The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada welcomes the opportunity to present its opinions on the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer following the 38th General Election.

The recommendations in Completing the Cycle of Electoral Reforms are placed within the context of the "evolution of a fully modern, effective, independent and objective structure for the conduct of elections," an evolution which the Chief Electoral Officer states began in 1920 with the creation of his office and the end of government-delivered elections. Key among these recommendations is the nonpartisan appointment of returning officers and their integration into a centralized office under the direction of the Chief Electoral Officer. Nobody can object to the creation of a "fully modern, effective, independent and objective structure for the conduct of elections," and in this regard, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada reiterates its support for the long-overdue end to the partisan appointment of returning officers.

However, we are concerned that in the name of efficiency, important political considerations are not being given the deliberation they require. The most important consideration, in our opinion, is whether or not reforms contribute to enhancing the participation of the citizens of Canada in the political and electoral process and to the creation of a modern process which recognizes the right of all members of the polity to elect and to be elected and provides enabling legislation for these rights to be exercised. In this regard, we express some concern about the conception presented in the introduction to the Chief Electoral Officer's report, according to which "a fully modern, effective, independent and objective structure for the conduct of elections will facilitate the development and implementation of reforms to that system." Such a conception seems to belittle, if not undermine, the crucial role of Parliament in the development of political and electoral reforms.

It is a fact that Parliament's attempts to bring about much needed substantive reforms to Canada's electoral process are in a state of paralysis, incoherence and plain nuttiness. An illustrative example of this is the proceedings of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs's Committee on Electoral Reform during the 38th Session of Parliament when it flew around the world examining various systems of proportional representation when its directive was to propose a process through which Canadians would be consulted about electoral reform. Another example is the failure of the 38th Parliament to review the party registration legislation in light of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General) within the two-year time frame of the sunset clause in that legislation. While Parliament and its committees were debating concerns about whether or not the impact of the Figueroa ruling would touch upon other aspects of Canada Elections Act, another Charter Challenge to the Act's threshold provisions on party financing has been launched and will be heard on June 21, 2006 and could create another situation where the Court will force a decision on Parliament.

In this respect, one of the key problems we see and one which we believe will be exacerbated by some of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, is the incoherence which comes from introducing amendments to the Canada Elections Act without addressing its key flaw, the absence of legislation enabling all members of the polity to exercise the right to elect and be elected. The problem, stated simply, is that the Canada Elections Act is primarily legislation aimed at enabling registered political parties to function as the primary organizations through which elections are conducted and in recent years the prime focus of this has related to their financing. This is coming into increasing contradiction with the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and no amount of tinkering with the provisions of the Act which accord privileges to registered political parties and more to some than others is going to eliminate this key flaw. In this light, we would like to present our views on some of the specific recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer.

1.1 An Advance Administrative Confirmation Process

The proposal that the nomination confirmation process be simplified and be possible to complete before the drop of a writ is a measure which we think will add further incoherence to the electoral process and further shrink the limited space now available for Canadians to participate in the electoral process.

At this time, political parties are recognized as the primary political organizations through which Canadians participate in elections, including through the selection of candidates. The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada has long stood for the renovation of the candidate selection process, arguing that the selection of candidates should be placed in the hands of all electors and taken out of the hands of political parties. Given that less than 2 per cent of Canadians participate in political parties, the system is deeply flawed, but the fact remains that the party riding association nomination contests are one place where Canadians do attempt to involve themselves, notwithstanding all the related problems, such as "instant memberships" and candidates imposed by party leaders.

The recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer makes no reference to riding association nomination contests and only refers to the requirement for the party leader's endorsement where applicable. This seems to open the door to the danger of a further concentration of power over candidatures in the hands of the party upper echelon. This is a very sore point among many Canadians and we have seen the increasing intervention of party leaders over the wishes of local riding association members, as in the most recent case in Etobicoke-Lakeshore with Michael Ignatieff.

The Chief Electoral Officer suggests that the requirement for 100 nomination signatures could be a violation the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, quoting on page 8 of his report from the Supreme Court Ruling in Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General). He points out that the requirement for nomination signatures, present in the first permanent federal electoral law in 1874 was meant to show that "prospective candidates can demonstrate that they have a degree of popular support for their candidature" and based on the "perceived need to have elections contested only by candidates who show that they represent the political preferences of a significant number of voters." This highlights, in our opinion, the need for reforms that would lead to a candidate selection process which enables all Canadians to participate so that the final slate of candidates could have the required legitimacy. Candidate selection is at the heart of an electoral process, since it follows that without selection the conception of a free election is negated. This flaw in the electoral process is manifest when candidates are parachuted into ridings.

The nomination process in the initial period of the Canadian system was an open one in which the Sheriff would hold open nominations at public gatherings. It was basically by oral nomination and show of hands. This was a nomination process that was in keeping with a limited franchise including only white men of property. There were all kinds of complaints by the vying parties, such as the nomination meetings being held in a place where all parties did not know about it, or the presiding officer pretending that he could only hear the oral nomination for one candidate and not another, etc. But the process was suited to the concept of democracy, under a regime when only men of property were considered as having a stake in the political life of the country. The Liberals, who had suffered from this process because the apparatus was dominated by the Conservative appointments, substituted this open nomination process with nomination by a petition containing 25 signatures and the deposit fee of $50 was established. At that time, we are talking about very small constituencies. For example, in Ontario, the average size of the electorate was 4,100. In Quebec, it was 3,300. To require 25 nominators in Ontario, therefore, required about 0.6 per cent of the electors to nominate.

The Chief Electoral Officer states in the introduction to his report that "Since 1920, Canada has seen the evolution of many important aspects of the electoral process, particularly in the emergence of the concepts of registered political parties, registered electoral district associations and third parties. In each case, the legal status of these entities has evolved; this report recommends a similar evolution in the of candidature, which has changed little since its inception. The recommendations of this report will bring the legal status of candidature into line with the modern reality that being a candidate, in practical terms, is no longer solely a matter of the election and the immediate follow-up period."

The important point in terms of the evolution of the concept of various entities is that even though the concept of the franchise has evolved to recognize universal suffrage as a fundamental element of a modern democracy, the concept of candidature, not to mention others, has not been brought into line with the requirements of a system based on universal suffrage. The key point is that we need a nomination process which enables Canadians to nominate candidates from amongst their peers. This has become more important than ever in light of the concentration of power in the hands of the upper echelons of the political parties that dominate the political process. The process of nomination by riding associations is (1) overridden when it serves the interests of the party leadership and (2) discredited by things such as "instant membership." It is one of the key aspects of the loss of credibility and confidence in the system.

The Chief Electoral Officer states that the "modern reality" of being a candidate is not "solely a matter of the election and the immediate follow-up period." This further points to the incoherence of the system. Even though the Canada Elections Act sets out a definitive period described as a "campaign period," this has become laughable and in many cases Canadians have been subjected to what seems to be an election-to-election campaign period. The act of soliciting funds for election campaigning is in itself election campaigning. The spirit of the Canada Elections Act is that a "level playing field" is created through the setting of a fixed election campaign period and fixed election campaign spending limits contained within that period. We think that the development of a situation in which individuals can declare themselves candidates at any time, solicit funds and issue receipts is rife with complications and will extend the already existing problem of those with greater resources being able to turn Canadian political affairs into an endless election campaign period. While it is ostensibly a measure to help independent candidates who cannot issue receipts for contributions before they become official candidates (as opposed to candidates of political parties whose parties can issue receipts all year round), the remedy is not the one proposed by Mr. Kingsley but to make all candidates equal in an election by eliminating the privileged position of political parties which are also not treated equally.

Finally, the Chief Electoral Officer states that the current requirement for nomination signatures is "more a measure of a prospective candidate's organizational abilities than of his or her electoral support." The suggestion that a candidate's organizational ability is irrelevant or not germane to his or her abilities as a potential Member of Parliament is certainly an arguable point. Organizing people, in our opinion, is central to the positive qualities of a politician and a political party.

The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada appreciates the problems being raised by the Chief Electoral Officer in regards to candidates being able to get their nomination papers filed after the drop of the writ as outlined in his report. However, we think that most of these problems would be resolved through (1) the introduction of fixed election dates and (2) the creation of an election office not hampered by the problems that now exist because of the non-permanence of the local riding returning offices.

In conclusion, we are opposed to the recommendations on candidatures and would recommend that the status quo remain in place until a serious examination of the required reforms to the candidate selection process is put on the agenda.

1.7 Revising Agents

The Marxist-Leninist Party supports the proposal that the requirement to solicit names from registered parties (the two that received the most votes) should be eliminated. This is part of the legacy of the whole electoral apparatus being based on the partisan appointment of returning officers and it loses its logic and coherence to have the two parties "checking."

Furthermore, its logic belongs to a period when there was a functioning two-party system. The fact remains that the parties cannot even provide the personnel required by the returning officers who are left to scramble for revising agents at the spur of the moment. Whether the returning officers are chosen by merit or according to the current system, this will continue to be a problem.

1.8 The Right to Strike This recommendation presents elections as an "essential service" and one which cannot be used as a bargaining tool by the workers. The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada does not believe that the arguments presented by the Chief Electoral Officer in this regard hold water. Canadians are held hostage by the governing party in terms of when and if an election will be called and the possibility that a strike by Elections Canada employees could lead to the disruption of an election cannot justify the negation of their right to strike.

On Voters Rights

The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada is in favour of the recommendations presented by the Chief Electoral Officer with the aim of facilitating the exercising of the right to vote. Our only concern in this regard relates to Recommendation 1.16 Voting by Electors Absent from the Country for More Than Five Years. We believe that there should be some provision that ensures that Canadians absent from the country for more than five years are in fact still residents of Canada and are absent from the country only for reasons of employment or are part of the "snow-bird" generation.

2.9 Release of Information for Public Safety, Health or Security

The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada is on record as being opposed to this recommendation. Our concern is that with the increasing integration of the security apparatus of Canada and the United States it would lead to vital information about Canadians being used by foreign security forces for purposes over which Canadians exercise no control.

2.11 Unique Identifiers for Electors

The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada does not support this provision because its primary motivation appears to be the integration of the National Register of Electors with the lists kept and maintained by party organizations. Wherever unique identifiers are used, it is generally acknowledged that these identifiers should only be the information of the individual holding the number and the relevant government organization.

2.12 Distribution of Lists of Electors to Registered and Eligible Parties

The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada agrees with this recommendation. However, we think that it should be extended so that independent candidates would have earlier access to the list of electors in their ridings. It could be done in a manner which secures the information. For instance, to acquire the list, independent candidates could post the $1000 deposit and sign the required papers not to misuse the list. Should the candidate confirm his or her nomination, the deposit could become the candidate deposit.

3.1 A Simpler, Fairer Entitlement to Broadcasting Rights

The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada supports this recommendation in so far as it equalizes the allocation of free-time broadcasting to all registered political parties. The fact that the Chief Electoral Officer is recommending the equal division of free broadcasting time among all registered political parties is more an indictment of the current state of affairs than anything else. The issue of an informed vote has been reduced to legislation governing how political parties with millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds at their disposal will divvy up commercial broadcast time for advertising campaigns which are, generally speaking, diametrically opposed to the very definition of information.

4.1 Examination and Inquiry Powers for the Chief Electoral Officer

The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada has serious reservations about this recommendation and believes it is the result of a situation where political parties by virtue of being recipients of public funding have been turned into suspects. Since the 1970s, when political parties were first recognized in law, the level of public subsidization of political parties has greatly increased and with it the level of reporting requirements and the requirements for maintaining registered party status have been increased.

In the aftermath of the Sponsorship Scandal there has been a flourishing of the concept that "law and order" is the safeguard against corruption. This is reflected in the Accountability Act tabled by the Harper government, in the Report of the Gomery Inquiry and in the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. Diane Davidson, an Elections Canada official was quoted in a Policy Options article as saying that "Lawmakers must anticipate that parties and candidates will seek ways to get around limits and disclosure requirements." It seems that this outlook has permeated the legislation and administration of elections.

Such measures may be considered appealing because Canadians are still reeling from the fact that no political party or candidate has been charged in relation to the Sponsorship Scandal and notwithstanding the limitations for prosecutions in the Canada Elections Act, Parliament has taken no initiative to sanction involved individuals or parties and bar them from running again. However, it is our opinion that increased policing powers for Elections Canada are not the solution to the problem. Our opinion remains that the solution to the problem of money and politics is to have an electoral system in which the system, not political parties, are funded.

For further information on the proposals of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada on how the Canada Elections Act should be reformed so as to guarantee the right of all citizens to elect and be elected, please refer to the brief we submitted on Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing), to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on April 30, 2003.