Page: 6 Respondent’s Position [25] The Respondent submits that not every administrative requirement for electoral candidacy violates s 3 of the Charter. For instance, in Harvey v New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 2 SCR 876, 137 DLR (4th) 142, the Supreme Court found an infringement of s 3 that was ultimately preserved by the application of s 1 of the Charter. [26] The Supreme Court warned against an overbroad approach that finds that any restriction is automatically a violation, while cautioning, “[t]hat is not to say that there can never be limitations or qualifications on the right to stand for election that do not violate s 3 of the Charter”: Harvey at para 31. Signature Requirement Provision [27] The Respondent indicates that signature requirement had been enacted as an initial test for public support for the proposed candidate. [28] It notes that the Applicant was able to acquire the required number of signatures, pursuant to s 66(1) of the Act. The Crown observes that the Applicant’s evidence identified some inconvenience and expense – primarily because he lived in Edmonton, but wished to run in Calgary. Nevertheless, the Crown indicates, there was no actual barrier to the Applicant’s right to participate as a candidate. [29] The Respondent emphasizes that the objective of the signature requirement is to deter frivolous candidates. Prospective candidates are required to show their willingness to engage with voters and provide information, as well as show that they have some degree of support. As such, the signature requirement acts as an appropriate filter for identifying candidates who are serious enough and able to engage as candidates, prior to filing their nomination documents. [30] The Respondent further notes that a report commissioned by the federal government recommended a higher signature requirement, and the current requirement is less than half, evidencing that the 100 signatures is within a reasonable range of options to achieve the objective. The signature requirement was recommended to increase to 250 in most districts, 100 in rural districts, however, the Act changed the signature requirement to 100 and 50 respectively – (Canada, Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing – Reforming Electoral Democracy, vol 1 (Ottawa: Communication Group, 1991) (Chair: Pierre Lortie)) [Lortie Report]. Witness Requirement Provision [31] The Respondent notes that the Applicant could have relied on s 73 of the Act, which provides for electronic submission, and the subsequent submission of original documents. [32] The Respondent argues that the entire scheme of impugned legislation must be considered when a Charter violation is alleged. In the present case, the Respondent submits, the 2017 ABQB 645 (CanLII) expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in s 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.”