Pubdate: Fri, 13 Oct 2006
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2006, The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.globeandmail.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Author: Kirk Makin, Justice Reporter
Note: ...the Marijuana Party would get about $60,000 a year...

ELECTORAL-LAW EDICT BOOSTS SMALL PARTIES

Funding Rules Stunted Growth, Judge Finds

An Ontario judge has struck down an electoral law that permitted 
large federal political parties to fill their coffers with public 
money at the expense of smaller parties.

Superior Court Judge Ted Matlow ruled yesterday that the law is 
undemocratic, unequal and stunts the growth of small parties for no 
valid reason.

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

"We're thrilled," said Tracy Parsons, leader of the Progressive 
Canadian Party. "Another piece of democracy has been served. I can't 
say that I'm 100-per-cent in favour of tax dollars being used to fund 
political parties, but I'm certainly not in favour of them funding 
only select parties."

The judgment was a major victory for a coalition of seven small 
political parties that argued that the law -- which took effect in 
2004 -- violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by unfairly 
giving $1.75 for each vote cast only to federal parties with more 
than 2 per cent of the national popular vote.

"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 yesterday.

He said that having an eligibility threshold "perverts" democracy by 
forcing small parties to make a tactical decision whether to target 
certain ridings in order to reach the percentage of the total vote 
they need to trigger the payments.

Small parties will henceforth have a greater chance to thrive and 
attract voters who see their votes providing a tangible financial 
benefit, Judge Matlow said.

The coalition that challenged the law includes the Marijuana Party; 
the Christian Heritage Party; the Canadian Action Party; the 
Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada; the Green Party; the Progressive 
Canadian Party; and the Communist Party of Canada.

The coalition's lawyer, Peter Rosenthal, estimated that based on 
their vote totals in the last federal election, the Marijuana Party 
would get about $60,000 a year; the Christian Heritage Party $70,000; 
and the Communist Party $8,000.

He estimated that under the funding scheme, the Liberal Party 
receives about $8.7-million annually; the Conservative Party 
$7-million; the NDP $3.7-million and the Bloc Quebecois almost $3-million.

"I'm very happy," Mr. Rosenthal said. "Even though the amount of 
money the small parties will get is minuscule compared to the big 
parties, it is significant to them, and it will allow them to emerge 
as bigger parties over the years."

Judge Matlow struck the law down using 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."

Printing and distributing campaign literature and advertising in the 
media entails great expense, Judge Matlow said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Elaine