 |
 |
| English » Party History » 2% challenge court case » Marxist-Leninist Party decided to stop participating in this court case. | |
 |
|
|
Statement written February 18, 2006, by Anna Di Carlo, Secretary, Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada I am writing to explain the recent decision of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada to withdraw from the Charter challenge to the 2%-5% threshold requirements for electoral funding. Even though we are on record as favouring the financing of the electoral process and not political parties, it is also a fact that so long as the state provides funding to political parties, it cannot be justified that funding is provided to some and not others. We continue to believe that the threshold requirements for electoral funding are a violation of the right of political parties to equal treatment before the law. However, in the current conditions, where the crisis of the party-dominated system of representative democracy is revealing its unrepresentative and undemocratic character all over the world, including Canada, we no longer think it serves the program of the MLPC and the contribution it is trying to make to democratic renewal for the MLPC to pursue this particular aspect of the political process through the courts. The MLPC will focus all its efforts to the political, ideological and theoretical treatment of the problem where it thinks it can make a contribution. Since the time of our appeals to the parties in the House of Commons in 2004 to eliminate the threshold requirements of Bill C-24, there have been many significant developments. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs did not even take up the agenda of reviewing the electoral law, as directed by then Minister Responsible for Democratic Reform Mauril Belanger. Despite the existence of our Charter challenge, the approaching sunset clause in Bill C-3, and questions of corruption brought to the fore by the sponsorship scandal, the Standing Committee did not even manage to give the electoral law any consideration after the passage of Bill C-24. When the Martin Minority government took power, and opposition amendment to the Throne Speech directed the Standing Committee to “recommend a process that engages citizens and parliamentarians in an examination of our electoral system with a review of all options.” Instead of focusing its deliberations on a process to engage Canadians in a review of the electoral system, the Standing Committee spent its time examining various forms of proportional representation and then came up with a proposal for consultations deliberately designed to exclude Canadian citizens from having a say on what kind of electoral system they want. The whole exercise gave rise to nothing, revealing that even the attempts at self-serving electoral reforms have gone into crisis. We also witnessed the Gomery Commission’s inquiry and read the report into the sponsorship scandal, Justice Gomery’s recommendations and the outlines of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s planned Federal Accountability Act, which includes further changes to the rules on contributions to political parties, as well as the responses of the other parties in the House of Commons. Finally, we have seen the mess resulting from Harper’s appointment of David Emerson and Michael Fortier to his cabinet and the attempts to legitimate these decisions. In the name of accountability and effective government, the executive is further concentrating power in its Hands. The strengthening of rule from the top is undermining even the limited space that previously existed for political participation in constituency associations of the political parties in the House of Commons. In our opinion, these developments show that the democratic process, the political financing laws, and the party system of government are corrupted beyond repair. The incoherence of the current arrangements shows that the problem is so profound that contesting the violation of the right of political parties to equal treatment under the law in the courts would not contribute to the relief the electoral law requires in the broader sense. We do not think it addresses the struggle raging all over the world on the fundamental aim of democracy and the undemocratic nature of the party-dominated system of representative democracy. In light of these factors, the MLPC has decided not to pursue the Charter challenge to the threshold requirements for political party financing. The MLPC’s will step up its work to involve the working class and people in its program for democratic renewal, to create an alternative which will enable the people to exercise their right to elect and to be elected. As part of this work, the MLPC is leading the youth in an inquiry into Canada’s political system. We remain as committed as ever to the cooperation of political parties to renew the political process on a democratic basis. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: CANADIAN ACTION PARTY, CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY, COMMUNIST PARTY OF CANADA, GREEN PARTY OF CANADA, MARIJUANA PARTY, MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY OF CANADA AND PROGRESSIVE CANADIAN PARTY Applicants and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents AFFIDAVIT OF ANNA DI CARLO I, ANNA DI CARLO, of the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario AFFIRM AS FOLLOWS: 1. I am the secretary of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada and as such have knowledge of the matters herein deposed to. 2. The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada is the name under which the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) is registered pursuant to the Canada Elections Act. Founded in 1970, it has been registered with Elections Canada since 1974, with the exception of the period surrounding the 34th General Election November 1988. In the 30th General Election July 1974, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada fielded 104 candidates. In the 31st General Election May 1979, it fielded 144 candidates. In the February 1980 32nd General Election, there were 170 Marxist-Leninist candidates. In the 33rd General Election September 1984, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada participated in the elections without fielding any candidates. In the 34th General Election November 1988, it fielded 58 candidates whose names appeared on the ballot as non-affiliated due the party’s failure to meet the time-line registration provisions of the Elections Canada Act at the time. In the 35th General Election October 1993, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada fielded 51 candidates and in the 36th General Election June 1997, there were 65 Marxist-Leninist candidates. 3. In the 37th General Election November 2000, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada ran 84 candidates and obtained 12,068 votes, representing 1% of the votes that were cast nationally. In the ridings in which the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada fielded candidates, the percentage of votes cast for Marxist-Leninist candidates ranged from 1.1% to 0.1%. 4. When the first electoral allowances were provided to registered parties early in 2004, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada did not receive any allowance as we received less than 2% of the national vote and less than 5% of the vote in the ridings in which we ran candidates in the 2000 election. 5. Since we received 12,068 votes in the 2000 Election, the Marxist-Leninist Party would have received $21,119 as its annual allowance for 2004 had the 2% and 5% thresholds not been in force. 6. In the federal election of 2004, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada ran 76 candidates and received 8,696 votes or 0.6 percent of the national vote. The percentage of votes received by the candidates of the Marxist-Leninist candidates in the ridings where the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada fielded candidates ranged from 0.1% to 0.7%. 7. Due to the 2% and 5% threshold in force, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada did not receive an annual allowance in 2005 of $15,218 based on the 8,696 votes received. However, had the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada received an allowance of $21,119 in 2004, it would have been able to conduct campaigns in the 2004 election reaching a larger number of voters and it can be argued that it would have received a larger number of votes and consequently a larger allowance for 2005. 8. In the scheme of electoral campaigns conducted with tens of millions of dollars by the political parties in the House of Commons, an amount of $21,119 to $15,218 constitutes a tiny amount of money, but for the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada which conducts its political work, including its electoral campaigns, with very limited financial resources and primarily on the basis of its own means of communication, including its own publications, an annual subsidy of $21,119 to $15,218 constitutes a significant amount of money which would enable the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada to expand its work. 9. The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada is one of the small parties in Canada which are all but boycotted by the large media corporations in Canada. It is referred to as “fringe party”notwithstanding the fact that it presents a vision of a national project for Canada rooted in vesting sovereignty in the people and the party addresses all the main issues facing the country. The 2% and 5% threshold requirements for public subsidization of political parties constitutes an official policy of unequal treatment of political parties before the law, a policy of stigmatizing and marginalizing political parties such as the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada and consequently sanctions and encourages the large media corporations’ discriminatory treatment of the small political parties. 10. I have followed closely the analysis of political scientists regarding the state funding of political parties. In 1995, two political science professors, Richard S. Katz and Peter Mair, published an article entitled Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party and since that time the theory has been further elaborated by other political scientists. The provision of public subsidies for political parties in a manner which favours the political parties in the House of Commons corresponds to the emergence of a “cartel party system” which is anathema to a democratic party system. Given that the state subsidies such as those provided for in the Canada Elections Act are tied to performance in previous elections, they fall into the category of systems which Katz and Mair argue “help to ensure the maintenance of existing parties while at the same time posing barriers to the emergence of new groups.” Rules governing access to broadcast media are of a similar character, they argue. “In short,” they write, “the state, which is invaded by the parties, and the rules of which are determined by the parties, becomes a fount of resources through which they can also enhance their capacity to resist challenges from newly mobilized alternatives. The state, in this sense, becomes an institutionalized structure of support, sustaining insiders while excluding outsiders.” 11. The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada does not agree with the public subsidization of political parties and believes that all state subsidies related to the electoral process should be used to pay for the electoral process itself. This would include providing to the electors all the information they require to make an informed decision. To the extent that the provision of public subsidies to political parties contributes to informing the public about the platforms of political parties, the provision of tens of millions of dollars to the political parties in the House of Commons while small parties are excluded through the 2% and 5% threshold contributes to keeping the public uninformed about the smaller parties. 12. The Marxist-Leninist Party upholds that political parties are by definition organizations representing the individual and collective interests of definite sections of the society. As such, we believe they should be funded through their own members and supporters. The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada objects to the 2% and 5% threshold because it believes that so long as state funding is provided to political parties, it must be provided on an equal footing without regard to the size of the political party or its relative support in the polity at any given time. 13. I make this affidavit to provide evidence in this constitutional challenge to the restrictions on election allowances provided by the thresholds and for no other or improper purpose. Affirmed by ANNA DI CARLO Marxist-Leninist Brief on Bill C-24, from 2003. |
|
||||||||||||
