Page: 9 [72] As already noted above, all ten provinces have signature requirements and Manitoba and Québec rely only on signatures as their means of restricting the number of candidates....[T]he evidence establishes that the signature requirement is a more effective and a more desirable means of achieving the government’s objective of deterring frivolous candidates. [45] I agree with these observations and comments, which align with the Charter’s guarantee of a meaningful, but not unlimited participation in the electoral process. [46] The integrity of the electoral process must include a way to filter frivolous candidates that are not otherwise willing or planning to participate fully in the electoral process. The signature requirement is not a test of support prior to election necessarily (although it may have that effect), but a relatively minor test of the potential candidate’s ability or willingness to be an actual candidate. [47] In my view, the signature requirement is not a significant restriction upon a citizen’s ability to meaningfully participate as a candidate. The Applicant himself showed through his evidence that by spending two days in a riding that he did not live in – or show any particular connection to – he was able to significantly exceed the required threshold. I could not find any evidence that this requirement, in any way, affected his ability to run as a candidate. Nor am I persuaded that it would prevent an otherwise willing and able citizen in general to participate as a candidate. [48] Consequently, the impugned Signature Requirement Provision of the Act does not breach s 3 of the Charter. Witness Requirement Provision [49] The requirement that a witness to a prospective candidate’s oath should attend physically or in person at the Returning Office co-exists with the provision of s 73 of the Act, which permits the electronic filing of nomination papers. The Applicant acknowledges his awareness of this alternative method of filing a nomination application. [50] Although the Returning Officer, in this instance, misinformed the Applicant that his witness was required to be personally present at the Returning Office in Calgary, that error is insufficient to discount both the provision of s 73 of the Act and the express instructions included with each nomination application that the “Oath of Witness to Consent of Candidate of the Nomination Paper [does] not have to be completed when the Nomination Paper is sent by electronic means.” [51] I agree with the Respondent that the Witness Requirement Provision is not a significant restriction upon a potential candidate’s ability to meaningfully participate as a candidate. The evidence before me does not in any way demonstrate that this witness requirement infringed on the Applicant’s (or any individual’s) ability to run as a candidate. Nor do I find it would affect any candidate in general from so participating. 2017 ABQB 645 (CanLII) signatures is a way of communicating the candidate’s or his or her party’s political message.