The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

[Blackadder1916]

. . . Why weren't the debts converted into campaign contributions?

This (highlighted below) may be the most obvious reason.  The article mentions only Dryden as having outstanding debt to himself, but even that could be subject to a binding agreement to repay.
http://www.canlii.org///ca/sta/e-2.01/sec435.29.html

Canada Elections Act
            PART 18: FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
              Division 3.1: Registration and Financial Administration of Leadership Contestants
                  Financial Administration of Leadership Contestants
                    Recovery of Claims
Deemed contributions
435.29 (1) An unpaid claim mentioned in a return referred to in subsection 435.3(1) that, on the day that is 18 months after the end of the leadership contest, remains unpaid, in whole or in part, is deemed to be a contribution of the unpaid amount to the leadership contestant made as of the day on which the expense was incurred.

When no deemed contribution
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an unpaid claim that, on the day referred to in that subsection,

(a) is the subject of a binding agreement to pay;

(b) is the subject of a legal proceeding to secure its payment;

(c) is the subject of a dispute as to the amount the leadership contestant was liable to pay or the amount that remains unpaid; or

(d) has been written off by the creditor as an uncollectable debt in accordance with the creditor’s normal accounting practices.

Notice
(3) A leadership contestant or a financial agent who believes that any of paragraphs (2)(a) to (d) applies to a liability to pay an amount shall so notify the Chief Electoral Officer before the day referred to in subsection (1).

Publication of deemed contributions
(4) As soon as practicable after the day referred to in subsection (1), the Chief Electoral Officer shall, in any manner that he or she considers appropriate, publish the list of claims that are deemed under subsection (1) to be contributions.

2003, c. 19, s. 40.

 

[2 Cdo]

Maybe it's time to re-title this thread, "Speculation on a Fall 2008 Election". Or maybe Dion will just avoid committing to anything, a plan that he has followed since taking leadership of the Liberal party.

 

[Sheerin]

Maybe it's time to re-title this thread, "Speculation on a Fall 2008 2009 Election". Or maybe Dion will just avoid committing to anything, a plan that he has followed since taking leadership of the Liberal party.

Made a minor correction.  I think this parliament is going to go the distance, and will be disolved sometime in October of 2009. 

 

[a_majoor]

At this rate Mr Dion might be hoping for an election call in 2010!

http://stevejanke.com/archives/269701.php

Riding associations backing Liberal Party loans
Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 01:02 PM
Previous Post
In my previous post, I looked at Liberal Party fundraising for the second quarter.  Not surprisingly, fundraising for the Liberals is flat.

But in looking over the numbers, I noticed something unexpected.  Several riding associations emptied out their banks accounts to move money to the Liberal Party.

Why?

Then someone reminded me of what the Liberals were doing.  The party had taken out a big loan in order to stay in operation, using the riding associations as collateral.

In my last post on Liberal Party fundraising, I noticed that the Liberal Party had taken over $67,000 in transfers from individual riding associations in the second quarter of 2008, compared to something in the neighbourhood of $9000 in the first quarter.

One riding in particular, Pierrefonds-Dollard, transferred a whopping $30,000.  It's likely that's the lion's share of the money in the riding association bank account.

But when you think about it, this isn't all that much.  I mean, it's huge for the riding associations, but for the party itself, sixty grand is walking around money.  The party needs millions to keep going.

And it got millions...from banks:

The party's financial statements show an organization that is still solvent but one in which expenses outpaced revenues by $1.6-million last year.

The financial statements also show a $2-million loan with an extremely punishing 9% interest rate, collateralized against the assets not only of the party but of a number of riding associations. This is highly unusual and indicates a degree of financial stress long suspected but never admitted by the party.

Never admitted...but spotted hidden in the quarterly returns?

So it is possible that each of these riding associations, but in particular Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lac Saint-Louis, Mont-Royal, Notre-Dame-de-Grace--Lachine, Saint-Leonard--Saint-Michel, and Saint-Laurent-Cartierville (which together coughed up $55,000 and transferred that cash to the Liberal Party, $30,000 just from Pierrefonds-Dollard alone) are backing this loan with money that would have been used to run a campaign.

If the Liberals default on the loan, that $55,000 is gone.  It there is an election, that money can't be used to fight it.  It's all in a bank account as a guarantee of payment.

Perhaps only the safest seats were selected for this operation.  These are seats that the Liberals hope will stay Liberal even if a bare bones campaign is waged.

The Liberals don't mention any of this in their fundraising emails:

Please give what you can.  Every dollar you donate allows the Liberal Party to go $40 deeper into debt to a bank, which is our plan for success!  We won't be using your money to fight to elect a Liberal in this riding.  We're assuming you'd vote Liberal no matter what we do during an election...even if we don't do anything at all.

None of this is illegal, but I can see why the Liberals wouldn't brag about it, and why the Liberal supporters in Pierrefonds-Dollard are being kept in the dark.

Of course, what doesn't show up in the quarterly return is what other collateral, if any, was used to secure those loans.  Mortgages on properties, vehicles, office furniture...

 

[a_majoor]

Here is a platform plank I will support:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/08/01/national-post-editorial-board-cancel-the-welfare-cheque-for-federal-parties.aspx

National Post Editorial Board: Cancel the welfare cheque for federal parties
Posted: August 01, 2008, 7:00 PM by Kelly McParland
Editorial, Full Comment
It has been nearly five years since political finance reforms forced taxpayers to underwrite much of the day-to-day operations of Canada’s political parties. The result has been predictable: The parties have become hooked on easy cash.

No longer are the federal parties dependent on supporters for the money they need to pay organizers and staff, print literature and buy ads. Because party brass no longer need to appeal to members to underwrite their policies, the public funding is distorting Canadians’ democratic will. It is time to end the subsidies and make the parties go back to raising what monies they need through freely given donations.

Just one federal party — the Conservatives — still receives a majority of its funds through donations from individuals: Of the $13.7-million the party got in the first six months of 2008, $8.5-million came from private contributors. The rest of the parties are dependent on electoral welfare, our name for the quarterly “allowances” administered by Elections Canada.

So far this year, the Liberals have managed to raise just $1.8-million from individual donors. (Before Stéphane Dion became their leader, their semi-annual donation tally was typically above $5-million.) Only because taxpayers have been forced to give the Grits $4.3-million (71% of the party’s revenues since the beginning of 2008) have the Liberals been able to keep the lights on at their headquarters and plan for the next election. Even the NDP are not as feeble as the Liberals: The $2.5-million in allowances they have received amount to just 58% of their income.

Ironically, the Bloc Québécois are far and away they most dependent on Canadian public funding. The party that would kneecap Confederation if it could — the party that frequently complains about the poor treatment Quebec suffers at Ottawa’s hands — receives more than 95% of its budget from the largesse of Canadian taxpayers.

According to Elections Canada’s statistics released Thursday, the Bloc has raised just $74,000 so far this year from fewer than 1,000 donors. (Meanwhile, the separatists have been only too happy to take $1.5-million from the federal trough.) It goes to show how much “grassroots” support Quebec separatism has these days: about enough to buy a two-room house in Chicoutimi.

It’s true that under the old fundraising system, there were public subsidies, too. Under the pre-2003 rules, individuals could contribute much more than they do now and receive up to 75% of their contributions back as a tax credit. The tax credits still exist, but the net taxpayer contributions to political activity are now much, much higher than before. More objectionably, they are rendered by government fiat based on yesterday’s election results, not based on the free will of today’s donors.

As a result, federal politics has become less responsive to grassroot concerns. Does the leader inspire confidence? Doesn’t matter. Are voters attracted to the parties ideals and policies? Who cares? The money keeps flowing.

Another problem is that since the current system allocates money on the basis of past election results, it favours established parties. New parties are not eligible for the allowances, so they are forced to raise all their money on their own (in donations of no more than $1,100 per contributor). And so it strikes us that activists on the left — the same ones who are always complaining about Ottawa’s entrenched plutocracy — should join us in demanding an overhaul. The only ones who really have an interest in maintaining the current system are — you guessed it — established parties.

There is nothing to fear from returning to our pre-2003 rules: Canada’s strict political finance laws already keep most big-money influences at bay. It is time to stop government political handouts and make parties rely, again, on their persuasive abilities to get the money they need.

 

[jeffb]

Yes... except that when the public funding was brought in there were all kinds of funding restrictions brought in.

In my experience (and I've been working in politics since 2004), this has limited the ability of individuals to buy influence with major donations. For the record, I've never been on the payroll of any party receiving public money, all of my work has been at the provincial and constituency levels and on a federal leadership campaign. The Conservatives further tightened donation rules by prohibiting corporate and union giving, a good move in my opinion. It really sucker punched the Liberals, and, as the former Toronto-Centre Conservative candidate told the audience at a debate, was the whole reason for the reforms.

That being said, the money comes from the public purse, IE. our tax dollars. It is allocated on a per-vote basis. This means that individual voters really get a say in the day to day finances of political parties and it only costs us $1.75 (plus inflation) per year. In my professional experience, I would have to say that it's gone a long way to cleaning up politics in Ottawa.

 

[Proud_Newfoundlander]

Bahh, Harpers opposition is split and inept. He'll lose seats in the east and gain some in central canada. Hell just have another minority. Dion will then resign and Rae or Ignatieff will probably be the next Liberal Leader. The bloc will also lose seats. Greens will do well in Alberta (largely because of their circumstances), Ontario, and BC, and poorly everywhere else but Quebec, where they will do decent, but nothing remarkable. Ndp will gain in the east, but probably lose 4-8 seats.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Bahh, Harpers opposition is split and inept. He'll lose seats in the east and gain some in central canada. Hell just have another minority. Dion will then resign and Rae or Ignatieff will probably be the next Liberal Leader. The bloc will also lose seats. Greens will do well in Alberta (largely because of their circumstances), Ontario, and BC, and poorly everywhere else but Quebec, where they will do decent, but nothing remarkable. Ndp will gain in the east, but probably lose 4-8 seats.

Another profound statement,...................... if you can understand it.

 

[Proud_Newfoundlander]

Yeah, because its a real enigma, isn't it

 

[tabernac]

Yeah, because its a real enigma, isn't it

He's just saying you gave nothing to substantiate it. No proof behind your claims.

I would like to know why the Greens *HACK* should do well in my home province.

 

[Proud_Newfoundlander]

He's just saying you gave nothing to substantiate it. No proof behind your claims.

I would like to know why the Greens *HACK* should do well in my home province.

They will do well because Alberta is the province where the greens got the highest proportion of the vote last election (6.5%), which is probably due to these factors:

-The utter unpopularity of the Liberal party outside of parts of Edmonton more or less cancels them out as an option

-You are then left with the Greens and NDP, and this is where the Albertan right wing tendencies come in. Out of the two they will lean towards the more right wing of the two, which is the Green Party

-Due to the oilsands the highest support for the projects is in Alberta, but also some of the strongest opposition is in the province as well. This create strong feelings on the environment and some will vote for the party they think is the most gung-ho on the environment,which is the Green Party.

As for the previous Comment on the Liberals, there are no Dion'ites in the party, there are Rae'ites and Ignatieff supporters, these are the two biggest fish, and they will be the first to fill the void.

Dion is hanging on a string day by day and this Green shift, which is his last gasp, his chance to connect with canadians, is getting lukewarm responses. If he loses an election, it is unlikely he can win another one(dont say that to Pearson though)  and remain an effective opposition leader, and it will be his last chance as to say, and he will more or less be forced to resign.

Harper is doing better than the Liberals, but a lot  of canadians dont like him for whatever reasons, especially in the Big 3 Cities and the Atlantic Canada(especially Newfoundland). His opposition is between a weak liberal party, an NDP, BLoc, and a Green party which is siphoning off votes off from the Liberals and NDP, further equalizing all opposition parties, making it harder for one to get near the Tories. This will lead to the NDP losing some seats as well.

The bloc, well, theyre becoming somewhat irrelvent and people are considering their options, the bloc, well, arent a real force despite the seat count. Theres no seperation question as to say, which further makes people wonder if they can vote for somebody else. They arent making a big enough splash to hold  to their seats. They wont go any lower than 38-40 seats, though.

 

[a_majoor]

Yes... except that when the public funding was brought in there were all kinds of funding restrictions brought in.

In my experience (and I've been working in politics since 2004), this has limited the ability of individuals to buy influence with major donations. For the record, I've never been on the payroll of any party receiving public money, all of my work has been at the provincial and constituency levels and on a federal leadership campaign. The Conservatives further tightened donation rules by prohibiting corporate and union giving, a good move in my opinion. It really sucker punched the Liberals, and, as the former Toronto-Centre Conservative candidate told the audience at a debate, was the whole reason for the reforms.

That being said, the money comes from the public purse, IE. our tax dollars. It is allocated on a per-vote basis. This means that individual voters really get a say in the day to day finances of political parties and it only costs us $1.75 (plus inflation) per year. In my professional experience, I would have to say that it's gone a long way to cleaning up politics in Ottawa.

The big problem with your statement is that individual voters DO NOT get a say in the day to day finances of political parties. If you re read the post you will see that parties are receiving lots of money in spite of the fact they have no connection to voters (look at the amounts of money real voters donated out of their after tax dollars to the Liberals, Bloc and NDP), while minor or "fringe" parties are cut off, preventing any change in the status quo or wider discussion of political issues (which was probably the intention behind these rules).

Frankly, I do not wish to be forced to support political parties that do not represent my ideals, and I don't think that you should be forced to do so either. As for the minor parties; if the Marxist-Leninists or Progressive Canadians accurately represent your political views, then why should they be suppressed by State financed "official" parties who can use your tax dollars to effectively price them out of the campaign?

 

[Reccesoldier]

The big problem with your statement is that individual voters DO NOT get a say in the day to day finances of political parties. If you re read the post you will see that parties are receiving lots of money in spite of the fact they have no connection to voters (look at the amounts of money real voters donated out of their after tax dollars to the Liberals, Bloc and NDP), while minor or "fringe" parties are cut off, preventing any change in the status quo or wider discussion of political issues (which was probably the intention behind these rules).

Frankly, I do not wish to be forced to support political parties that do not represent my ideals, and I don't think that you should be forced to do so either. As for the minor parties; if the Marxist-Leninists or Progressive Canadians accurately represent your political views, then why should they be suppressed by State financed "official" parties who can use your tax dollars to effectively price them out of the campaign?

Come on Thucydides, you don't want real political freedom do you?  I mean with limitless money any crooked politician could buy the votes he needs, because as we all know the average Joe is so stupid that flashy advertisements and gala dinners are all that is required to render him thoughtless and willing to support anyone who has some glitz in his/her campaign.

 

[a_majoor]

Come on Thucydides, you don't want real political freedom do you?  I mean with limitless money any crooked politician could buy the votes he needs, because as we all know the average Joe is so stupid that flashy advertisements and gala dinners are all that is required to render him thoughtless and willing to support anyone who has some glitz in his/her campaign.

Maybe I am waiting for the Progressive Canadians to invite me to dinner. 

Free speech? Next thing you know everyone will want free will.

Anon

 

[a_majoor]

Oct 2009:

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=1077

Tory Rule In the Middle of Chaos . . .

, , , and the chaos, in this case, is the muddle of the Opposition parties, at least according to pollster Nik Nanos in this week’s Hill Times.

The pollster’s thesis is that, if the Tories can work together with at least one of the opposition parties on each piece of legislation, on a case-by-case basis, then the government can make it to October 2009 without falling:

“I think what they need to do is create dissention and confusion in the opposition parties. If they can divide and keep the opposition parties off balance, then they can probably serve the term out to the fixed election date,” said Mr. Nanos. (interpolation: They are already divided and off balance, see below)

It does raise a point. The Liberals, on their own, cannot bring the government down despite their rhetoric. It would take a massive amount of cooperation among all three Opposition parties to pass a non-confidence motion; all it takes is one alliance between the Tories and another party and such a motion would be lost.

The question then becomes: can Stephane Dion forge such an alliance?

Before critics answer in the affirmative, it should be borne in mind that this alliance would need to include the Bloc Quebecois. And at the present time, it is not exactly in the Bloc’s interest to be seen as allying with a staunch opponent of sovereignty as Dion likes to present himself.

There is also the question of whether the NDP would feel comfortable with such an alliance. True, both parties present rhetoric which lambastes the Tories, but Dion’s leftward leanings mean the Liberals are essentially in competition with the NDP for the same voter — which isn’t exactly a good foundation for a solid relationship.

Quite a conundrum for our Opposition, isn’t it? It’s one of the reasons why politicians like to take the summer off . . .

 

[rtangri]

hahhaha,

all you guys fail to realize that it wont be that Harper is doing amazing or bad, or whether he funds the army well enough (not great but much better than any Liberals), but
based on how badly Dion falls. Dion is awful, he is handing the election on the plate to Harper (thank god). Dion is perfect considering he explains the Liberal message: Steal a companies name from Toronto to promote an awful CO2 plan, and like the very honourable Liberal plan is: Complain until we get elected, and after, we take the previous governments policies and continue with how its going. If it fails, blame the previous government, and say we are fixing it.

Like father(dion), like son(mcguinty)

 

[DBA]

Frankly, I do not wish to be forced to support political parties that do not represent my ideals, and I don't think that you should be forced to do so either. As for the minor parties; if the Marxist-Leninists or Progressive Canadians accurately represent your political views, then why should they be suppressed by State financed "official" parties who can use your tax dollars to effectively price them out of the campaign?

Whichever party(1) you voted for gets $1.75/year till the next federal election. Same for everybody else and it doesn't matter if it's a fringe party that has no representatives in parliament, they still get the funding. More rules have been passed since like capping individual donations at $1000 and banning donations from unions and corporations. Together the goal was to reduce the influence of private money on the electoral process as a lot of people thought large donors had too much of a say.

(1) The party has to get over 2% of the federal vote, or over 5% in all the ridings in runs in for regional parties to qualify. Currently only the greens out of the fringe groups do.

 

[a_majoor]

Whatever you may think of a "fringe party", it is quite clear they must operate at a disadvantage, their supporters are required to support other political parties with their tax dollars, while they must attempt to operate and spread their message through the after tax dollar donations of their members.

Rather than futile debates over what level of support moves you from "fringe" to "mainstream" or what sorts of political philosophies should or should not be supported by tax dollars, it would make far more sense to simply say any group is free to organize and run for political office (or comment on political matters, parties and candidates; the gag law is the flip side of the funding laws), but can only receive donations from individuals and cannot receive any funding from taxpayers.

If they have a coherent message and the ability to communicate, then they will be able to grow and expand their electoral foothold. If they are lacking in message or content, then they will wither and shrink in the polls and parliament (a natural progression we are already seeing, but delayed due to taxpayer funded life support).

 

[vonGarvin]

Whatever you may think of a "fringe party", it is quite clear they must operate at a disadvantage, their supporters are required to support other political parties with their tax dollars, while they must attempt to operate and spread their message through the after tax dollar donations of their members.

Rather than futile debates over what level of support moves you from "fringe" to "mainstream" or what sorts of political philosophies should or should not be supported by tax dollars, it would make far more sense to simply say any group is free to organize and run for political office (or comment on political matters, parties and candidates; the gag law is the flip side of the funding laws), but can only receive donations from individuals and cannot receive any funding from taxpayers.

If they have a coherent message and the ability to communicate, then they will be able to grow and expand their electoral foothold. If they are lacking in message or content, then they will wither and shrink in the polls and parliament (a natural progression we are already seeing, but delayed due to taxpayer funded life support).

Tsk tsk.  That means that parties would have to EARN their way to expanding.  How is that fair in our welfare-addicted nanny state? [/sarcasm]

 

[DBA]

the gag law is the flip side of the funding laws

Spending caps, donation limits, restrictions on what is considered a political party and gag laws all have to be combined to have the effect desired. Take away any one and it's trivial to circumvent the others. The $1.75/year/vote was a deal to get the amendments passed.

For example, start a "we are being victimized by a weak justice system that panders to criminals" interest group that runs very graphic ads highlighting the crimes of recent parolees. Ties in well with the conservative message of getting tough on crime but isn't direct support. Still people can donate to support the group and help run more ads. The other parties can either spend party money to counter or encourage other interest groups to form and do it. So much for spending limits and getting rid of influence peddling. "I ran group X for you and helped you get elected, you owe me".

The smaller parties may have to fund themselves but at least they won't be going up against endless money and spending by the current parties. The real aim of the changes however is to lessen the "I helped get you elected, now pay me back" influence peddling.