A number of correspondents have recently expressed concerns that Stephen Harper could form a government, and that he would gut the Canadian social contract the way the BC social contract was destroyed by Campbell. That argument could be used to fool some folks into letting the Liberals take the $1.75 per year in funding that their vote is now worth, but before getting into that, consider three inaccurate assumptions about Harper's threat.

First, Harper is weak in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. The most recent poll by Ipsos-Reid, of 1,000 voters conducted between April 6th and 8th, puts the Conservatives at 28%, the Liberals at 35%, and the NDP at 18%. The Bloc Québécois has 45 per cent support from Quebec voters, 15 points ahead of the Liberals and 34 points ahead of the Conservatives. In Ontario, the Liberals lead even with the recent depressed numbers. There they have 41% support, the Conservatives 32% and the NDP 19%. The numbers in Atlantic Canada are similar with the Conservatives slightly weaker with 29%, the Liberals with 41% and the NDP with 22%. It looks like a horse race in BC where the Liberals have 30%, the Conservatives 27% and the NDP 25%. Of course, election campaigns are all about changing those numbers, but it is highly unlikely that Harper could become Prime Minister.

The second reason to reject concerns over Harper's threat to Canada's social contract, is that the most serious threat comes from Paul Martin. Not only is Martin more likely to hold power, but his record on social policy should give comfort to no one. He balanced his budgets on the backs of the provinces by cutting transfers for health and social services. Language from some turncoats about the Liberals offering a big tent for social progressives and fiscal conservatives is laughable. One of the first acts of Martin was to purge his party of Sheila Copps and other supporters of the former Prime Minister. Why didn't he offer Copps the same kind of treatment he extended to his favorites in BC? He is the guy whose company flies a flag of convenience while he failed to advise Parliament about how many tens of millions in business it was doing with Canada while he was Minister of Finance. The federal Liberals always campaign to the left and govern to the right. Martin will follow an exaggerated version of that tradition.

The third reason to reject what amounts to an attempt by federal Liberals to capture soft liberal and NDP votes, is that Canada now has public financing of political parties on a proportionate model. As of January 1, 2004, no vote is "wasted" because it translates into ongoing annual funding for the party of each voter's choice. A vote, for any party that receives at least 2 percent of the valid votes cast and at least 5% of the valid votes cast in the voter's constituency, results in $1.75 per year in public funding for the party. Public financing of federal political parties was part of the election finance reform package that also put limits on individual donations and prohibited donations by companies and unions. It may have an effect on "strategic voting", where people are urged to vote for their second choice because their first choice cannot win. With the new financing formula, voters know that their vote directly translates into funding for the political party of their choice. Switching to their second choice not only waters down the effectiveness of their vote, but it also deprives their first choice of annual funding. Candidates can now say "vote for me, so our party will get the financing it deserves." That argument may encourage a lot of New Democrats to vote NDP even when they know that their candidate's chances are slim and none in ridings like North Vancouver.