McGill Tribune

Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently announced that he will make the elimination of federal subsidies to Canadian political parties a central component of his re-election campaign, which could come as soon as this spring. This inflammatory move has predictably raised the ire of opposition parties, who in 2008—the last time Harper tried to kill the subsidies—rallied to their defence, threatening to form a coalition to bring the Conservative government down. Fearing defeat, Harper changed his tune.

The opposition parties were right. Federal subsidies for political parties, though quite new, have become part of the Canadian system, ensuring it’s fair and not swamped by corporate money. It’s only natural that the Conservatives—one of the two major parties that enjoys the support of Canadian business—would want to eliminate that trickle of funds that smaller, less established political opponents receive. It’s natural for them to seek such self-serving changes, but far from democratic.

Party subsidies were introduced in a series of electoral finance reforms in 2003 that also saw political contributions from corporations and unions banned. The idea is that each party receives just under $2 for each vote it obtains in a federal election, in order to fund staffing and organizational costs for campaigns. The effect is to ensure that even relatively small political parties, like the Greens, can participate in the democratic process and influence the conversation even if they don’t have a serious chance of wielding power. The removal of these subsidies would hurt third parties and bolster the two party system that existed for much of Canadian history.

Elimination of party subsidies would also diminish the impact an individual Canadian can have with their vote. A Green Party sympathizer in an overwhelmingly Conservative riding has no practical incentive to vote for their chosen candidate unless that vote will send money, if only a small amount, to the federal Greens. Because that vote has the practical effect of sending $2 to an organization with whose political ideals the voter identifies, the vote is meaningful in a way it wouldn’t be otherwise.  

Harper’s plan would thus create an American-style two-party system in which only those with money and power could influence the behaviour of government. If that system exists de facto right now, such a change could make it even more entrenched.

Since the subsidies were introduced in light of new limitations on corporate donations, a Conservative attempt to scrap these subsidies could augur an attempt down the road to reintroduce corporate and labour donations. This would open the Canadian electoral system to the same corporate free-for-all the American system was opened to by the U.S. Supreme Court in last year’s Citizens United case. All Canadians should be seriously concerned.