringes on the rights to freedom of expression and association. Molloy altered the 50-candidate threshold to instead require parties to run only two candidates in a federal election to be registered.
Molloy also struck down the rule that bars parties with less than 50 candidates from identifying their candidates' affiliation on the ballot. She eliminated the requirement that candidates who receive less than 15% of the vote forfeit half of their $1,000 deposit. Most significantly, Molloy threw out sections of the Act which required the seizure of assets of any party de-registered for failing to nominate 50 candidates.
The new Election Act, however, retains the 50-candidate rule. While it modifies the asset seizure provisions, by giving parties one more election to re-register, it retains the essence of this threat.
One of the most revealing parts of the Appeal hearing concerned the definition of a political party and its rights.
The federal Attorney-General argued that the lynch pin was the ability of a party to form either the government or the official opposition. Parliament's intention, it was argued, was to create an electoral system that would "channel a clear and coherent political will" into government and opposition benches. According to the A-G, too many parties would prevent the emergence of such a "clear and coherent political will."
This narrow interpretation completely ignores the important role played by small parties, which the Lortie Commission on Electoral Reform found to be vital to the democratic process.
Peter Rosenthal, lawyer for the CPC, argued that "effective representation is representation of the rights of voters to express their views by voting for a candidate - whether it's a candidate who will be in government, in opposition, who will be a lone candidate, or a candidate who is not elected. It is the representation of the voter's desires.
"The notion of democracy is to allow voters to decide the rise and fall of a party, or a candidate... The only function of the 50-candidate threshold is to give the larger parties a competitive advantage. The idea of a `coherent political will' - which is a new argument by the Attorney-General before the court today - is fatuous," said Rosenthal.
The A-G's attorneys said the 50-candidate threshold was necessary to prevent "frivolous" and "inconsequential" parties from cluttering the electoral arena, and from confusing voters.
Rosenthal ridiculed this argument, citing Molloy's references to the Natural Law Party, whose policy was based on levitation, which campaigned in most federal ridings, and received government funding for the expenses of some candidates.
The Communist Party, on the other hand, with a history spanning more than seven decades, and a very substantial political position, was de-registered in 1993, had its assets seized, and its candidates' affiliation scrubbed from the ballot.
At the end of the two-day hearing, Justices Doherty, Laskin and Moldaver reserved their decision. While the outcome is uncertain, they might well uphold the lower court decision regarding the ballot identification of party-affiliated candidates, but not allow parties with less than 50 candidates to issue tax credit receipts.
The justices seemed caught with the idea that scores, or even hundreds of new parties, could form, and place a huge financial burden on the public treasury with their tax receipts. Rosenthal argued that this was extremely unlikely, given that small parties were by definition small, but the justices seemed unmoved.
CPC leader Miguel Figueroa said this case represents "a crucial battle in a larger war to defend and extend democratic rights for all Canadians."
Figueroa noted that, "at the behest of Big business, pro-corporate governments at every level are moving to curtail democratic expression, to limit the functions and powers of parliament, legislatures and other elected bodies, and to suppress open dissent among the people.
"We greatly appreciate the support which we have received from many quarters, and across the political spectrum. In our view, the fight for democracy is an essential part of the struggle against corporate rule, and for social advance and socialism. We are determined to carry this struggle forward through all available means at our disposal."
Green Party of Canada leader Joan Russow also attended the hearings and gave her party's support to the CPC in its effort to protect the democratic rights of citizens.
"The appealing by the government of Canada of this landmark decision is a blatant attempt to prevent small parties and their supporters from effectively participating in the electoral process," Russow said.
Richard Warman, a lawyer and Green Party spokesperson who attended the hearings, tied this case to the fight for broader electoral reforms, especially proportional representation. He called for a broad coalition of smaller parties to launch a Charter challenge to the current "first-past-the-post" system.
Anna DiCarlo, Secretary for the Marxist-Leninist Party which intervened in the original court case, said that "the right of Canadians to participate in government has really come to the fore... It's very concerning for all Canadians that Bill C-2 has now been passed, entrenching an electoral system that gives privileges to political parties that are the wealthiest and have the most power."
All indicated their intentions to intervene if the case goes forward to the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
