New victory for small parties raises further issues

(The following article is from the November 1-15, 2006 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. )

By Kimball Cariou

YET ANOTHER undemocratic electoral law has been tossed out by the courts, and now Canada's smaller political parties are taking aim at discriminatory broadcast time rules.

On Oct. 12, Ontario Superior Court judge struck down a law that provides registered federal parties with $1.75 annually for each vote they received in the previous federal election. But the funding only goes to parties which won more than two per cent of the total vote, or whose candidates received five percent in particular ridings.

The law was challenged by the Communist Party of Canada, the Canadian Action Party, the Christian Heritage Party, the Marijuana Party, the Progressive Canadian Party, and the Green Party - which received 4.3 percent of the vote in the 2004 election, enough to qualify for public funding.

Their successful legal argument was based largely on the historic and precedent-setting Figueroa case, in which the courts found that discrimination against smaller parties was illegal. Launched in 1993 by Miguel Figueroa, leader of the Communist Party of Canada, that initial challenge to the Elections Act resulted in striking down the requirement that parties must nominate a minimum of 50 candidates. The Figueroa case also led to refundable candidate deposits and other key victories for small parties.

Judge Matlow based his ruling on two sections of the Charter of Rights: the Section 15 equality guarantee and the Section 3 guarantee of fair voting rights. He said that voting rights involve "much more than the mere right to enter a voting booth and mark a ballot that is counted in an election."

He noted that parties needed funding to make voters aware of their platforms and candidates, and that voters need information to cast their ballots in a way that genuinely reflects their views. He said the law, which came into effect in 2004, made it difficult for members of small parties to "play a meaningful role in the electoral process."

While the amounts at stake are not huge, he wrote that "such funding would substantially increase the possibilities that such parties could make voters aware of their platform and candidates."

"I consider that the existence of the threshold diminishes public confidence in the electoral process and encourages a public perception that the threshold exists only to benefit the major political parties, who alternate, from time to time, in forming the government and are in a position to maintain it," Judge Matlow said.

The money will be awarded retroactively to 2003 and, including interest charges, brings the total the parties will share to approximately $500,000.

Tracy Parsons, leader of the Progressive Canadian party, told the media that while she is not in favour of public funding of parties, the ruling restores fairness to the electoral process. "If you're going to fund any, you should fund all," said Parsons.

The lawyer for the small parties, Peter Rosenthal, estimated that the Marijuana Party would get about $60,000 a year; the Christian Heritage Party $70,000; and the Communist Party $8,000.

Based on their vote totals in the January 2006 election, the Conservative Party is eligible for about $9.2 million per year, the Liberals $7.7 million, the NDP $4.5 million, the Bloc Québécois $2.7 million, and the Greens $830,000.

Privy Council spokesperson Myriam Massabki said the government had the judgment and "will review it carefully before commenting."

But political observers believe the Matlow ruling is certain to survive any appeal. Just as significant, it raises the next critical issue of electoral fairness - the allocation of free broadcast time almost exclusively to the parties represented in Parliament, leaving only one or two minutes of the 390 minute total for each of the smaller parties. In effect, the wealthier parties, which already spend millions on advertising, also have a near complete monopoly on free-time radio and TV broadcasts during elections.

In a letter to Peter Grant, Broadcast Arbitrator, Communist Party representative Liz Rowley noted that the ruling was handed down while the annual meeting to determine distribution of broadcast time was taking place.

"In our view," stated Rowley, "this judgement has immediate bearing on your decision with respect to the division of Broadcast time among 15 registered parties."

Her letter draws attention to Judge Matlow's decision, which states that "Much of the information about the platform of a political party is communicated to potential voters through the media and it is very expensive to purchase political advertising..."

The decision, notes Rowley, "is further confirmation that the courts regard democracy in a broader sense than do the large parties who currently compose Parliament and draft and pass exclusionary and self-serving election legislation... We ask that you consider Judge Matlow's decision prior to rendering your decision on the division of Broadcast time for the next 12 months. We believe that the proposal to divide the 390 minutes of free time equally amongst the registered parties is well supported by this latest court decision."

Dividing bar graphic
HOME • ABOUT • PRIVACY • LEGAL • JOIN