![[Democracy Watch Logo]](dw.gif) |
![[Op-ed]](oped.gif) |
| |
|
             Français |
Set out below are two letters to the editor by Democracy Watch Coordinator Duff Conacher, the first was published in slightly different, edited form in the August 20, 2009 issue of the Globe and Mail, the second in the August 17, 2009 issue of the Hill Times There is no evidence that federal political parties cannot raise enough money from the more than 20 million Canadian voters under the ban on donations from corporations and other organizations, and limit of $2,200 annually (and $3,300 during election years) on individual donations ("Democracy needs money" - Editorial, Globe and Mail, Aug. 19). In fact, with an average annual income of about $35,000, most Canadians cannot afford to donate the maximum amount. Raising the amount (as your editorial proposes) would give those with money more influence over political parties, and allow the parties to prosper with the support of fewer voters. This would be an undemocratic and unfair step backwards. The annual per-vote subsidy of $1.95 is one of the most democratic aspects of Canada's political finance system, as it gives a cash boost to parties that do not elect as many MPs as they should because of the flaws of our first-past-the-post voting system. However, the subsidy was set at its current level by then-Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to ensure the Liberals received an undemocratic dollar-for-dollar replacement of the money they used to raise from corporations. At this level the subsidy gives parties too much annual support in-between elections. Cutting the subsidy in half (instead of eliminating it as your editorial and the federal Conservatives propose) would give all parties a solid funding base, and still require them to reach out and address the concerns of voters in order to prosper by attracting their votes and donations. This change, as opposed to those proposed in your editorial, would actually enhance democracy in the federal government. Sincerely, Duff Conacher, Coordinator Democracy Watch While there is no democratic reason why MPs should be allowed to send publicly-funded promotional pamphlets to voters in ridings other than their own (and so the rules should be changed to prohibit this practice), the other two political finance issues addressed in your article are not so clear as the people quoted make it seem ("Federal political parties charge taxpayer money being ‘abused’ for partisan gains" - Hill Times, August 10). Senator Dennis Dawson's bill to limit spending by parties leading up to an election sounds good, but is likely unconstitutional, and definitely unworkable as he has proposed it simply because the possibility of a non-confidence vote at any time means election dates are not known in advance in a minority government, nor even necessarily in a majority government. If Democracy Watch wins its court case this fall and the fixed-election date measures are upheld, then further measures could be passed by Parliament that require a "cooling-off" period of 30-60 days after non-confidence vote and before any election campaign period formally begins -- and spending by parties could be limited during that time period. But no other option is likely possible or enforceable. With regard to the Conservatives' proposal to eliminate the per-vote annual financial subsidy for federal political parties vs. the Greens' and others full support of the subsidy, the reasonable compromise is to cut the subsidy in half, and add to the calculation the number of ridings in which each party has candidates. The subsidy is $1.95 per vote annually for the undemocratic reason that at that level it completely replaced the corporate donations the Liberals received on average annually between 2000 and 2003. Then-Prime Minister Chrétien agreed to increase the subsidy in return for his ban on corporate donations, but entirely in the self-interest of the Liberals. Cut the subsidy to $1 per vote, and each party will only receive a base amount annually, and to prosper will still have to raise money through individual donations. The subsidy is one of the most democratic aspects of the federal political finance system because it is based on proportion of votes won by each party (and the $1.95 comes only from voters who support each party, not from the government or other voters, despite Conservative Minister Stephen Fletcher's misleading claims). Therefore, the subsidy gives a cash boost to parties that don't receive as many seats in Parliament as they should because of the flaws of the first-past-the-post voting system. So to cut the subsidy completely would be an undemocratic step backwards. And Andrew Stark's proposal to cut the subsidy for the Bloc only is very likely unconstitutional given past Supreme Court of Canada rulings, and is definitely undemocratic. However, the Bloc doesn't run candidates outside Quebec, and therefore does not have to pay the costs the other parties face from having members, riding associations and candidates across our vast country. Therefore, a $1 per year per vote subsidy should be further cut for the Bloc (and any other party that does not operate nationally), with the cut based solely on a calculation of the Bloc's lower operating costs. If federal political parties are actually interested in having a democratic and fair political finance system that operates in the public interest, they will compromise and make these changes very soon. If they don't, it will be yet another clear sign that they are self-interested schemers whose support or opposition to proposals is based mainly upon what will hurt other parties and/or help their own party. Canadians deserve better (but the big questions is will any of the parties give Canadians what they deserve?). Sincerely, Duff Conacher, Coordinator Democracy Watch |