Response from Cheryl Meheden regarding the questions here http://pastebin.com/GEVGqVjd

Good morning Jesse;
In regards to your questions, I have some responses below. These are from my own thoughts, based on my beliefs and my known position of where the NDP stands. If you would like me to contact our central office regarding the specific pieces of legislation you reference, I am happy to do that too.

1) Repealing law is an onerous task and this is why some law stays on the books for decades past its useful application. Here in Lethbridge we have a bylaw against spitting on the street, developed for public health reasons to control the spread of disease. Now spitting has become more about tobacco chewing and some feel perhaps that law could be resurrected to discourage spitting behaviour. Not likely, but a good example of how different applications of law can change over time. A fundamental principle of law is that it needs to be clear, so when laws are in contradiction of each other, such as you point out here, there should be an effort to change that.
2) Long form census data is needed to make informed decisions. Myself, and the NDP, would restore the long form census.
3) Authority to oversee decisions is a requirement in ensuring those decisions are fair and transparent. The NDP and I both support putting in place independent bodies that would oversee and report on critical issues such as the budget and appointments or assignments to high profile positions.
4)This question connects to how the NDP feels about having independent authority, outside the PMO and Treasury Board. Changes in the Election Act do not encourage a fair election process and can not impose sanctions on violators. The NDP and I would restore power to the Elections Act and ensure that the process is fair by having an Elections officer that has the power to independently conduct investigations as well as promote, rather than inhibit, elections. Violators would be prosecuted.
5) Omnibus legislation is a deviant way to push through unrelated pieces of legislation in a timeline that is too tight for proper analysis. The NDP would ban omnibus bills as they do not allow for thoughtful consideration, resulting in many sub-par decisions.
6) I have heard from many constituents that the parliamentary process is broken and that they don't believe their voice is heard in Ottawa. I agree that reforms make sense. In my chats with other candidates I have learned the Green Party has a good 'no heckling' policy and this would add to the civility of Question Period. I would support that when asked, you should be required to answer the question if the content applies to your area of responsibility.
7) You raise a very good point. I do not think that the intent of this legislation was to exclude those who do not practice or associate with an organized religion. For that reason, it makes sense that the language could be changed to ensure that this is not the case. Your suggestion of adding 'freedom from religion' to the definition would likely solve that problem.

Kind regards,
Cheryl