Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:

This is the first time our Party is addressing a Royal Commission, a change in our policy.

The issue of democracy, as you yourself, Mr. Chairman, acknowledge in your Opening Remarks at the first public hearing of the Royal Commission held in Ottawa on March 12th, has gripped the imagination of people on the world scale. Within this situation, the developments would seem to show that the people are putting everyone to the test. It is not necessary to extensively explain here what happened to the regimes in Eastern Europe which claimed to be really democratic, or to explain that those governments which have taken their place are already under pressure from the people of those countries to put their words into deeds.

As Mr. Chairman mentions in his Opening Remarks "...even in Canada... there are always new pressures emerging on our democratic system." To our way of thinking, one need not look far to see the examples of the dissatisfaction of the people of Canada with the way things stand. Recently, the elections in Ontario were held. It is widely acknowledged that the election of the majority NDP government was an expression of the dissatisfaction of the people of Ontario with the high-handedness of the prior Liberal administration which did not represent the interests and aspirations of the people of Ontario. This was true to the extent that the former Premier of Ontario, Mr. David Peterson, himself lost his seat in London.

However, the example of this Royal Commission, convoked because of the large number of complaints about the manner in which the elections have been conducted in recent years, especially the 1988 election, shows that democracy is under scrutiny.

It has been pointed out that "the Commission is of the view that fundamental changes to Canada's system of direct election by simple majority on a single ballot does not fall within the ambit of its mandate." However, it would be negligent on our part if we did not connect the electoral process, which does fall within the mandate of the Commission, and the aim of the election, that is, to guarantee a democratic system, and therefore take the existence of this Commission to mean that the very democratic system itself is being scrutinized.

This, Mr. Chairman, is the case, even though this Commission maintains that the system of democracy itself does not fall within its mandate. We cannot forget the adage which points out that deeds speak louder than words. This is all the more true when we speak about democracy which is not merely an abstraction or a general phrase, but represents a definite political form which favours certain interests and goes against others.

The example of Eastern Europe could not illustrate this point more clearly. Democracy is a feature of society which is divided into classes and, as is generally known, conflicting interests constitute the very essence of this political form, and characterize any democracy. The fact that private ownership has been restored as the main form of ownership of property in the countries of Eastern Europe tells us a lot about the kind of democracy which has been re-established in those countries. Whatever the case may be, it is certain that the former regimes did not avail the people of the possibilities to participate in governing their own affairs. The people were disenfranchised, notwithstanding the form of elections which existed in the various countries, or the number of political parties represented in the elections, or lack thereof. Similarly, today, under the new governments which have taken over power, if the people do not see the satisfaction of their demands for which they supported the coming to power of the new governments, then it does not matter what electoral procedures are put in place, the situation will not change for the peoples of those countries. This, really, is the issue. The aim of democracy cannot be reduced to the form which is used to bring it into being. The point we wish to underscore here is that discussion on the electoral form, without discussing the aim which that form seeks to bring about, is a futile exercise. Such a discussion will not fulfil the expectations of the many who may believe that changes and reforms in the Electoral Act will ensure their participation in the electoral process. Neither will such a discussion ensure their participation in the process of having their say in the decision-making on the matters which concern them.

Mr. Chairman, you must admit that a society such as ours is based on large-scale production in which tens of thousands of people work together to produce all the material blessings which we all enjoy. Is it not a pity that a society which entrusts these tens of thousands of working people with the production of material blessings, reduces their participation in the process of governing to one of exercising their right to vote?

Today, while almost all citizens have the right to vote, they are disenfranchised in a number of ways. Unless the Royal Commission addresses itself to this issue, then the words of Mr. Chairman in his introductory remarks, that "We intend to develop a blueprint for the electoral law that will effectively meet the needs of Canadians well into the next century, reinforce their confidence in our democratic process and their members of parliament and reflect their values and democratic institutions", will remain on paper only. This is because in order to inspire confidence, people must participate directly themselves. Generally speaking, it can be said that people will defend only those decisions -- which they participated in making. If they continue to remain on the outside of the decision-making process, then they will continue to be disillusioned by the decision-making process and lack confidence in the system of government, as is the case today. This is all the more true as time passes, especially after the Meech Lake Constitutional crisis and the decision to send Canada?s armed forces to the Persian Gulf, etc.

Power in a democracy is exercised through the elected organs, as well as directly. Under our system, the only direct participation a person has in governing, unless they belong to an elected political party, is to participate in elections. How can this be the case and be found to be acceptable? A democracy presumes the equality of all citizens. In the election, therefore, there must be at the very least, equality of opportunity for all citizens to elect and be elected.

Thus, it is our contention that, when we are inquiring into and reporting on "the appropriate principles and process that should govern the election of members of the House of Commons and the financing of political parties and of candidate campaigns..." the issue of equality before the law -- that is, the Electoral Law -- is of paramount importance.

For there to be equality, then, the rights and duties of all citizens must be respected in the electoral process which means that the responsibility of the state is to ensure the broad participation of the people in the process. If the elections are to be seen as meaningful, then this must be the case. This brings us to the crux of our argument, which is that as long as the state uses public funds to finance some and not everybody, and some more than others, then this cannot be the case.

Various issues have been raised in the course of these hearings relating to the Broadcast Act or to third party financing and Advocacy Groups. There are differing opinions as to the changes which should be made in the Electoral Law regarding these questions. Various changes and modifications are also proposed as regards the amount of financing which should be allowed to various political parties and so on. It is interesting that none of the opinions put forward thus far has focused on the basic contradiction in the positions advanced, the basic flaw in the Electoral Law as it now stands. This is, of course, that as long as the state uses public funds to finance some and not everybody, and some more than others, then this basic flaw, the inherent inequality within the system, cannot be corrected.

Within our present system many things are said and justified which cannot in fact be justified. Besides other things, the political parties which present themselves for elections are divided into "major parties" and "minor parties". This division is based on whether or not they have been elected in the past or have members who constitute a majority in the parliament. "Minor parties" are also known as "fringe parties", or parties on the margin of the society. Funding is then said to be provided on the basis of "merit", which is supposed to be synonymous with those who are "serious", etc.

In actual fact, all of this amounts to a series of definitions with which some may agree and some may disagree. We are, of course, amongst those who disagree, and amongst those who got discriminated against but this is not the only issue here. The net result is that the law of equality gets violated in concrete terms. Therefore the fact remains that the elections, being an event which falls within the political domain, are the preserve of parties defined as "major parties."

However, let us proceed, Mr. Chairman, with our main arguments. The fact that there are many political parties in a country such as Canada, which is comprised of varied economic and financial interests, which are therefore reflected in political terms as well, is only normal. But, by their very nature, these political parties represent and advocate specific policies and interests. They are not, therefore, representative of the overall interest of the society, of the collective interest. They can truthfully be said to be special interest groups, in much the same way as the advocacy groups are special interest groups. Whether some are political in orientation and some are social, or economic, or environmental, etc., whether they participate in the political arena at the time of elections or not, there is no substantive difference between them. The question arises as to why public funds should be used to finance special interest groups, no matter what their persuasion. Special interest groups, including in the political domain that is, the political parties - should be financed by their own members, supporters and friends, not by the public purse. Under the present system, party financing means the financing of a group of individuals who have a definite stake in political and economic life. Why should state funds be used to finance such a group or many such groups?

Far from it, the public funds should be used to finance the selection of candidates, the election of candidates and the recall of elected members who do not perform their duty according to their mandate.

What do we mean by this? Our concern, which we believe is also the concern of an ever-larger number of Canadians, is to ensure the broad participation of the people of this country in debating the problems of an economic and political nature, of a military, cultural, social and environmental nature. Most important of all, it is to ensure their participation in the decision-making process. As long as the people are represented politically by political parties and members of political parties which, by definition, represent special interests, and as long as their participation in the decision-making process in the country is limited to casting one vote every 4-5 years, the people will remain marginal to the electoral process and dissatisfied. How should the people participate in the debate and decision-making under the present system?

The rights and freedoms of the people must not merely have a formal character according to which, just because they are proclaimed as being the same for everyone, makes them so. The responsibility of the Electoral Act must be to make them so, at least in so far as participation in the electoral process goes.

Democracy, Mr. Chairman, presumes that the majority rules and that the minority submits to the majority. We accept the democratic principle which the system in Canada is said to represent -- that the minority must submit to the majority and that the majority rules, politically speaking. However, as long as you have political parties (which by definition represent special interests in the economic and political field) presenting themselves in the election and being elected to form the governments, you have a system whereby the majority must in fact submit to the minority represented by those political parties. This is not acceptable and it is becoming more and more discredited with each passing day.

The system whereby the minority is provided with all the facilities and possibilities, while nothing is done for the majority is therefore also not acceptable and has to be discarded altogether.

It is also said, Mr. Chairman, that through elections the will of the people is expressed. After an election, we often hear the expression that the people have spoken, or that the government has been given a mandate, or a new mandate, as the case may be. But what mechanism exists for the people to give a true mandate? If we are not to question the system of one ballot and simple majority, then at least we should look at the mechanisms which exist for this vote to be exercised because, unless the people participate in this electoral process, how can they express their views about the running of the society? How can they have a clear conscience that they have exercised their vote wisely or that they have any control over the vote they exercise?

As long as the people are marginalized, isolated from the world of politics, from the world of governing their own country, this will continue to be the case. The majority of the people are free to work and toil, but the extent to which they can participate in the political process, the decision-making regarding the policies which the governments adopt concerning economic, social, political, military, cultural and environmental concerns, is nil.

Thus, it is our contention, Mr. Chairman, that the main concern of the Electoral Act must be to create the possibilities for the individuals in society to develop their ability and enjoy all the constitutional rights and freedoms. The system of elections must therefore guarantee that restrictions are not imposed by law which hinder the participation of the people in the electoral process.

The issue of the selection of candidates is of such importance that, without it, elections are rendered meaningless. The principle of participating in the process of selecting candidates is based on the principle that people will defend the decisions of their elected representatives because they have selected them. They have selected them on the basis of merit -- those who together with them participate in formulating policies and are pledged to follow them. Furthermore, without the right of recall after the election -- that is, the right to recall the elected members who betray their mandate, who do not represent the will of those who selected and then elected them, then the people are also deprived of any power over their elected representatives, of any means to enforce their mandate.

Thus, Mr. Chairman, as long as the Electoral Act does not provide the mechanisms for the people to participate in the selection of candidates, the election of candidates and the right to recall those who do not implement their mandate, the people will remain disenfranchised. These concepts are very important. They are fundamental to every society calling itself democratic, if, indeed, words are to mean anything at all.

It is therefore our opinion that the state should finance no one. On the contrary, it should finance the process of selection of candidates so that all those people, whosoever wishes to present himself or herself as a candidate for election, first presents himself or herself for selection and the state must fund the entire process. This means that it would be the responsibility of constituency committees, established under the control of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, to ensure that the selection process is carried out properly. These constituency committees would be responsible for making information about every candidate who offers himself or herself for selection, available to everyone in the constituency. It would be responsible for organizing debates and all-candidates meetings in which every candidate for selection is free to participate. Should the workers in a factory or other place of work wish to select someone from their own ranks to represent them in the election, this too must be facilitated. It must be emphasized that everyone would be free to participate in this process. Those who are chosen by their own political parties would also present themselves, at this stage in the electoral process, for selection. Then, the people of that constituency must in the end select no more than 3 people to run as candidates in the election.

The point to emphasize here is that all the candidates chosen would be known quantities to the people of that constituency. No one could be parachuted in or dropped from the skies, representing special interests which the members of that constituency did not approve of first. This is because every opportunity would be afforded the people of that constituency to select people they know and trust and who they would entrust to represent them. Those who are nominated as candidates may or may not be members of a political party, depending on the choice of the constituents of that riding. One thing however, is for sure: every member of a political party would have to win the confidence of the constituents, debate the issues along with them, listen to their views, and so on, which is not the case today. The members of the political parties would be on an equal footing with everyone else who seeks to present himself or herself for election. Whether a candidate has money or not, whether he agrees or disagrees with the views of particular political parties, no matter which, he has an equal opportunity to present himself or herself for election. Only if the process of selection is financed through public funds, and no public funds are made available to special interest groups, including the political parties, can this become a reality.

In this manner, Mr. Chairman, the issues concerning the news media are also sorted out. The news media will also have to report on the developments within each riding -- which people are presenting themselves, what information has been made available about them by the constituency organizations, what their views are, as well as those of the electors, and so on. After three candidates are selected, then the election campaign of the three is also financed by the constituency committees on the basis of public funds. Finally, the election takes place and the constituency committees must continue their function of ensuring that the members of the constituency can exercise their right to call their elected member to account and recall the member should he or she, in the opinion of the voters, not implement the mandate with which he/she was entrusted.

The government, then, would be formed by members of the Parliament who have been entrusted to govern the country according to the will of the majority, with the Prime Minister and other Ministers elected by them, from amongst their midst.

This, Mr. Chairman, constitutes our initial views on this very important issue -- providing a means through which the present system of one ballot-simple majority can effectively ensure the participation of the masses of the working people in the political affairs of Canada. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we would like to stress that while these constitute initial views in brief, we intend to further develop these views, using the various means at our disposal. Thank you for your attention.