Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Political Subsidy issue to return to the House?

Maybe I wasn't so far off the mark after all... Dimitri Soudas has dropped a hint that the Liberals may have opened the door for us to take another stab at the politial subsidy issue.
"But if the opposition parties are so concerned with saving money, Soudas said, they should support the Conservative’s position to end all political party subsidies, which cost about $25 million a year. He said that would “demonstrate a real commitment” to saving money.

In late 2008, the government tried to introduce legislation ending the per-vote-subsidy of political parties, which sparked the coalition crisis that nearly booted the Conservatives from power."
With the Liberals trying to ban 10%ers under the guise of "saving taxpayers millions of dollars", they may have inadvertantly opened the door to a re-introduction of our efforts to save the taxpayers even more money by eliminating the taxpayer funded politial subsidy altogether.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the House's Internal Board of Economy come back to the House with recomendations for a new bill that eliminates funding for BOTH "ten percenters" AND the per-vote political subsidy. Either that, or they end up deadlocked, with the Liberals and the Bloc opposed, with the Tories and the NDP supporting some reform on both these issues. Because, let's face it... the elimination of the subsidy hurts the Liberals WAY MORE than it hurts the NDP.

This one could end up being yet another instance where the Liberals are too clever by half... or where Iffy again tries to put Harper into "CHECK", while Harper responds with a "Check-mate... shall we go again? How about best 5 out of 7? Oh come on, don't give up now... I know you're down 4 to ZIP, but keep playing... you'll get better. Eventually. Maybe."

Labels: , , , ,

10 Comments:

  • At Wed Mar 17, 11:37:00 PM EDT, Blogger Ted Betts said…

    The Conservatives don't care about the deficit. If they did, there would have been cuts in the budget instead of increased spending, increases that were even bigger than they projected last year.

    If they were serious about cutting waste they would have voted against the 10%ers and saved us $10 million. The Canadian Taxpayer Federation calls the 10%ers one of the worst wastes of taxpayer money. And the Conservatives laid bare their disdain for Canadian taxpayers today and their disdain for Parliament by saying they would again ignore another motion passed by a majority of elected representatives.

    Instead they offer tripe. I don't believe for a second they care about the per vote subsidy unless it hurts the Liberals. If they cared, they would first cut the tax deduction subsidy which is far worse and far costlier.

    I don't take anyone too seriously if they oppose the per vote subsidy but aren't even stronger opponents of the tax deduction subsidy. It's just another bait and switch tactic from the PMO, hoping Canadians don't realize what a fiscal mess they have made in Ottawa.

     
  • At Wed Mar 17, 11:39:00 PM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I love it. This could get interesting.

    --Alberta Bob --

     
  • At Thu Mar 18, 12:02:00 AM EDT, Blogger hunter said…

    HA! Let's watch the sparks fly in committee! They are stuck, they can't vote for one and not the other without looking like total hypocrites. Did the Conservatives vote no so they could introduce an amendment at committee stage? Should be interesting.

     
  • At Thu Mar 18, 12:24:00 AM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Even though this is making me smile, how does the NDP oppose the vote subsidy?
    Or was that just the smokescreen for the coalition?
    Anyway, I would love nothing more than to see it stop.
    Right now it's real use is as another arrow in the quiver.

     
  • At Thu Mar 18, 01:03:00 AM EDT, Blogger L said…

    Love it ,,

     
  • At Thu Mar 18, 01:26:00 AM EDT, Blogger Hinchey's Store said…

    Hey CC - good post. I was right on top of this idea as soon as I saw the outrage about the 10%ers. I hate junk mail as much as everybody else, but you can't advocate for eliminating one thing, when you just finished raising hell about the proposed elimination of another, more expensive expenditure!

     
  • At Thu Mar 18, 08:23:00 AM EDT, Blogger bertie said…

    Hopefully,someone will put forth a bill that includes the elimination of the vote subsidy.That would be the icing on the cake.

     
  • At Thu Mar 18, 08:57:00 AM EDT, Blogger CanadianSense said…

    Pandora's box was opened and now the opposition want to play save taxpayers money game. Great!


    The Gov't needs areas to save and cut funding.

    The opposition party priorities to defend spending levels with NGO's included FNUC regardless of corruption problems.

    The Program Review will start biting and the opposition will be powerless to fight an election over those targeted cuts.

     
  • At Thu Mar 18, 04:36:00 PM EDT, Blogger Fred from BC said…

    t Thu Mar 18, 01:26:00 AM EDT, Blogger Hinchey's Store said…

    Hey CC - good post. I was right on top of this idea as soon as I saw the outrage about the 10%ers. I hate junk mail as much as everybody else, but you can't advocate for eliminating one thing, when you just finished raising hell about the proposed elimination of another, more expensive expenditure!


    Absolutely. I loved Power Play yesterday when the subject of those subsidies was brought up; Pierre was careful to mention (at least twice) that 75% Of the Canadian public favors eliminating them. The Liberal and NDP representatives practically had smoke coming off them, they wanted to object so badly (but couldn't)...

     
  • At Fri Mar 19, 01:28:00 AM EDT, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    Hunter says: "HA! Let's watch the sparks fly in committee! They are stuck, they can't vote for one and not the other without looking like total hypocrites. Did the Conservatives vote no so they could introduce an amendment at committee stage? Should be interesting."

    Hm... "[T]hey can't vote for one and not the other"?

    Do you mean that the Liberals CAN'T vote to ELIMINATE the 10%ers AND NOT vote to eliminate the subsidy?

    Or did you mean that the Conservatives CAN vote to KEEP the 10%ers AND ALSO vote to eliminate the subsidy?

    I assume you mean the former and not the latter.

    But as I understand* our electoral system, the Conservatives wouldn't need to vote "NO" to send the bill on so that they can introduce an amendment at the committee stage. To send a bill to committee (i.e., to continue the process) you need to vote FOR it--not AGAINST it. All bills go through the the multi-stage process before becoming law.
    -Anon1152

    *Don't take my word for it. Check out the the Parliament's website. The part I have in mind is under the heading:
    "The Legislative Process."

    Post Script:
    I do agree with hunter insofar as I believe "sparks [will] fly in committee"

     

Post a Comment

<< Home