Flaherty to slash public funding for federal parties

[capricorn]

Forcing citizens to donate their tax dollars to political parties they don't support is hardly democratic.

Good point. Also, a lot of Canadians are disgusted that taxpayer dollars are going to subsidize the Bloc whose avowed mission is to separate Quebec from Canada. How democratic is it to keep up this funding?

On the other hand, in spite of my desire to see this program gone, I don't think playing political chicken over this issue is very constructive considering the seriousness of the economic situation.

Regardless of the health of the economy, in the eyes of the opposition there would never be a good time to eliminate the federal subsidy. They got used to getting the cash and don't want to have to make up the loss by working for donations. It has become an entitlement.

[madmax]

Good point. Also, a lot of Canadians are disgusted that taxpayer dollars are going to subsidize the Bloc whose avowed mission is to separate Quebec from Canada. How democratic is it to keep up this funding?

Regardless of the health of the economy, in the eyes of the opposition there would never be a good time to eliminate the federal subsidy. They got used to getting the cash and don't want to have to make up the loss by working for donations. It has become an entitlement.

Our Very Existence is at Stake

No....its not climate change. (Good read though, won't let me cut or paste any of it)

[Alta4ever]

Our Very Existence is at Stake

No....its not climate change. (Good read though, won't let me cut or paste any of it)

Gotta love the spin about allowing the Big business back into party politics when, corporate and large donations still won't be allowed.

[capricorn]

Oh yeah. I'm sure those who voted for the Greens out of protest will rush to mail in their cheques after receiving that whiny letter.

[Alta4ever]

Oh yeah. I'm sure those who voted for the Greens out of protest will rush to mail in their cheques after receiving that whiny letter.

I'd bet they wouldn't even were to send the check if they wanted to. Its not like its advertised, even during the election our green candidate didn't even know who to make the check out to.

[noahbody]

My guess is that the Tories will bend and have it take effect in a few years. They can say it will give the parties enough time to improve their fundraising efforts. The Liberals know the minority likely won't last that long so there's no harm in voting for it.

[jdobbin]

No, but I am not in favour of haveing tax payer money going into poltical parties

Then you should be opposed to individuals receiving a tax deduction to give money to parties.

[jdobbin]

Have you ever been told to live within your means?

IF not.

Live within your means.

Think the Liberals are doing that.

However, the issue of confidence has been lost in the government. We certainly didn't hear election finance reform in the last campaign and Harper said the priority was the economy. A little cut in election spending and no stimulus is enough to vote no.

Turn over the government if you can't retain confidence.

Edited November 28, 2008 by jdobbin

[Smallc]

Think the Liberals are doing that.

However, the issue of confidence has been lost in the government. We certainly didn't hear election finance reform in the last campaign and Harper said the priority was the economy. A little cut in election spending and no stimulus is enough to vote no.

Not to mention the elimination of the right to strike by federal employees. Can they even do that?

[Alta4ever]

Then you should be opposed to individuals receiving a tax deduction to give money to parties.

Sure thats the next step

[jdobbin]

Sure thats the next step

Really? Make it part of this economic update and maybe I won't think the Tories are a bunch of manipulating pols trying to simply gain advantage and call an election in three or so months.

[Radsickle]

Harper wants to take away the public money going towards each vote because he wants to disable his opposition's financing. Jean Cretien put a stop to large donations influencing government long ago by limiting financial contributions and offering so much public money per vote instead. In other words, the NDP or Reform Party would get $1.95 of tax-payer money for every vote it received in an election. This was a great democratic move and gave an incentive for people to vote!

The savings from cancelling this are MINIMAL for Canada but VERY BENEFICIAL for the government in power. The old Tory Party couldn't afford itself anymore once Cretien changed the financing rules. Harper's trying to devolve and dissolve that so that he ALWAYS has the most money come election time.

If Harper's going to take advantage of the times and be petty by concentrating on political targets instead of making the moves most Canadians need right now, I hope he's politically destroyed soon and the Opposition forms a government instead. Far too much credit has been given to these Mike Harrisites already.

[craiger]

I favor this for one fact it will make a 2 party system I don't see any Liberals or NDP or greens voting Torie any time soon. This is a good thing as no minortiy government should rule

[cybercoma]

not really as it was in reference to his marching orders for Conservatives in Parliament to be less aggressive, and this plan goes totally against that directive

It's only aggressive because the opposition parties see an opportunity to takeover the government through tyrannical mutiny. The Conservatives are the hardest hit party in all of this because they have the most seats, so they stand to lose the most money. Canadians don't want taxes raised and this is the only way to avoid the growing deficits without raising the tax. The solution is simple for the other parties, just raise the taxes. If they form a coalition government, that's exactly what they'll need to do. This isn't so much aggression by the Conservatives as it is pragmatism in the face of economic troubles.

[cybercoma]

This whole thing could blow up in his face. Having another election would be a travesty, but an understandable consequence of our parliamentary system. I think Harper is wrong, and I think it will cost him.

I hope it costs him and Canadians see that the other parties are uncooperative with their wishes to have a Conservative government. The following election would see a Conservative majority. Regardless, rumours are that the opposition wants to form a coalition, so they're nothing more than opportunistic whores.

[cybercoma]

Looks like Harper may be as ruthless as the late Trudeau. Evidently left and right are willing to destroy the other if possible. Old Conservatives used to refere to Pierre Trudeau privately as "the shark" - Looks like conservatives now have "the wolf".

With the number of times the opposition has tried to "cut"-down Harper, you would be better off calling him Harper the Hydra.

[Argus]

don't twist my words. I never said I supported corporate donations. I only said if you're going to remove the government subsidy that was put in place to make up for corporate donations being banned and individual limits being lower, then its only fair to allow them again

Why is it not FAIR to simply allow the parties to raise what money they can from their supporters and spend that money? That's the way most of the world does it.

Banning corporate donations is for our protection, to keep the politicians from whoring themselves to the lobbyists the way Chretien and Martin and Mulroney did.

[cybercoma]

don't twist my words. I never said I supported corporate donations. I only said [. . .] allow them again

Um...

[Argus]

I personally think that some Liberals such as Rae and Ignatieff have shown that they can raise money in small donations. Between the two of them, they raised millions. Problem was that it was for their leadership campaigns and not the party.

So why can't they teach their party how to do this?

The only reason the Tories lowered the more reasonable limit of $5000 was to squeeze Liberals.

Probably true. No, certainly true. Just like the only reason Chretien brought in this law was to screw Martin. But i don't care why they were done. They make sense from a democratic standpoint. No ordinary person can donate $5,000 to a political party. Only the rich can. More to the point, that high an amount calls in favours and it makes it much easier to get around limits. We've often seen, for example, in the past, how all the leading officers of a corporation and their spouses, would donate thousands to a party - well, to your party - as individuals in order to get around limits. So you have the ABC Corp president and his wife and son all donating $5,000, along with the three VPs and their wives, and you've got a sizeable favour owed to them in the near future, to be paid back through action on a bill or policy which will profit them.

Of course, you know this very well.

I have explained where I think controls need to be made to on party financing. I think that parties have to be limited in what they spend in a year. Period. I don't care who donates and how much. It really doesn't matter if there is a rock solid law on how much can be spent annually or during an election campaign. Any extra money a party raises would have to sit in the bank and any influence someone hoped to get by donating would dwindle

.

Uh huh, and I'm betting that this proposed spending limit would not limit the Liberals with their small donation base, but would limit the Tories, who get a lot more money, right? I think it's more fair to say that a party can raise whatever it can from its members and from Canadians in the form of small, individual donations, than that we'll limit the Tories to what the Liberals can raise and spend - because the Liberals don't know how to raise money.

If need be, I think that the Liberals can completely turn their financing around to raise more than the Tories on $5 donations.

Then let them.

[Argus]

The Tories do have one person who has undue influence on the party: Harper.

Uhm, the party leader is supposed to have enormous influence on the party. Just because your party leader doesn't have any influence on his party don't try to pretend that's normal.

[Argus]

The only reason why you and Harper want this is because everyone knows that the wealthiest Canadians, are the main base of the Conservative party.

I want to congratulate you, DrGreenthumb. Despite saying nonsensical things on a routine basis, you continually come up with even dumber things to spout here.

Even the Liberals here have admitted that the Tories get their donations in very small amounts, like $5, from a large number of people. They've always gotten their money from small amounts. It's the Liberals who are crippled by the ban on corporate donations and large dollar amounts. All of which is very well known, btw, certainly to everyone else on this thead.

The NDP isn't as bad off as the Liberals, but they were hurt by the ban on large dollar amounts too, as it robbed their union masters of a lever of control by denying them their big dollar contributions.

[cybercoma]

Uhm, the party leader is supposed to have enormous influence on the party.

That's not necessarily true. He is supposed to a lot of influence, but it is debatable whether the Prime Minister of Canada has too much authority. Some people see it as undemocratic for the PMs word to mean more than the will of the constituents.

[Argus]

We know that Harper supports the oil and gas so what stops the CEO's of those companies to give each of its employees 115.00 and tells them to go donated to the Conservative party?

Uh, because it's illegal, and because you can't keep it secret when you have a lot of employees, and because there's bound to be at least one of them who isn't a Tory, and who'll call Elections Canada.

[fairvotecanada]

How does this create another crisis? This keeps tax payers monies in government programs, not political parties campaign teams.

You want a tight leash around the political parties necks this does it. Play to you base, or no money to fight elections it adds more accountablity to the system, and puts more power in the grassroots of the party. How is that ever a bad thing.

Talking about government programs, Flaherty announced they're planning to cut another $15 Billions on those, no mention which ones in the next 3 years; what do you think will get on the chopping block first I say health care and food inspection; best way to depopulate as food is getting rare in the world... and so is pension funds... therefore eliminating the poor, the sick and the old in one large swoop.

Here is what I have done I have emailed the parliament maybe you could also follow the lead if you at all care for this country:

I want to denounce our PM for being a dictator and proving it; for being

a traitor to my country and democracy if he does take the money assigned

to the opposition party(s) as these are what 62% of Canada have voted for

and he would be denying us all Canadian a fair representation by doing

so.

Can he really do that without asking the people first?

Can he not take a percentage of his salary and give it back to Canada?

Can he not remove a few like the last extra 6 ministers he created seat

for?

Those are all things he could do without hurting democracy and/or Canada

while saving a lot of money and tightening his belt.

When is the PM going to create green jobs as Canadian want? When is the

PM going to create affordable housing program?

When is the PM going to provide a stimulus package for Canadian?

Why doesn't the PM get rid of the massage parlor employees and turn down

the heat at the Parliament?

Why doesn't he ask for a vote of all MPs to decrease salaries by ten

percent?

Is he just waiting for people to die?

Is he planning on shipping the poor on an island for the Olympic if they

survive (as this is still not guarantee)?

Is PM 'Harper' depopulation not already on the way?

How about creating a food-stamp program for the poor and low-wage worker?

Please stop the Dictatorship from taking place.

Sent to: [email protected].

[cybercoma]

Uh, because it's illegal, and because you can't keep it secret when you have a lot of employees, and because there's bound to be at least one of them who isn't a Tory, and who'll call Elections Canada.

And because they'll take the money and spend it on beer and cigarettes instead.