As I’m sure you are aware, these little parties that nobody has ever heard of do not get equitable media coverage during election campaigns.
In “Szuchewycz v. Canada” the judge’s justification for his decision was that the “$1000 federal candidate deposit requirement violated Section 3 and could not be justified under Section 1” of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Furthermore, Justice Inglis noted in paragraph 59 “I agree that the potential to prevent a serious and impressive candidate from running in an election, due to the financial pressure a $1000 deposit could create, is a real risk of the requirement. In my opinion, the impugned Deposit Requirement Provision would infringe many individuals’ – including the Applicant’s – ability to communicate their messages to the public, and participate meaningfully in the electoral process as a candidate.”
That’s exactly what the inequitable media coverage does and exclusion from public debate on the basis that a candidate is an independent or that the party they reperesent doesn’t currently hold a seat in the legislature absolutely “infringes many individual’s ability to communicate their messages to the public, and participate meaningfully in the electoral process as a candidate.”
I am meeting with leaders of all the other little parties registered with Elections Ontario at a conference this week. If we all agree on anything, it’s that this isn’t fair to any of the smaller parties and we could potentially band together to fight for our right to communicate our messages to the public and participate in a meaningful way in the electoral process.
Sincerely,
Peter House
Founding Leader of the Electoral Reform Party
(647) 781-7383