moved that Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the bill entitled an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
We have to make changes to reflect the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Figueroa concerning the identification of political party affiliation on the ballot.
I trust that all hon. members will acknowledge the importance of re-examining certain provisions of the Canada Elections Act and that we will support this process.
Allow me to explain the reasons we are counting on the support of all hon. members for what I hope will be the expeditious passage of the bill.
Late August of last year the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered its decision in what has become known as the Figueroa case. In his argument, Mr. Figueroa, representing the Communist Party of Canada, challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of the Canada Elections Act relating to the official registration of political parties.
First, he argued that the requirements that a party nominate 50 candidates, which is the rule with which we are familiar, in order to be an official party violated section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Figueroa claimed that because they were deprived of official recognition, certain parties were not entitled to the same tax benefits as were provided for other official parties and were accordingly placed at a disadvantage in what he claimed to be a violation of guarantees under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
On this point, the Ontario Court of Appeals affirmed that the political parties play an important role in the electoral process. The court stressed that any political party aspiring to form a government or to play a significant role in the affairs of the state must at least offer a large enough number of candidates to allow for such a role. In other words, one person or two and so on is not a political party.
The court also noted that the principle of effective representation underlying section 3 of the charter is only given expression when a political party assumes a significant level of involvement.
In the court's view, the issue was therefore to determine a reasonable number of candidates to meet the criteria for the purpose of tax benefits, and a current limit of 50 appeared reasonable in every respect. We agree with that point and that provision will therefore remain unchanged. In other words, if one cannot round up 50 candidates, one does not get the tax benefits.
At the same time Mr. Figueroa challenged the minimal requirement of 50 candidates in order for the candidate's political affiliation to be included with his or her name on the ballot. This was ruled to be a separate and different point. Prior to that most of us had assumed that to be the same threshold.
His reasoning on this issue was that the identification of each candidate's political affiliation on the ballot made it easier for voters to choose. The Ontario Court of Appeal took careful note of Mr. Figueroa's statement in that regard.
For the moment, as I have said, the existing law does not provide for the identification of candidates, except when they belong to a duly registered political party. So, if the party is not duly registered, it is not recorded on the ballot. That means that they, here too, must run a minimum of 50 candidates to have the party name appear with the candidate's name on the ballot.
However, on this point, the Ontario court of appeal has recognized that, in certain instances, political affiliation can play a role in the choice of the electorate and that, therefore, it must be indicated clearly on the ballot.
In addition, the court held that, while the criteria set for official recognition of a political party are entirely justifiable for the purposes of granting financial assistance, this is not the case with the identification of the political affiliation on the ballot.
In addition, the court noted, just the political identification of a candidate on a ballot can cause the voter to choose one or another candidate. This would be particularly relevant in the case of two candidates from two different parties with the same name.
Thus, for all these reasons, the court recognized that candidates' identification and political affiliation on a ballot are justified and important enough for political parties to have greater access.
There again, we must have a minimum number of candidates to reasonably talk about political parties without misleading voters. It is critical that voters can make an educated choice. That, of course, automatically rules out individual candidates. In other words, a person is not a political party.
Our government is proposing to this House amendments that reflect the ruling issued by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
In 1991, the Lortie commission proposed a minimum of 15 candidates for the name of a party to appear on the ballots.
There is of course no magical number. In this House, a party must have a minimum of 12 elected members to be officially recognized. Therefore, we are proposing to set the number at 12. Twelve candidates could, in theory, when they are registered on ballots, form a political party in the House of Commons.
Of course, in order to achieve that recognition, a party would have to get 100% of its candidates elected, which is unlikely. But still—