Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Free speech and propaganda (II)

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:26am - 95 Comments

In something of a surprise—at least to me as I sat in the gallery waiting for Francine Lalonde’s bill to be debated—the NDP stood Tuesday evening and voted in favour of a Liberal motion that directs an end to the practice of ten-percenters. Those votes, together with those of the Bloc Quebecois, were just enough for the motion to pass by a count of 140-137.

Tags: democracy, government spending, house of commons, Parliament, ten percenters

More by Aaron Wherry

Patchouli

So no more ten-percenters? I hope I'm understanding this correctly — wonderful news. Nobody reads them and they are a waste of resources.

http://intensedebate.com/people/novagardener novagardener

Let's hope. But I wouldn't put it past Steve to just ignore it anyway. Or, use the 22% increase – IIRC – in the PCO/PMO budget to 'reach' out to Canadians.
Andrew (not PorC)

I believe this is non-binding, but I could be incorrect. (Apparently Parliament can say things without really meaning them.)

http://intensedebate.com/people/G0D God

In this case it IS binding. The HoC controls 10% printings, and the house has now told the board of internal economy ( a committee of the house) to determine how to implement this new rule change.

This is not a supply motion or anything like that. The House has spoken and anyone sending 10%ers outside of their riding will be in violation of the law.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LaxAtlDfwYow LaxAtlDfwYow

I'm not sure this yet puts a stake thru the heart of the vile ten-percenters. The motion is simply direction to the House Board of Internal Economy.

Nevertheless, if this does eventually lead to the demise of ten-percenters, whatever will Pierre Poilievre do with his time?
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

This is the strongest environmental "policy" that Parliament has passed in four years.

Just think of all the trees we'll save.
http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

O.Mi.God! A Coalition! Fear! Panic!
http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

Please, please let this be true! Much as I enjoy knowing he mindset of MP's from 2000 miles away, I can live without knowing what a candidate I can't vote for thinks about Ukranian-hate. No more love notes from Jack Layton, either…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

If this is binding, that's awesome.

Next, let's ban per-vote subsidies.

Mike T.

Bad call.
kcm

Whywould you want to ban per vote subs when the tax credit sub cost us more and doesn't have any of the proportionate values of the per vote sub? The tax credit is absurdly generous, and needs looking at before the per vote subs IMHO. Every time i hear a conservative mention this issue it's always this one sub that 's mentioned…it sets off my partisan alarm buzzer, which is very irritating – please desist.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Fine with me, ban them both. Happy?

kcm

Don't follow your logic. Ten percenters are clearly being abused – i'd be happy to see them used as they were intended – in other words let pols make a political sacrifice for the common good. That does seem however to be a naive wish on my part. The tax credit subs could simply be reduced, as could the per vote. I'm starting to appreciate some of the possiblle positive effects of doing away with the subs. But i'm still not convinced, and there are definitely good reasons for keeping the per vote sub in particular: pols chase votes instead of $ ; parties are encouraged to run national campaigns [all ridings] since every vote is important financially – in other words an additional incentive to win over voters as possible. I sure i've missed a couple of good reasons.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

The logic is that 10%ers are mainly used by the NDP and the CPC, so eliminating them helps the LPC. The per-vote subsidy mainly helps everyone but the CPC since they get a lot of voluntary donations. Ergo, when someone opposes everything but the per-vote subsidy it looks like partisanship…sort of like you attributing my opposition to per-vote subsidies (accompanied opposition to the other two items) as partisanship. See?

Anyway, I like your point about the per-vote subsidy encouraging national campaigns. That's the first decent argument I've heard in their favour. I'm inclined to think it doesn't work, but it could be an interesting discussion.
kcm

I see the NDP are making a sacrifice then by your reasoning – so kudos to them. "

The per-vote subsidy mainly helps everyone but the CPC since they get a lot of voluntary donations. Ergo, when someone opposes everything but the per-vote subsidy it looks like partisanship…"

I see where you're going. But i think you're a little disingenuous. The CPC inherited the reformers talent for grass roots funding. They then further twisted the screw on donations after Chretien set the limits and disallowed corp/union funds. Now they want to do away with them – so who's gaming the system? [ i know Chretien set the subs at a level that would not unduly hurt the libs, but they can be reduced, and honestly he wasn't going to cut his parties throat]
Harper, as ever is his want, overplayed his hand by trying to ban only P/V subs outright, instead of gradually eliminatihg them. In hindsight it was a monumentally stupid move. Not only did it set off a crisis that almost finished him, he arguably convinced a lot of moderate centralists [ i consider my self one] that he was never going to change, and is unworthy of his office.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

Gaunilon, I think you simply view the $ per vote from the wrong perspective. Instead think of it as a user fee for being allowed to vote. If you vote, some small amount of the money you pay in taxes is redirected at the party you chose. It is certainly the most democratic system available for funding the necessary (in our system) evil of political parties.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"t is certainly the most democratic system available for funding the necessary (in our system) evil of political parties."

Why should voting be tied to financial support? If I want to vote for a party, I do so. If I want to donate to a party, I do so. Is there any logical reason why my vote should enforce a donation? I mean, other than to keep parties alive even when their supporters are to short-sighted or uninspired to donate to them?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

"Is there any logical reason why my vote should enforce a donation?"

Yup, it's to allow the poor, who don't have the extra income kicking around and who don't pay enough in taxes to make it worth their while, to participate in party financing.

Of course, if you prefer to only have the middle class, which is generally more pro-CPC than the lower class, be able to finance political parties, that's fine, but you should come out and say it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

exactly. the underlying principle of canadian electoral policy has been the egalitarian model, especially with respect to election expenses and the rules governing advertising expenses incurred by the political parties, candidates and 'third parties'. the per vote subsidy is an extension of this in exactly the manner Jack describes. i really wish that those who are supporters of ending the per vote subsidy would be more explicit in their writings about the implications of this action for participation of low and lower income Canadians. great post Jack!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Without forcing anyone to do anything they might not want to do, you can achieve the same egalitarianism by reducing the maximum donation limit to something everyone can afford, say $10. So why force taxpayers to fund political parties?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

They fund the courts already. They fund Parliament. They fund the police. There's no opt-out clause from civil society, and political parties, like it or not, are an essential aspect of the way our civil society is organised.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

again Jack you have landed directly on the mark. The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing (aka the Lortie Commission) made clear the import of political parties as "primary political organizations" in Canada. The commission findings recognized parties as public utilities and the elevated role of parties is understood to have distinguished Canada from other Westminster systems.

I was recently at a presentation that made clear that "this construction of the role of parties as public utilities, and the specific recommendations set out in the Report, laid the groundwork for subsequent legislation that now regulates some aspects of parties' internal organization and offers extensive state funding to national party organizations."
Mike T.

Not everyone can afford $10.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

exactly Mike T.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

That's bogus, but ok, make it $1. Still object?
http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

So what. There are lots of ways to contribute to the political process other than financially.

Personally my job does not allow me much time to contribute to a party, although I have the money. Why doesn't the government force my emlployer to give me 1 hour per month to do volunteer work? it's the same principle.
http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

I have the opposite view – kill the subsidies, kill the tax credit and eliminate donation limits. Require that every donation be publicized within 48 hours and stop all donations 7 days before an election. Have very tough audit and reporting rules to trace the sources of donations. Throw the book at violaters.

no more non-partisan

It's not clear to me why Canadian taxpayers are required to hand over money to private organizations over which, unless they are a member, they have no control. Even unions get to elect their leadership, vote on policy and rules. Not suggesting that Canadians get to decide on policy but surely all Canadians should decide what the constitution and procedures of each party contains, how candidates are selected etc. Let's democratize political parties so we at least get some value for our money. If parties do not want this level of public involvement then they can refuse the subsidy.

Katherine

How would you recommend we do this? I was under the impression anyone in Canada can join a political party of their choice for a nominal fee, in which case they're able to affect the party platform. It's just that most people don't join parties because they don't particularly care or don't like any of the parties enough to join.

http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

Precisely why we should eliminate taxpayer subsidies. Political parties would have to work much harder to sell their ideas. Of course there is always vulnerability to special interest…but with proper disclosure rules, this would not be an issue.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Eliminate taxpayer subsidies and parties that exist specifically to support disadvantaged people are at a significant disadvantage.. because the people their ideas will appeal to will generally not be in the same type of position to support a party as the party that exists specfically to support the upper-middle-class management at the expense of the disadvantaged.

You can have the best ideas in the world, and they'd be useless if nobody hears of them.
You can have the worst ideas in the world, but if you publish them long enough and loud enough, people will start to believe them. That is, after all, the entire point behind propaganda. If it didn't work, it wouldn't exist.

So eliminating taxpayer subsidies and relying instead on donations simply means those who can afford to put their propaganda forward in the first place are the ones most likely to make gains, and the ideas become worthless.

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

Katherine, am I reading you right? No way we Canadians would be caught dead shelling out ten measly bucks a year (or whatever) for a party membership, because we don't like the parties… and this is an argument for snatching the dough from all of us deliberate non-members instead?

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

If you don't want to give a party your money, don't give them your vote either. It's pretty simple.

Mike T.

I wonder if Harper will refuse to comply with the valid order and say the other parties can call an election if they don't like it? Maybe appoint a former supreme court justice to look into the matter.

Chris B

If I understand correctly, Harper does not have any choice. This is one of those times when we can see that our Parliament is actually a fusion of legislative and executive. Harper (as Executive) has to comply with the wishes of the Legislative branch. He cannot override an internal House committee except by a vote in the HoC.

no more non-partisan

Can you point me to the "legislation that now regulates some aspects of parties' internal organization and offers extensive state funding to national party organizations." Thanks
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

What right have we to dictate how parties choose to allocate their money? How about we stop funding them with taxes, let individuals decide whether to support them, and then if they seem to be wasting our money we can simply decide not to support them. It's sort of the same thing that keeps unsubsidized companies from wasting their money and annoying their customers.
no more non-partisan

I'm not thinking about the party platform but rather "procedures". For example how and when leaders are chosen, how and when candidates are chosen, how much funding can be spent on certain expense categories. This is simply having a say in how our money is spent. This could be done by an expert panel of citizens, a parliamentary committee (that's how parliamentary rules are set) I'm not in favour of one approach or another but to simply hand over millions of dollars without a say in how things work is disrespectful of the taxpayer. As noted if a party didn't want this level of public involvement they could refuse the subsidy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

Your point about governance is a good one.

Mike T.

the flaws in this argument have been adequately pointed out above. Practically increasing the ability of our democracy to serve the needs of its citizens outweighs quaint notions of libertarain laissez-faire policy.
Mike T.

No, my dear boy, it ain't. It's bogus among people you know and interact with, I have no doubt, but not the entirety of our fair country.

And both $1 and $10 caps may leave parties without the ability to meet even their minimal expenses, which serves no one.
no more non-partisan

A quick survey of the report suggests that it's finance and financial reporting that is of greatest concern not the operation of the party. It does suggest that the parties' policies and procedures be transparent but not necessarily based on principles set by the taxpayer even though the report recognized that the public disapproves of many of the operating procedures of parties. For example leadership chosen by "one member one vote" seems like a principle that should be demanded by the taxpayer in return for a subsidy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

NMNP, i do trust you recognize the importance of the conditional "some" in that quoted sentence. today is a busy day otherwise, but i am sure you can do some digging.

http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

I believe what you describe decreaes the ability of our democracy to serve the needs of its citizens. How would reducing my access to information benefit democracy? We have an imperfect system to be sure. Every ad I see every policy plank everything – helps me make up my mind about a politician. Limiting this hurts democracy it doesn't help it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

If $1.95 per vote is sufficient to keep parties afloat, I'm sure $1 can also be managed. I'm even more sure that $10 can be managed. The CPC had over 5 million votes in the last election.

As to whether people can afford it, let's start with this: no one starves by necessity in Canada. No one. If someone chooses to give up just one drink in favour of water, or even gives up one meal, they can save a few bucks to donate. I've done this to donate to worthy causes in times of severe financial hardship. It can be done by any voting-age Canadian.
Mike T.

Even if we take the unwarrented step of assuming all of this is true, the number of people who would actually take the positive step of donating. $1.95 isn't sufficient by itself, but when its tabulated per tax payer it can be a big chunk.

Your plan just isn't practical.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I guarantee you, those of us who care about our political future will take that positive step. And that is exactly the sort of donation you want, if good political parties are to thrive at the expense of lousy ones.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I like it, but how do you stop rich ideologues from buying the election for their preferred candidate?

kcm

I tend to like yyz view. Transparency is the iissue. I'm not so sure the old system was so bad, apart from it's lack of transparency [big but]. My understanding was the corps tended to bet on all the horses in the race[ favouring the likely winner no doubt] but they tended to give to both large parties – the unions of course went with the ndp naturally. Where the money came from was always the issue. If it's open and public there would be a deal of incentive not to nakedly participate indubious lobbying efforts – not to mention all the cozy relationships with politicians. Does anyone really believe that dubious and politically motivated lobbying has magically disappeared – it's just gone underground. Still, with a gov't sub or private donations the big money players would seem to have less leverage over the GOTD. But i wonder how much they ever really did, and where all the lobbying has gone – because the motive is still there.
http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

It won't — that's why the rules and processes around disclosure are so important. If I want to run on the backs of a special interest it should be disclosed and I should be subject to the appropriate voter scrutiny, with help from the 4th estate.

Mike T.

Your guarantee isn't worth that much compared with the likelihood and consequences of its failure. A small per vote small subsidy favours everyone and helps free ridership, rather than empoweing an engaged fringe.
no more non-partisan

I agree but if we carry on with subsidies we can at least have a say in the minimum standards we set for party participation in the funding.

http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

I don't think we should have a say. That should be up to the party.

Mike T.

Much like just hoping people give a small amount, the practical take up rate is just too low to work effectively.

http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

That's simply not true (re. hoping people give a small amount):

See Obama, Barack.

Mike T.

It's not at all similar.

http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

Although I agree $10 is too low.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

All citizens who care enough to donate to a political party are "an engaged fringe"? Nice.
Mike T.

there's actually a pretty strong possibility that the number of people who would go to the trouble to donate a limit of say $2 would not be reflective of the political makeup as a whole.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

There's just as strong a possibility that the number of people who go to the trouble to vote is also not reflective of the political makeup as a whole.
Mike T.

That's probably true but it's a far better system and a better approximation. And the golden mean where we provide funding might be best represented by those who vote and how they vote, rather than the edges of those who don't vote and those who would voluntarily make a tiny donation.