An interesting day in the House of Commons. A few years ago, the funding of elections was changed to forbid the contributions of corporations and unions to political parties. To maintain adequate funding, public financing was introduced, to the tune of 1.95 per vote received in the most recent election, distributed yearly. This sum amounted to about 30 million a year.
An alternate method of getting funds remained open, that of personal contributions to a party, although the max funding limit was lowered to $1000 per person by the incoming Conservative administration a few years back. This contribution is also tax deductible.
Of all the parties, the Conservatives were the most successful at raising money through personal contributions to the party, with the NDP, the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and the Greens trailing by significant margins.
Today, as their first act since winning a minority government in the October election, the Conservatives proposed the elimination of public election financing, leaving only personal contributions as a means to raise monies. This elimination is positioned as belt-tightening, as well as the popularism of getting political parties off the public dole. Since they received the most votes, they argued, they would be the most impacted by the money not available. However, the Conservatives would have the advantage in the post-elimination financial reality afterward, as I mentioned above.
Now, this did not go over well with the opposition parties, and they have all threatened to vote against the motion when it comes up. Since they do not have a majority in the House of Commons, the Conservatives need one of the other parties to vote with them to pass legislation. The Conservatives have made this matter a motion of confidence, which means, if it does fail, then that would be the fall of the government.
The consequence would either be a new election, or the unique development of the opposition party being asked to form government with the support of the other parties. Either way, exciting stuff.
My analysis:
For one, I support the public financing of elections, therefore I disagree with the motion's very basis. I believe that a healthy democracy requires healthy competition, and I believe this measure was meant as a cheap political move to weaken that opposition if it was successfully passed.
However, regardless of the validity of the motion, this was not the right time to implement it. The sums reallocated are minor in relation to total government expenditures. This measure was bound to be contentious and could have been held until later in the Conservative's term, and instead the focus could have been on the worsening economic situation. To introduce it as the very first motion of a new government was a declaration of war intended to achieve political ends.
Those ends were the purposeful fall of government in an attempt to win a majority in the subsequent election. As a motivating factor, there is also the transfer of responsibility to another party for the upcoming worsened economic situation if indeed the opposition parties formed government, although I consider that less likely and only of side benefit if it occurred.
I'd also like to point out that none of this was mentioned by the Conservatives as being part of their platform in the recent election campaign, not the least to warrant it being the priority once they achieved governance. They had no mandate for this. Ironically, after they won the election, the Conservatives signaled that they would take a less confrontational tone in government than they had previously.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com.../BNStory/politics/home
edit:
more recent article on the subject:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com...tics1127/BNStory/Front
An alternate method of getting funds remained open, that of personal contributions to a party, although the max funding limit was lowered to $1000 per person by the incoming Conservative administration a few years back. This contribution is also tax deductible.
Of all the parties, the Conservatives were the most successful at raising money through personal contributions to the party, with the NDP, the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and the Greens trailing by significant margins.
Today, as their first act since winning a minority government in the October election, the Conservatives proposed the elimination of public election financing, leaving only personal contributions as a means to raise monies. This elimination is positioned as belt-tightening, as well as the popularism of getting political parties off the public dole. Since they received the most votes, they argued, they would be the most impacted by the money not available. However, the Conservatives would have the advantage in the post-elimination financial reality afterward, as I mentioned above.
Now, this did not go over well with the opposition parties, and they have all threatened to vote against the motion when it comes up. Since they do not have a majority in the House of Commons, the Conservatives need one of the other parties to vote with them to pass legislation. The Conservatives have made this matter a motion of confidence, which means, if it does fail, then that would be the fall of the government.
The consequence would either be a new election, or the unique development of the opposition party being asked to form government with the support of the other parties. Either way, exciting stuff.
My analysis:
For one, I support the public financing of elections, therefore I disagree with the motion's very basis. I believe that a healthy democracy requires healthy competition, and I believe this measure was meant as a cheap political move to weaken that opposition if it was successfully passed.
However, regardless of the validity of the motion, this was not the right time to implement it. The sums reallocated are minor in relation to total government expenditures. This measure was bound to be contentious and could have been held until later in the Conservative's term, and instead the focus could have been on the worsening economic situation. To introduce it as the very first motion of a new government was a declaration of war intended to achieve political ends.
Those ends were the purposeful fall of government in an attempt to win a majority in the subsequent election. As a motivating factor, there is also the transfer of responsibility to another party for the upcoming worsened economic situation if indeed the opposition parties formed government, although I consider that less likely and only of side benefit if it occurred.
I'd also like to point out that none of this was mentioned by the Conservatives as being part of their platform in the recent election campaign, not the least to warrant it being the priority once they achieved governance. They had no mandate for this. Ironically, after they won the election, the Conservatives signaled that they would take a less confrontational tone in government than they had previously.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com.../BNStory/politics/home
edit:
more recent article on the subject:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com...tics1127/BNStory/Front