The Two Percent Solution

y t r a P n e e r G a d a n a of C THE TWO

PE

UTIO L O S T N R CE

N

CAST D A O R B DER ES A G E R L U N Y E T RE AR GREEN P M TO INCLUDE G TIU CONSOR

UNDE O R G K C BA

R

"Canadians today draw their electoral information primarily from television, and then from newspapers and radio, and recently from the Internet. At the moment, the rules governing the regimes for free and paid broadcasting time make the two interdependent. Paid time determines free time. In practice, this method is to the disadvantage of small and new parties, because they do not have the resources of the well-established parties to pay for air time, with the result that they are given less free time as well."

"The public broadcast of a debate held by several leaders of registered political parties is not a contribution to the parties but the provision of a service to the public."

- Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Federal Chief Electoral Officer

Green Party of Canada

BACKGROUNDER

PROPOSITION D'ORDRE DU

Introduction Despite tremendous public pressure, strong polling, and a full slate of candidates in the 2004 federal election, Green Party of Canada leader Jim Harris was excluded from the nationally-televised leaders' debate. The Green Party was not even offered the opportunity to meet face-to-face with the broadcast consortium to state its case for inclusion.

The Green Party must be included in the 2005 debate.

Thanks to Bill C-24, the consortium now has a solution to the 'who to include' dilemma and their ever shifting ground rules. Bill C-24 was passed by Parliament in 2003. The bill allots $1.75 per vote to all federal parties that achieve 2 per cent or more of the national popular vote. The only fair solution to the consortium's dilemma: include any leader from any political party that achieves 2 per cent in the previous general election.

Any party that achieves over 2 per cent of the vote is receiving federal money. Based on this formula, the Green Party receives over $1 million dollars per year. Why is it that taxpayers can finance a political party, but are not able to see or hear them in the leaders' debate?

Taxpayers deserve to hear from parties that are receiving federal money. No party that achieves a minimum of 2 per cent of the national vote should be excluded from the debate.

This simple solution gives the consortium a fair benchmark upon which to base their decision. In the past, political parties of all stripes have been forced to stick handle around the consortium's ever-changing criteria for entry into the televised leaders' debate.

This backgrounder demonstrates the challenges parties have faced in the ever shifting ground rules for inclusion.

.

01

Green Party of Canada

BACKGROUNDER

PROPOSITION D'ORDRE DU A national presence In 2004, the Green Party fielded a full slate of 308 candidates and achieved 4.3 per cent of the vote. How significant is this? In the 2000 federal election, only the Liberal Party of Canada ran candidates in every riding. Neither the Canadian Alliance, nor the Progressive Conservatives, nor the NDP - and certainly not the Bloc QuĂŠbĂŠcois - were capable of running full slates.

Seats in the Legislature In 2004, the broadcast consortium first told the Green Party of Canada that they were excluded from the debate because they did not have official party status, then because they had never held official party status, and finally because they did not hold a seat.

However, each of these excuses has been overlooked by the consortium and their provincial broadcast partners in the past.

Federal Elections In the 1988 federal election the Bloc Quebecois did not exist. In 1990, Gilles Duceppe was elected in a by-election, but not as a Bloc candidate. He ran as an independent. Despite having no seats in Parliament, no official recognition from the Speaker and only 75 candidates out of 295 ridings, the Bloc Quebecois was included in both the French and English debates. They continue to participate in debates in both official languages, but have never run candidates outside of Quebec.

In the 1988 general election, the Reform Party ran 72 candidates and won 276,000 votes.

They didn't win any seats. By 1993, the only Reform Party seat was held by Deborah Grey following her 1989 by-election. They did not have nor had ever held Official Party status.

Although, they did not win a seat in the 1988 election, Preston Manning participated in the 1993 leaders' debate, based on the 11,154 votes Deborah Grey won in a 1989 by-election with a 47 per cent turnout. In 1993, they ran only 207 candidates.

In 2004, the Green Party ran a full slate of candidates and won 583,000 votes, over double the Reform Party's performance in 1988.

In 1979, the Social Credit Party was excluded from the debate despite the fact that they had 11 seats in Parliament at the time of dissolution. And in 1997, both the NDP and Progressive Conservatives were included in the debate even though they didn't hold Official Party status.

02

Green Party of Canada

BACKGROUNDER

PROPOSITION D'ORDRE DU British Columbia In 1986, the BC Liberals ran 55 candidates (69 ridings) and won 131,000 votes, less than 7 per cent of the vote. They didn't win any seats. In 1991, without any seats in the legislature at dissolution, Gordon Wilson, leader of the BC Liberals, was included in the leaders' debate.

In 1996 the BC Greens ran 71 candidates (75 ridings) and won 32,000 votes, two per cent of the total vote. They didn't win any seats. In 2001, Adriane Carr appeared in the televised leaders' debate running 72 candidates (79 ridings) and won just over 197,000 votes, over 12 per cent of the vote, but didn't win any seats. This year the BC Greens ran a full slate of 79 candidates and again participated in the leaders' debate.

Prince Edward Island The NDP in PEI did not win a single seat in the 2000 election. Yet, the NDP's Gary Robichaud was included in the televised debate in 2003.

New Brunswick In the 1991 New Brunswick televised debate three parties participated without holding any seats in the Legislature.

Finding your way into the leaders' debate shouldn't depend on your ability to win a single riding in a by-election when most voters don't choose to vote. The parties represented in the debate should be those with broad national support and who secured over 2 per cent of the popular vote in the previous federal election.

Practicalities and logistics The consortium also cited the "large number of political parties contesting the 2004 federal election" as a reason to exclude the Green Party from participating in the debate and that five leaders would be unwieldy. However, in 1993, 1997 and 2000 five leaders were involved in the televised debates. This number dwindled to four following the merger of the Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservatives in 2003.

03

Green Party of Canada

BACKGROUNDER

PROPOSITION D'ORDRE DU The Supreme Court In a landmark 2003 ruling that struck down three sections of the Canada Elections Act that stifled the growth of emerging political parties, the Supreme Court of Canada argued that political debate ensures an open society benefiting from diverse opinions and a social policy sensitive to the needs and interests of a broad range of citizens, and that participation in the electoral process has an intrinsic value independent of the outcome of elections. The justices also said that, large or small, all political parties are capable of introducing unique interests and concerns into the political discourse.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that electoral fairness is implicit in the right to vote as enshrined in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In particular, the 1997 decision of the Court in Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General) (reported at [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569) held (at paragraph 47) that "Elections are fair and equitable only if all citizens are reasonably informed of all the possible choices and if parties and candidates are given a reasonable opportunity to present their positions."

In the decision of the Court in Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General) in June, 2003 (reported at [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912), this principle of electoral fairness was explored in the context of the fifty-candidate rule (the requirement that parties run at least fifty candidates in each general federal election to maintain their status as "registered"). Two of the relevant paragraphs of Figueroa are: 39. ‌ political parties enhance the meaningfulness of individual participation in the electoral process for reasons that transcend their capacity (or lack thereof) to participate in the governance of the country subsequent to an election. Irrespective of their capacity to influence the outcome of an election, political parties act as both a vehicle and outlet for the meaningful participation of individual citizens in the electoral process.

44. ‌ Irrespective of its effect on the outcome of an election, a vote for a particular candidate is an expression of support for a particular approach or platform. Whether that vote contributes to the election of a candidate or not, each vote in support of that approach or platform increases the likelihood that the issues and concerns underlying that platform will be taken into account by those who ultimately implement policy, if not now then perhaps at some point in the future. .

04

Green Party of Canada

BACKGROUNDER

PROPOSITION D'ORDRE DU The public interest There are several reasons for the Green Party's emergence as "the new kid on the block" in Canadian politics. One is the deep dissatisfaction Canadians feel towards Canada's traditional political parties.

Nearly 8.8 million eligible Canadians (39.1 per cent) didn't cast a ballot in the 2004 election. Their choice resulted in the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. In fact, more people didn't vote than voted in all of the other provinces and territories combined, except for Ontario. Across Canada, voter turnout hit worrisome lows. Ridings like Westmount-Ville Marie, where only 52.3 per cent of voters chose to participate, York West where 48.5 per cent voted, Winnipeg Centre where 45.1 per cent cast a ballot, and down to a nation-wide low of 41.4 per cent in Churchill, Manitoba.

And in 2004, the three old-line parties won one million less votes than they did in 1984, despite 5.7 million new voters.

Even more troubling is the political disengagement of young voters. According to Elections Canada, only 22 per cent of voters aged 18-24 came out to vote in the last federal election.

There are nearly 2.6 million Canadians in this age group. Even the old-line parties agree this spells trouble for the future of democracy in Canada.

This is a time in Canadian history when voters are desperate for alternatives. Disillusioned with traditional political parties, they are looking for new approaches to the chronic problems facing Canada.

Popular support The Green Party of Canada won almost 600,000 votes in 2004 - and that support was just the tip of the iceberg. Underneath it were polls that indicated there were an additional 1.5 million voters who said that if they changed their mind on Election Day they would vote for the Green Party.

During the 2004 election polling showed that 76% of Canadian electors believed that the Green Party should have been included in the leaders' debates. The broadcast consortium received thousands of letters and emails during the campaign protesting the Green Party's exclusion. Editorial support for the party's inclusion was virtually unanimous across the country. Newspapers from coast-to-coast-to-coast ran editorials arguing for the party's inclusion in the debates, including The Cape Breton Post, The Montreal Gazette, The Ottawa Citizen, The Calgary Herald, The Edmonton Journal, The Vancouver Province, and The Victoria Times Colonist.

05

During 2005, the Green Party has polled as high as 10 per cent in national surveys of first choice voters. A further 30 per cent have indicated a willingness to consider voting for the Green Party.

Green Party of Canada

BACKGROUNDER

06

PROPOSITION D'ORDRE DU Support from Network Executives Currently, it's the five members of the broadcast consortium who make the final decision as to who participates in the debate and who doesn't. But the consortium isn't without bias.

Peter Kent, one of the five executives who decided to exclude the Green Party from the 2004 debate, will run for the Conservatives in this election. The broadcast consortium and its members have no direct accountability to our electoral system allowing a possible partisan bias on the part of one or more of its members to go unchecked by public scrutiny.

We hope - and are confident - that the consortium will extend an invitation to the Green Party to participate in the leaders' debate in this election. Not doing so would deprive Canadians of an opportunity to hear the invigorating ideas of Canada's newest national party. Excluding the Green Party will only discredit the consortium in the eyes of Canadian voters.

For more information, visit: www.greenparty.ca or call 1.866.868.3447