Federal political parties charge taxpayer money being 'abused' for partisan gains Public per-vote subsidies to political parties should be eliminated, says Democratic Reform Minister of State Steven Fletcher By HARRIS MACLEOD Published August 10, 2009

View story Email Comments To the Editor

Canadians outside of Quebec find it galling that the Bloc Québécois, whose raison d'être is Quebec sovereignty, receives 86 per cent of its funding from the federal government, said Democratic Reform Minister of State Steven Fletcher, who is calling for an end to political party subsidies.

"Virtually every Canadian is forced to make involuntary contributions based on parties' results. I know a lot of people in other parts of the country are not pleased that ... the vast majority of the funding that one particular party [the Bloc] gets is from this voter subsidy," he told The Hill Times last week.

The Conservative government's attempt to eliminate the per-vote subsidy last November, which pays political parties $1.95 for every vote they get in a federal election, provided they win at least two per cent of the nationwide popular vote, triggered a backlash from the opposition parties that nearly brought down the government. Mr. Fletcher (Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia, Man.) said the government still believes the subsidy, which cost taxpayers a total of $27-million last year, should end.

Though the Tories would stand to lose the most revenue if the subsidy were eliminated, they are in the best position to weather its loss because they have the strongest fundraising base. Last year the Conservatives earned $10-million in subsidies, compared to $7.7-million for the Liberals, $4.9-million for the NDP, $2.6-million for the Bloc and $1.8-million for the Greens. But in 2008 the Tories' subsidy represented only 37 per cent of their total revenues, compared to 63 per cent for the Liberals, 86 per cent for the Bloc, 57 per cent of the NDP's funding, and 65 per cent of the Greens'.

In a column last week in The Globe and Mail, University of Toronto Professor Andrew Stark, who served as an adviser to former Tory prime minister Brian Mulroney, argued that the separatist Bloc Québécois, which gets the vast majority of its funding from the per-vote subsidy, should be ineligible for federal funding because it only runs candidates in Quebec, and therefore is not a truly national party.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, whose party did not elect any MPs in the last election, but improved its financial situation substantially by increasing its popular vote and therefore received more from the per-vote subsidy, called Canada's election financing regime "brilliant." Ms. May said that while the existence of the Bloc in the federal House of Commons is "discordant," the subsidy was brought in originally so that parties would not have to rely on donations from corporations and interest groups, and the Bloc are as entitled to it as any of the other parties. She took issue with the Conservatives' claim that they don't need federal financial support, pointing out that they benefit from the hefty tax rebate for donations to political parties.

"Whenever Stephen Harper or Tom Flanagan crows about how they've done so much better at fundraising and they don't rely on the tax subsidy I want to scream," Ms. May said. "If you make a $400 donation to a political party it only costs you $100 because there's a $300 tax rebate, so it's not as if the fundraising piece of political party work is somehow divorced from the federal coffers, it is entirely dependent on the federal coffers. ... Many NGOs with charitable status could only dream of the kind of lucrative tax rebates that political parties have."

There is a consensus among Canada's federal political parties that taxpayer money is being abused for partisan purposes. Whether it be the per-vote subsidy that pays political parties millions of dollars a year, the increasingly controversial "Ten Percenter" program that allows MPs to send partisan flyers into other ridings, or spending on attack-ads when there is no election campaign in sight, the parties are quick to point fingers at who and what is to blame, but so far there is no agreement on what should be done about it.

Canada's election financing laws—reformed under former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien, and even deeper reforms under Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.)—are functioning well, but now the focus must be on "plugging the loopholes," said Ms. May. She believes there should be restrictions on how much political parties can spend between election campaigns, and that the Ten Percenter program should be eliminated.

Since the Conservatives came to power in 2006 they have used their surplus of funds to run expensive attack ads against former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Que.), and have recently used the same tactic against current Leader Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ont.). The current round of attack ads criticizes Mr. Ignatieff for living outside Canada for more than three decades, asserting that he is "just visiting" Canada.

"Because the notion of spending much money at all, if any, outside of a writ period was basically unheard of when the last election financing reforms went through, the election financing legal regime is silent as to spending outside of a writ period," Ms. May said.

But Mr. Fletcher defended his party's spending on advertising between election campaigns, and said a recent bill introduced by Quebec Liberal Senator Dennis Dawson that would amend the Elections Act to require parties to count all advertising toward their cap on election spending was "hypocritical."

"It's quite hypocritical for Sen. Dawson to bring forward such a cynical bill because he's only doing it because obviously the ads about Ignatieff just visiting are having an effect," Mr. Fletcher said. "And the Liberals and the NDP also have that opportunity to spend whatever they want in the pre-writ. It's freedom of speech. It's very reasonable."

Mr. Fletcher also defended the Ten Percenter program, saying that people might not like the content of the flyers but they contribute to the "public discourse."

The House of Commons provides printing services to MPs, which cost taxpayers a total of $9.4-million last year. Under the program, MPs can send out brochures called Householders four times a year into their ridings to inform constituents about what they're doing in Ottawa, and what's going on in the community. But they can also send out Ten Percenter flyers to households across the country up to 10 per cent of their voters.

Ten Percenters are typically single page photocopied black and white flyers that can be sent to constituents in their own riding or in any other riding. Each Ten Percenter must be 50 per cent different from each other and the MP's name "must appear prominently on all Ten Percenters," according to the Member's Manual of Allowances and Services. Once a month MPs can participate in a "regrouping" where any number of MPs from the same party can send the same Ten Percenter into ridings anywhere in the country.

The program has become increasingly controversial, as the content of the flyers being sent out by far-flung MPs into ridings not held by their respective parties has grown to be more and more partisan. The Liberal Party has taken advantage of the program in the past, but in recent months the party has turned up the volume on Ten Percenters, with Liberal MPs sending partisan attack flyers into Conservative ridings.

"In recent months we have turned up the program in response to the aggressive use of Ten Percenters by the Conservatives," said Liberal Party spokesman Dan Lauzon.

NDP MP Megan Leslie, who sends Ten Percenters out in her own riding to inform constituents about community events but does not send flyers into other ridings, said there needs to be a review of the program.

"There does need to be a review because right before the election last year there were non-incumbent [Conservative] Ten Percenters sent into this riding when it was Alexa McDonough's riding, and as somebody reading them I found them offensive. They were essentially saying, 'Hey there's junkies on your street and that's the fault of lax criminal code legislation and we should be locking junkies up and not putting them in your playgrounds with your kids.'... And this was before I even knew what a Ten Percenter was and who was paying for them," Ms. Leslie said.

Scott Hennig, a spokesperson for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which is opposed to all forms of federal government financial support for political parties, called the Ten Percenter program "bizarre," and decried what he called the perpetual election campaign being waged on the taxpayer's dime.

"I think it's bizarre that a B.C. MP would be sending [a flyer] to someone in P.E.I. ... We're in a perpetual campaign and regardless of whether we're in a campaign or not taxpayers' money shouldn't be spent buying election ads. I think most people pay their taxes with the hope that they're going to get services for them, not attack ads, or brochures, or streets littered with signs and campaign buses all over the place, that's not what taxpayers pay their money for."

hmacleod@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times