Urgent Need for Democratic Renewal
Unconscionable Use of Election Law to Target Political Protest
A proposal to amend the Canada
Elections Act has been submitted by Elections Canada to
the House of Commons committee which is studying Bill C-65,
perversely named the Electoral Participation Act. The
proposal is to punish electors who nominate candidates working
together for electoral reform. It would also sanction
individuals who "incite" electors to nominate more than one
candidate.
It is clear that the initiative of the Longest Ballot Committee is the target of the amendment. It remained true to its project by responding as follows: "We are disappointed to see Elections Canada take such a leading role in the development of measures directly targeting us, a grassroots group who simply points out that MPs shouldn't be in charge of writing their own elections and ethics rules." Of significance is what it added: "In any case, the new amendments won't succeed in stopping our campaign. We work smart, not hard, and if the rules say we need to get more signatures from more people, we will happily collect them."
Thus, whatever amendments Elections Canada proposes will be to no avail. The perception of Canadians that the Electoral Law brings cartel parties to power to perpetrate a rule which exists above the people will not be changed by such measures. These measures merely serve to further disempower the people and thus deepen the crises of credibility and legitimacy in which the institutions called democratic are mired.
The amendment was proposed by
Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) Stéphane Perrault on November 21
during his appearance before the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs (PROC). He displayed the 91-candidate-long
ballot for the recent LaSalle–Emard–Verdun by-election in
Montreal and said: "As members are aware, there is a protest
movement that has encouraged large numbers of candidates in the
44th general election and in four recent by-elections. [...] We
have now reached the point where any further increase to the
number of candidates will require me to reduce the font size on
the ballot, further compounding accessibility challenges.
Marking and counting modified ballots takes longer and is more
complex for voters and election workers."
Why reducing the font size is the only option is questionable. Other countries have hundreds of names on their ballots when elections are held for national/federal positions, and for positions on the state, municipal and local levels all at the same time. They seem to manage without such fuss because it is a matter of political culture, not a matter to be made punishable by law. But none of this is discussed by the cartel parties with seats in the Parliament, let alone the urgent need to democratize the political process and electoral law itself.
Perrault told PROC that the Longest Ballot initiatives have put him in the uncomfortable position of having to use his discretionary powers to produce ballots contrary to what is prescribed by law, or as he put it, the "wish of Parliament." No MP asked why he didn't propose an amendment to the provision stipulating the format of the ballot.
At this point, the amendment proposed by Perrault is not in Bill C-65. The legislation has passed second reading in the House of Commons, so only amendments addressing matters pertaining to the general principles already approved by the House of Commons can be added in Committee. As it stands, Bill C-65 reduces the number of signatures required for candidate registration from 100 to 75. This proposal was said to facilitate the registration of candidates.
It was not explained that the proposal was made at the request of the cartel parties with seats in the Parliament whose candidates clearly have difficulty getting endorsed by electors. It is common knowledge that many of the cartel party candidates have front doors slammed in their faces because people are so fed up with the rotten system of Party government and with the cartel parties themselves. Many have trouble getting 100 signatures to endorse their nominations to become candidates in an election. All of it is nonsensical since electors exercise no control over which candidates are selected to "represent" them in any case. It is the national leader of a party who has the final say as to who can be a candidate and this is precisely what electors are objecting to! The irony is that reducing the number of nomination signatures from 100 to 75 is not going to help the reputation of the cartel parties in any way, but it will make it easier for the Longest Ballot Project to get the signatures they need to nominate candidates who advocate for the reform of the electoral process!
Nonetheless, to now propose an amendment which obstructs electors from nominating whoever they want, and going so far as to penalize them for doing so, is questionable, to say the least. Canadians have become accustomed to the "balancing act" that pits upholding civil rights -- in this case the right to elect and be elected -- against national security. However, the suggestion that the prescribed format of a ballot trumps the right to participate in elections is a new low.
On reflection, it is most likely the sign of a system at its wit's end; definitely one in need of renewal.
Perrault said that while he supports the reduction in the number of signatures required to nominate a candidate, "it is important to ensure that the requirement for supporting signatures is not turned on its head. In the case of the Longest Ballot initiative, we have seen nomination papers for the various participating candidates signed by the same electors. This indicates that voters who sign the nomination papers are not supporting the nomination of a particular candidate, but rather the idea of having as many candidates as possible, whomever they may be (consistent with the goals of the Longest Ballot initiative)."
In fact, he cannot say for sure why voters sign the nomination papers of many candidates, and simply reduces their reasons to "the idea of having as many candidates as possible." Why they want "as many candidates as possible," he does not say. In fact, he totally ignores the expressed intention of many who say they are doing so to make a statement that they want the democratic renewal of the electoral law, which is the stated aim of the Longest Ballot Project.
Electors who sign many Longest Ballot nomination papers do so precisely to indicate that they support the slate of candidates putting forward the cause of electoral reform.
Members of PROC responded positively to the openly declared aim of obstructing the Longest Ballot project. The initiative emerged during the 2021 federal election as a form of protest against the first-past-the-post method of counting ballots and for the right of citizens to an electoral system of their own determination. It was also to protest the Trudeau government's betrayal of the Liberal Party pledge in the 2015 election to get rid of the first-past-the post method of counting votes. PROC members' only concern was what impact the proposed amendment might have on their own candidacies in the event an elector nominates more than one candidate unbeknownst to them.
What a dilemma! It merely underscores that what is irrational cannot be made rational. The sooner the electoral process is renewed to make it conform with elementary democratic expectations the better.
Conservative MP Michael Cooper noted that the Longest Ballot candidates share a common official agent and asked if Perrault had considered tackling the "problem" from that angle. Perrault responded that it would not be an effective method because the Longest Ballot candidates file nil returns and filing them is a small task.
In a document the CEO of Elections Canada tabled with PROC, the recommendation claims to ensure that no citizens would be prohibited from becoming a candidate: "A prohibition on supporting the nomination of more than one candidate should be added, accompanied by sanctions for those who sign more than once or incite others to do so. It should be made explicit that the inclusion of a signature on more than one candidate's nomination paper should not invalidate either nomination."
What then is the point of the amendment? As I said, the system is at its wit's end.
Most disconcerting is that MPs and Mr. Perrault himself are apparently oblivious to the dangerous course being taken by Elections Canada, which is supposed to be a neutral administrator of elections. This is a rudimentary requirement in any country which calls itself democratic. Obstructing political action that targets the first-past-the-post method of counting ballots and the Liberal government's failure to make good on its promise to end it is far from political neutrality. This is particularly disconcerting in a situation where the Canadian establishment, starting with its intelligence agencies -- Canada's secret political police -- are denigrating political opinions, such as opposition to NATO or support for friendly relations with China and even criticisms of Canadian democracy, as examples of alleged foreign interference and suggesting that Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections should play a larger role in countering such "foreign interference."
It is not without irony that this move aims to obstruct a citizen initiative that is putting forward the important question of who should decide the form the electoral system should take. The Longest Ballot Committee is calling for an end to the self-serving control exercised by the cartel parties over electoral legislation and demanding the creation of a national constituent assembly to decide.
To view video of Perrault's appearance before PROC click here.
This article was published in
Volume 54
Number 11 - November 2024
Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/Tmlm2024/Articles/M540112.HTM
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca