Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

Paying for the Bloc

by Andrew Coyne on Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:09pm - 110 Comments

Even Chantal Hébert gets the odd thing wrong. Here she falls into a common trap on the subject of the per-vote subsidy and the Bloc Québécois:

According to federal Democratic Reform Minister Steven Fletcher, many Canadians are frustrated with the notion that their taxes are funding a sovereignist party. Given that the subsidy is based on a per-vote formula, that is a bogus argument, unworthy of Fletcher’s ministerial title.

The Quebecers who support the Bloc are taxpayers, with no less right to have the $1.95 subsidy tied to their vote channelled to the party of their choice.

The last part is right. But the implication in the first — that taxpayers at large are not funding the Bloc, because Bloc supporters are taxpayers and the subsidy is “per vote” — is flat wrong. The Quebecers who vote Bloc do indeed “channel” the subsidy to the party of their choice. But they don’t pay it. The money doesn’t come from them. It comes from general revenues.

These revenues come, disproportionately, from people with incomes above the national average. Quebecers’ incomes are, on average, below the national average, and if I’m not mistaken Bloc voters’ incomes are, on average, lower still. Which means, yes, there is an element of redistribution in the subsidy: taxpayers across Canada are paying, disproportionately, to fund a party dedicated to the country’s destruction.

Tags: Bloc, party finances, per-vote subsidy

More by Andrew Coyne

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

This is all a big smokescreen. This sudden push for a ban on BQ public funding is aimed at the Liberals. Harper and his cronies know full well that the Bloc can and would survive without that money.

They are after the LPC and are trying to corner them on this issue.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Andrew, Andrew, Andrew. ALL public expenditures amount to redistribution. Often far more egregious (although certainly less treasonous, depending on your perspective) than this example.

This is not the correct argument against the per-vote subsidy. The insanity of "free money" for the undeserving is the argument against the per-vote subsidy. Kill it for all. Don't just kill it for one.

http://twitter.com/acoyne @acoyne

"Kill it for all. Don't just kill it for one."

That's actually my point. Thank you.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Bit of a roundabout drive you took there, if that was your point.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Well, Sean, it is summer, after all. Sometimes the scenic route turns out to be worth the detour, sometimes not.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

lol!

And he does have that fancy new car.

Mike T.

And Coyne says he's not a gadfly….
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

If the rest of Canada wants to do something about the Bloc, we should have the guts to do so directly.

Ban any form of federal funding or party status to organizations that advocate separatist goals. Explain that treasonous intents (and if breaking up the nation doesn't count as treason, I'm not sure what does) are not a justifiable contribution to Canadian democracy.

Think of it as a logical extension of the clarity act. All we ask is that federal parties be clear in their minimal support for maintaining the federation. Otherwise, they can support themselves.

I know this will never happen, but it would be honest. Tinkering with back door strategies is as disingenuous as the whole 'sovereignty association' BS. If we want the Bloc gone, then let's be straightforward about it.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"Which means, yes, there is an element of redistribution in the subsidy: taxpayers across Canada are paying, disproportionately, to fund a party dedicated to the country’s destruction."

And another thing. While I oppose the BQ's separatist agenda, to suggest that they are dedicated to the destruction of Canada is outright hogwash. We are not the Balkans. To say this is to willfully ignore Quebec's history and how Canada came to be as a nation. This country is as decentralized as it gets and there is a reason for that.

Rightly or wrongly, some Quebecers want their own status and a EU-like union with the rest of Canada. Fortunately, they are a clear minority. Having said that, if Harper (and Coyne) continue with this offensive talk, they may become a majority in the near future.

Alex

Canada is supposed to be a democracy but here we are being forced to contribute to political parties that we do not approve of. Get rid of the political contribution regulation! Let me choose who my money goes to!

Barry Haley

This whole issue is totally irrelevant. Quebec, in reality, separated a long time ago. It has always had it's separate income tax collection, it's own version of the CPP (better managed), it's own immigration department, functionaly consulates (business offices) around the world and can now represent itself at some UN functions. It's language laws are illegal per the Canadian constution, which it never signed. It's laws re choice of schools for ones children would likely be shot down under Canadian laws. One of the reasons Quebec's average incomes are lower is because of the impediments to business and labour mobility these laws create. The impact of the lower incomes on the Bloc subsidy is miniscule compared to the impact on transfer payments. Transfer payments are the only reason left for Quebecers to continue the pretense of being Canadian. It's time we give them the Royal 22nd, an icebraker and be done with it. They could survive very well. or not, but we would be better off.

George

I am a Quebecer and I agree with you. In fact, therefore, instead of working for Canada's destruction, the Bloc is working for the building of new and improved Canada. Good point.

As for me, I think Quebec would also be better off without these constant mean spirited attacks by people like AC. As Gilles Duceppe often points out, once Quebec beomes independent, it wants to have the best possible relationship with the rest of Canada. In fact, today Quebec has more free trade with the State of New York than with the Province of Ontario. Is this normal in a supposedly united country?

Barry Haley

I grew up in Quebec and do still love it's culture and the "joie de vie" of it's people. I also believe thet Quebec would do quite well under it's own flag. Canada would be saving biooions just on the subsidies given to Bombardier and other Quebec business in the hope of getting a few votes for the governing party. I also think Canada would have better trade if Quebec was part of NAFTA. rather than a province.

JeanCharles

Funding received by the Bloc is peanuts compared to the cost to Canada of the Bloc-inspired suboptimal socialist legislation being pushed down the throats of all the rest of Canadians who love this country and want to stay in it unlike Mr Duceppe and his fellow travelers. Only in Canada would a group of secessionists be allowed to vote and influence the legislation of a country that they don't wan't to be a part of. This may ba a good example of Canadian tolerance but if PT Barnum were alive today he might modify his famous statement to say "there's a Canadian born every minute"., and to the rest of the world it certianly seems that tolerance has crossed the line into stupidity.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

I'd sooner see no funding for the parties, and few-if-any tax credits for donations, and a whole bunch of other stuff that I'll probably never get.

But *if* we're going to be stuck with public funding for the parties, here's an off-the-top-of-my-head alternative idea: That $1.95 a vote that each party gets can be replaced with a "subsidy" of $1.95 (or whatever figure is set by law) that is allocated by you, once a year, on your income tax return. You have the option of ticking "none of the above", in which case your buck-ninety-five-or-whatever goes to Elections Canada to help them run the show (assuming that we want each Canadian to support the political process in *some* way with their tax dollars.

Not my preferred option, but (arguably) better than the status quo.

George

You are really naive. Parties need money to function and for elections. If public funding is abolished or made dependent on each taxpayer's acceptance, which is more or less the same thing, then who would finance the parties? Do you want to go to the old regime when corporations did the financing and then essentially controlled the government policies? The money given by the corporations was, in any event, paid by all of us through the purchase of their products or services.

To me the best thing that Jean Chretien did was to abolish corporate financing of political parties, replacing it with public funding.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

Well, I've been called worse than naive before.

But if you read what I'm suggesting, there still would be public funding of parties, although in my scenario, one would have the option of sending his or her money to Elections Canada instead. I'm not suggesting that one be allowed to opt out entirely. The difference between the status quo and my plan is that you, and everyone else who files a tax return, would be able to decide on an annual basis who gets the annual subsidy.

As for your question as to "who would finance the parties", my preferred option would be, individual Canadians. If you, as with any other Canadian, want to donate to the NDP, the Conservatives, or the Marxist-Leninists, go right ahead and do so. (I'd sooner it be done without the tax credit rigamarole, and that the tax code be simplified as a result, but if wishes were fishes….) We don't have to let the big bad corporations (or unions) back into the donation game to accomplish that.

(part 2 follows)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Porkchopx Porkchopx

I am from the West and am a former PC. At first loathed the Bloc, however I find them to be one of the only honest parties in federal politics at the moment. If the Bloc ran a candidate in my riding I would vote for them. At least when they fight for Quebec and win we all get the same new rights. I do resent funding the Greens , Liberals and even the rich old farmers who hate paying taxes Reform/Conservative Party. And leaning right of center, I can't bear to vote NDP. The Bloc make a fine opposition party as they keep everyone else as honest as they can.
Dot

A serious question.

Say a Quebecker moves to Alberta and works in the oilpatch. His provincial taxes are paid to Alberta, and figure into the equalization program. Are Quebec taxpayers not subsidizing Albertans by educating this individual?

Say Celine Dion works in Vegas and pulls in $45 million per year, but resides there. So she pays Can Fed income tax, but not Provincial (I assume this is how the tax laws work). Assuming a 20% marginal Can Fed tax, she is individually paying $9 million to the Fed coffers, enough to individually fund the Bloc for a number of years.

How is my analysis any less valid than AC's?
Dot

A serious question.

Say a Quebecker moves to Alberta and works in the oilpatch. His provincial taxes are paid to Alberta, and figure into the equalization program. Are Quebec taxpayers not subsidizing Albertans by educating this individual?

Say Celine Dion works in Vegas and pulls in $45 million per year, but resides there. So she pays Can Fed income tax, but not Provincial (I assume this is how the tax laws work). Assuming a 20% marginal Can Fed tax, she is individually paying $9 million to the Fed coffers, enough to individually fund the Bloc for a number of years.

How is my analysis any less valid than AC's?

http://intensedebate.com/people/andrewcoyne Andrew Coyne

Because you're trying to earmark where the funds come from, which was the same mistake Chantal made. Funds from general revenues come from taxpayers at large, not from any one individual or group.
You can, however, earmark where the funds go to: in this case, the Bloc Quebecois. And you can observe that "taxpayers at large" and "Bloc Quebecois voters" are not one and the same. Which is what I did.

Dot

I understand the point you're making. It's a bit of a hair splitter.

But, I'm not sure that's how budgets are fine tuned (ie general revenue is spent/allocated).

Others, no doubt, have the sausage making details. But, let's assume that each fiscal year, the gov't has fixed costs it has no control over (health care transfers, paying the salaries of its employees, etc) and then once those costs are removed from the revenue stream – you eventually get into the discretionary spending and/or tax cuts.

So, if one part of the economy is really outperforming (Alberta's oil patch of late) and the Fed coffers are overflowing as a result of corporate and individual income taxes, GST revenue, moreso than in the past (assuming all other provinces perform as historically), would it not be fair to suggest that the Alberta windfall allowed purchase of military equipment, cutting GST, etc etc.?

I will admit that I'm once again " trying to earmark where the funds come from" but in this example I can with some justification, in my mind at least.

Dot

Similar cause and effect:

As potash falls, Saskatchewan tightens purse strings

Marking a drastic turn in the province's world-beating fortunes, the government of Saskatchewan announced yesterday it will divert over $700-million from construction projects, Crown corporations and its rainy-day fund in a bid to stanch the $1-billion drain of plummeting potash revenue…

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/as-p…

The bottom line: it's a complex issue, and not as simple as many suggest, from both sides of the argument.

Tom

The Bloc is a legitimate protest party that, for the most part, speak French and are restricted to one province. Reform was a legitimate protest party that spoke / speak English and, given the chance would likely favour statehood with the neighbour. The greater evil in Canada is not the protest parties but rather the institutionalized inequalities of the federal electoral system where a vote in PEI carries three times the weight of a vote in British Columbia. This is further magnified by appointed representation in the Senate. If the Canadian will cannot address the inequalities at the federal level, then possibly the land will break up into its component parts long before the Bloc will get us there. A sad thought.
http://intensedebate.com/people/coastlogger coastlogger

The way I see it this is two issues. The first that I object to is the waste of my tax money. Yes it is only a couple of bucks plus a couple more to administer the waste but a hundred or so of these "couple of bucks" programs soon adds up to serious coin.
The second is objection , and probably the more important one is being forced to donate money to a political party that I do not support nor want in power. This in the same as being forced to donate money to a church not of your choice.
Dot

the more important one is being forced to donate money to a political party that I do not support nor want in power.

Then don't vote for them and then they won't get your money.

http://intensedebate.com/people/andrewcoyne Andrew Coyne

There you go again: yes they will. They will get your money if someone else votes for them.

Dot

My assumption is that each yr the Fed gov't sets aside a pot of money for its eligible voters. And this money is distributed to the parties according to how many votes a particular party had received.

With all due respect – you are making the same mistake you claim Chantal makes. You are suggesting that this pot of money comes disproportionatly from the ROC SIMPLy due to where they live and pay provincial taxes, and where companies are headquartered. For reasons outlined above, this is too simplistic, in my opinion.
Dot

Same argument, but on a personal note. In the 2006 election, I was apathetic to all of the mainstream parties, and rather than stay at home, I took the time to register and vote for the GPC not only as a protest vote, but because they would receive $1.75 per year, accordingly, to further their unique message (back when Jim harris was Leader).

In my mind, and I'm sure in many others, there was an implicit contract with the gov't. Pay your taxes, register your vote, vote and we will provide your party of your choice $1.75 per year (now $1.95). As far as I'm concerned, of the taxes I pay, that $1.75 comes off the top, before any comingling of general revenue. And if I'd rather not support any party or any particular one, I don't give them the subsidy.

Now, one could also argue that the GPC is being subsidized by big business, higher income people (I suspect the overall demographics of the GPC are not unlike your depiction of the Bloc – younger and non mainstream type voters, though changing) polluters etc. But, I think the other argument is just as valid.

http://demosthenes.blogspot.com Demosthenes

Ah, it just wouldn’t be a Coyne blog without that well-worn whinge about “redistributionary” taxes.

http://intensedebate.com/people/andrewcoyne Andrew Coyne

I'm actually in favour of redistributionary taxes, if by redistribution you mean "from rich to poor." I'm just not in favour of redistribution from east to west, or city to country, or industry to industry, or political party to political party, or the countless other ways in which we are constantly trying to enlist the state to pick each other's pockets…

http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

(part 2)

In fact, that is my preferred option – let the parties be funded by individuals who want to fund them and who are willing to spend their own money to do so, sans gimmicks. And yes, you can keep the donation limits & disclosure rules if you'd like, just to make sure that some northern version of Boss Hogg isn't kicking in too much dough on the sly.

But *if* we're going to have taxes processed into the parties' bank accounts, then I like my idea better than what we have now.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Porkchopx Porkchopx

Here's a simple solution…don't vote! I could not care less who gets in federally now as they have no impact on my life in any way, shape or form other than taxes. The federal government and all of it's institutions are a colossal waste of money. All I now care about is whether my garbage is picked up, my streets cleaned and water/sewer work. All local services provided by property taxes. The federal government has grown irrelevant to anyone but big business and welfare users.

George

You are very wrong, because it is the Feds that take most of our money and spend it on stupid things like the war in Afghanistan which Harper himself acknowledged cannot be won. It is the feds that bail out American bankrupt companies like GM with billions of our dollars, putting us, our children and grandchildren into debt for decades to come. If we don't vote, we let a small number of well organised party hacks do whatever they want with our future wellbeing.

Porkchopx

I truly hope that voter turnout falls to the lowest level in the world and laws are enacted to force everyone to vote. Like in Australia. Then all of a sudden when the winning party sees very large and scary numbers going to the facists and even the communists the conventional parties start to listen to the majority and to behave appropriately. Then true democracy happens. As it is now our government only listens to the well organized groups who lobby them. Our western governments use debt as a means to cotrol the general population. This is their only means of mass intimidation of an educated populus. I am no anarchist, but we DO NOT NEED a federal level of government as they supply absolutely nothing I require. They only add another level of bureaucracy to provincially supplied services.

Richard

"The money doesn’t come from them. It comes from general revenues."

Great line. Please keep it in store for the next time Dalton McGuinty or Ed Stelmach is whining about Equalization payments.

To the matter at hand, however, wasn't this question settled by the SCC back in 2003? (see: Figuero v. Canada, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912)