The Conservatives are ready to re-visit the issue of subsidies for political parties, a welcome assertion of the importance of individuals in the political syst

From Monday’s Globe and Mail Published on Sunday, Jun. 20, 2010 10:00PM EDT Last updated on Monday, Jun. 21, 2010 12:28PM EDT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/political-parties-need-to-raise-their-own-money/article1610999/

Canadians’ tax dollars are being used legally but quite flagrantly to finance a party that wants to break up the country

Jeffrey Simpson

From Wednesday’s Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2010 5:00AM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2010 1:46PM EDT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/party-financing-yes-end-the-public-subsidy-but-raise-the-individual-limit/article1668452/

The law of unintended consequences can be seen by a quick reference to Elections Canada’s website.

There, details of party financing are revealed. The story of those details shows how the Liberals have been hurt by their own legislation, and how the Bloc Québécois has walked away the big winner from public financing of parties.

Jean Chrétien’s Liberals, in trying to “clean up” party financing, outlawed corporate and union contributions, set a limit of $5,000 for individual contributions and offered public help to each party. The Harper Conservatives, as part of their overwrought so-called Accountability Act, reduced individual contributions from $5,000 to $1,100.

“ Quietly, the big winner from this system has been the Bloc.”

The Liberals had always done well in corporate Canada, so the elimination of corporate donations hurt them badly. They also had donors lining up to give $5,000, so the elimination of that provision also hurt them. The Conservatives, like the Reformers, had a small army of modest contributors that they cultivated, and still do. The party raises a lot of money this way – much more than the Liberals – but spends a lot cultivating its base.

Quietly, the big winner from this system has been the Bloc. It doesn’t try very hard to raise money, because federal largesse to parties means the Bloc can tell its core secessionist supporters to donate instead to the Parti Québécois.

The numbers tell the story. The Bloc raised only $850,000 last year but took in $2.7-million in public money, for a ratio of one private dollar to 3.5 public dollars. The Conservatives’ ratio is 1.7 to 1, the Liberals about 1 to 1 and the NDP about 1 to 1. The national parties, therefore, are working as best as they can at fundraising, earning at least as much, if not more, from their own efforts than from public funds.

The Bloc, as you can see from the numbers, is mostly riding on taxpayers’ dollars – most of them from outside Quebec – to promote itself and, by extension, the breakup of Canada.

Here, then, is the greatest effect of the law of unintended consequences: Canadians’ tax dollars are being used legally but quite flagrantly to finance a party that wants to end the country as we have known it for 143 years. Understanding this, no one should ever question the generosity of Canadians, although that generosity can certainly be described as nuts.

The Conservatives have included in successive campaign platforms a promise to end public subsidies. It was the attempt to implement this policy that contributed to the parliamentary crisis whereby the three opposition parties got together and proposed to take over power, an attempt that fizzled.

The Conservatives have said – and there’s no reason to doubt their resolve – that they will try again if re-elected. If they really wanted to put the cat among the pigeons, and were seeking an election, they could stick the measure in the next budget, daring the opposition parties to vote against the budget.

We can be certain that, by whatever means, the Conservatives will try for this change because, at the moment, it obviously benefits them. It would hurt the Liberals somewhat but damage the Bloc even more, given that party’s dependence on the federal subsidy mostly provided by Canadians outside Quebec.

The conceptual trouble with the Conservatives’ intention is not the theory but the execution. Anyone who thinks that a contribution of $1,000 to $5,000 will turn policy toward the giver isn’t living in the real world of government, in which national parties raise millions of dollars even with the $1,000 limit. Despite all the hyperventilation in the media about money buying influence, a few thousand dollars to a party buys the giver nada.

If we want parties to be healthy, they need money to do their work. And if we don’t want public dollars to help them, then individuals should be encouraged to give what they can to fill in the public subsidy – which will mean raising the individual limit above $1,000.

That’s the fair tradeoff: End the public subsidy, all right, but raise the individual contribution limit.

Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service · Tuesday, Jun. 15, 2010

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/deputy+denies+hating+Israel/3155071/story.html#ixzz0qvYbCC3h
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Charlie Frist – An Independent in his own words – YouTube

Centrist Florida governor falls through the cracks of a deeply divided GOP

Florida Governor Charlie Crist with Florida first lady Carole Crist, left, announces that he will run as an independent for U.S. Senate at a news conference in St. Petersburg, Fla. Scott Audette/Reuters

Candidacy sets stage for three-way race for coveted Florida Senate seat, with Governor Charlie Crist favoured to winKonrad Yakabuski

Consider the following comments about this article before reading it:

Comment 1:

“I am not so sure this will hurt the Republicans in the long run. Likely in the short run, though. Christ, who is definitely a Republican in behaviour, has said he will continue to vote with the Republicans if elected, and is clearly feeling bullied enough that he will tow the party line after this experience, if elected, which is bad. The irony of all this blacklisting by Republicans is that it is becoming elitist where only a few decide Republican policy and who runs. Only a few decide for the entire party which is less input for the rest. Strange times. Those who care about fairness and justness would really hope this ‘experiment’ by extreme Republicans fails miserably.”

and

Comment 2

“Just to help out the Globe and its collection of insulated readers, I am helpfully posting a link to the Politico article on Mr.Charlie and his ‘principled’ crusade. I know I am throwing away all that cash from my winnings on that pool I suggested earlier, but I’m just a helper at heart.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36575.html

Charlie’s chances of winning in November – Slim & None and the bus is all but warmed up as they say.
Charlie’s chances of going out of politics as both a buffoon and a poltroon. Excellent.

I look forward to his forthcoming utter humiliation as a salutatory lesson to all the other poltroons out there in political land. Self-absorption and self-regard are NOT ENOUGH.
You have to both offer something and more importantly BE something.”

Washington — From Friday’s Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Apr. 30, 2010 4:55AM EDT Last updated on Friday, Apr. 30, 2010 10:30AM EDT

March 15, 2010

Jim Coyle

“By silencing her caucus, Horwath probably did assert her leadership and avoid potential rifts. But, in the doing, she backpedalled from some of the long-standing, and laudable, traditions of her party.

And she gave the young another reason to roll their eyes at a business where fearless minds and independent voices need not apply.”

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/779829

There are at least two ways of looking at any issue. And Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath was likely getting eyed from a couple of angles for ordering her MPPs not to participate in a forum on whether the province should end public funding of Catholic schools.

On the one hand, Horwath – just a year on the job as leader – demonstrated authority, discipline and a wary eye for what’s historically been an incendiary issue.

On the other, she resembled, oh, Stephen Harper in her top-down muzzling of those elected, presumably, to speak their minds in the arena of competing ideas and not to shy from the tricky stuff.

Barry Weisleder, chair of the NDP’s socialist caucus, said Toronto MPP Michael Prue (who campaigned for the party leadership on reopening the school funding debate) had initially agreed to participate in the forum.

But even though the party’s provincial council has established a task force to examine public education funding options, Prue was ordered by the leader to bow out.

“So much for freedom of speech in the ONDP, at least on this important question,” Weisleder said.

There are at least a couple of reasons to cock an eyebrow at Horwath’s reluctance to have her caucus members participate.

One is that the NDP is legendary for its insistence on debating everything. Its conventions are usually gabfests on all issues under the sun and members are seldom happier than when protracted dispute arises over the most arcane of procedural points. Having one’s say appears to be part of a New Democrat’s DNA.

Horwath’s decision probably also plays worse with that demographic her party needs most – youth. There’s declining interest among the young in institutional politics. Their activism tends to be expressed through extra-parliamentary organizations. In considerable measure, this is because stifling, paternalistic party discipline is foreign to the ethos in which most under-30s have been raised.

The adage that children (like dutiful MPPs) are to be seen but not heard has long been rendered an anachronism.

Contemporary young have been encouraged to express themselves from the cradle. They vote people off the island, choose the latest pop-cult idol, tweet about any fleeting thought that flits across their consciousness.

They’ve been educated to assert themselves rather than unquestioningly defer. As Jean Twenge wrote in Generation Me, teenagers once admonished to “be polite” are now urged to “be yourself.”

The “question authority” mantra of the youth of the ’60s has now been around almost 50 years.

It’s worth noting that in the five by-elections in Ontario in the last year, only two of the MPPs elected were under 50 – and those by just a few years. One is almost 70.

Queen’s Park is not a counter, it would appear, where youth must be served.

As with any other cohort, the less young people see their views and values reflected in politics the less heed they give it.

By silencing her caucus, Horwath probably did assert her leadership and avoid potential rifts. But, in the doing, she backpedalled from some of the long-standing, and laudable, traditions of her party.

And she gave the young another reason to roll their eyes at a business where fearless minds and independent voices need not apply.

Jim Coyle’s provincial affairs column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

Michael De Adder/Artizans.com

Stephen Harper has for several years now claimed that his proposed reforms for the Canadian Senate are about bringing accountability and democracy to the much-maligned second chamber.

With his most recent prorogation of Parliament, however, it is clear that for all his rhetoric, his reforms are less about a thoughtful reinvigoration of our political institutions and more about maintaining political power.

National and international political pundits alike have called him out for proroguing Parliament this time round. Happily, many more Canadians are now debating what might be done to fix our political system. But first, I believe we need to make sure we focus on the right questions.

In my opinion, the critical question is this: Why does the prime minister have so much power?

The answer is quite simple: Because the House of Commons no longer holds the prime minister to account.

Next question: What should be done?

Answer: Insist that MPs take orders from their constituents, not their party leaders. MPs with backbone, not backbenchers, would deliver a properly functioning Commons. Of course, the likelihood of this happening is somewhat remote. So what can we do while we’re waiting?

Lots of people think we should just go ahead and elect senators to make the system work better. Indeed, a new Canadian Press poll proudly trumpeted: “A majority of Canadians would like to (see) senators elected by the voters from the province they represent.”

Well, I guess even I might have answered that way if I’d only been given the three choices offered by the pollster: (1) abolish the Senate; (2) have the prime minister appoint them; or (3) elect them myself.

Looking at each of the three choices, I’m always surprised that more people don’t want to just get rid of the Senate.

But then I’m reminded that we wouldn’t have a Canada at all if the Fathers of Confederation hadn’t agreed to an appointed upper chamber. That was the deal-maker – none of the other provinces wanted to let Ontario run away with the country, which it could have done if it abused its power of the majority.

Perhaps Canadians today intuitively recognize that the Senate provides a valuable counterweight against the abuse of power and therefore want to keep it.

But to have the prime minister appoint senators? Ah, there’s the rub.

We’re already upset that the prime minister has too much power. The thought of giving him or her any more rankles at all levels, especially so when we remember transparently political payoffs evident in various prime ministerial appointments over the past few years.

Like a mischievous genie wanting desperately to get out of a musty old bottle, the pollster only gives you one more choice: an elected Senate. Unlike a journeyman genie, however, he doesn’t give you the standard warning: “Be careful of the wish you make.”

Consider what happens now when you elect someone to go to Ottawa.

No sooner have they spent their first term in office than they’re emailing home to explain why they voted for something their constituents didn’t want.

The reason, of course, is party discipline. They’re “whipped,” i.e., told to vote with their party or else leave caucus. Most stay and do what they’re told. Without the party, it’s very difficult to get re-elected.

It would be no different for senators if they were running for election. Most would run as party candidates. What we’d end up with is nothing more than 105 more backbenchers. Right back, in fact, where we started.

So let’s start again. Let’s take the proposition that an independent, appointed Senate is, after all, Canada’s last best chance for democracy.

We’d still be left with the problem of how we appoint senators, of course. But surely we can figure out how to do that without prime ministerial intervention.

It is, when you get right down to it, a prerogative exercised by the Governor General. That she takes advice is a good thing. For years now, however, we’ve accepted that she only take advice from the prime minister. What if, instead, she convened a blue ribbon advisory panel to help choose senators?

The panel could identify outstanding Canadians with a proven record of dedication to what’s best for the country, men and women who could stand tall and say to our elected members, “Are you sure that’s what you want to do?”

As Senator John Abbott declared, speaking in 1890, that’s our job. “Let us take care,” he said, “that no temporary fit of prejudice or passion, injurious to our country or disadvantageous to our interests is allowed to force a measure through this Parliament without giving to the people a further opportunity for considering it …”

Being appointed, individual senators can stand up and do what Abbott called on us to do without worrying about whether we have a job at the end of the day. At least that gives our nation one last bulwark against overbearing executive power.

What it gives us, in short, is a constitutionally protected place where Canadians from all parts of the country and all across the political spectrum can make their voices heard.

Elaine McCoy is an independent Progressive Conservative senator from Alberta.

“Today, no voter’s mind is changed by what is said in Parliament, partly because free and informed debate no longer occurs in Parliament and partly because party discipline and the concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s Office precludes members from speaking honestly. Parliament, in short, is little more than an unedifying charade.”

Don’t forget the comments.

Suppose the House lights were never turned back on … The Canadian Press

What public function does Parliament serve? Give up?

Ian Hunter

From Wednesday’s Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Feb. 09, 2010 6:48PM EST Last updated on Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2010 9:36AM EST

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article747167.ece#comments

Note the following comment on this article:

“This is fascinating. Not sure what the legal basis of this decision was, but this is a great victory for democracy in Canada. Each of the Conservative, Liberal and NDP parties are (under their constitutions allowed) to appoint who they want as candidates in any riding. This is how Michael Ignatieff won his seat in Parliament.

The parties have forgotten that Parliamentary democracy is not about the Party but about Parliament. Parliament is made up of MPs which are elected to represent their individual ridings. MPs are not elected to “do the bidding” of the party in power. MPs are elected to represent the constituents in the riding.

Many years ago, MPs started out as Independents – they were beholden to their riding. As Scott Brown put it in his recent victory in the Massachusetts Senate Election, when asked how he would feel in Ted Kennedy’s seat, he said:

“With due respect, it’s not the Teddy Kennedy’s seat. It’s not the Democrat’s seat. It’s the people’s seat!”

The seat in Parliament belongs to the people in that riding. It does not belong to the member and it does not belong to the party. There is a disturbing trend of MPs “crossing the floor”. MPs who “cross the floor” seem to thing that, the seat belongs to them. Wrong. “It’s the people’s seat.”

A party that comes in and overrides the wishes of local riding associations is exhibiting a contempt for the people in the riding.

If parties are allowed to swoop in and decree who is the candidate in the riding, there is no point in having a Parliament at all.

As it stands now, MPs are required to vote the party line. If they don’t they will thrown out of the party. Remember Bill Casey!

Next election – vote for an independent.

Independents are the only candidates who represent the interests of the riding!”

________________________________________

CALGARY — Canadian Press Published on Friday, Mar. 16, 2007 2:15PM EDT Last updated on Tuesday, Mar. 31, 2009 10:20PM EDT