| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: Canadian taxpayers bankroll Quebec's separatists |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Mark Milke of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy just put out a fascinating report on the state of campaign finance in Canada. What Saved The Bloc Qu�b�cois in the 2008 Election: Public Money contains a lot of interesting nuggets � but I thought the most interesting graph was the one above.
For each party, the blue bar represents dollars earned from public sources (specifically, from the $1.95-per-vote subsidy provided annually to parties by Elections Canada), while the grey bar indicates private donations. The shocker here is the Bloc Qu�b�cois, which received almost 12 times as much public financing as private financing in the 2007-2008 period. No other party even reaches the 3:1 level. (And in the case of the Conservatives, private-source financing actually exceeded public-source.)
It turns out that even that paltry $503,676 the Bloc was able to take in from private sources since January, 2007 overstates the party's more recent fundraising ability: In the first six months of 2008 (the latest period for which exact stats are available), the party raised a pathetic $73,704. During that period, the Bloc got $1.5-million from Ottawa, meaning that in the run-up to the election, the party's public/private funding ratio was more than 20:1.
How many seats did public financing buy the Bloc? It's hard to say, but Milke seems more than justified in concluding generally that "Simply put, the Bloc's fortunes in the recent election were rescued by public financing."
It's a surreal situation: Can anyone else think of another example � in any Western country � of a government assuming virtually 100% financial responsibility for an entity that seeks to destroy the nation itself? |
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/23/jonathan-kay-once-again-canadian-taxpayers-bankroll-quebec-s-separatists.aspx
Are there any examples? I don't really know what to make of this.. The Bloc is the majority party there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It's a surreal situation: Can anyone else think of another example � in any Western country � of a government assuming virtually 100% financial responsibility for an entity that seeks to destroy the nation itself? |
Assuming that the money given them would have been given to any other party of similar size and representation, I don't see how this is a problem. If you're going to have public financing of parties, you can't impose an ideological litmus test.
That said, it does kind of make Quebec separatists look pathetic when they willingly suck off the teat of the hated federal government, rather than refusing the money or donating it to charity. But that's their problem, and has no bearing on whether or not they are legally entitled to the funding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree. It is so absurd, though. On both ends, it is smoking to cure cancer.
When you figure is the next referendum, OTOH? Could a prolonged economic downturn stir up the separatists? I've lived in Quebec City and Montreal and in my experience many of those who wanted to stay in Canada were tepid, at best. They were voting with their pocketbooks. More so in St.Foy/QC than Montreal, of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| When you figure is the next referendum, OTOH? |
I dunno. These referendums only happen when the PQ gets into power, but the PQ is currently the third party, behind the ADQ. So I'm not betting on any referendums any time soon.
| Quote: |
| Could a prolonged economic downturn stir up the separatists? |
Well, you'd have to make the case that Quebec would be better off weathering the recession as an independent country. I'm not sure how you'd go about arguing that. Aren't they still a net receiver of federal money, via transfer payments?
I don't worry about separatism too much. Even if a referendum were to go "Oui", it wouldn't be in answer to a clearly worded question(ie. "Do you want Quebec to be an independent country?"). So the feds could just enter into half-hearted negotiations, and watch Quebec opinion balk when they start playing hardball on various issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On both ends, it is smoking to cure cancer.
|
Actually, in these sorts of cases, I think "the establishment" comes out the winner. Because "the revolutionaries" are shown up as dweebs who couldn't function without money from the very forces that they rail against.
It's like Bill Ayers. He might scare a lot of Republicans, but I think everyone else just kind of sees him as a joke. He's gone from being the defiant, badassed urban terrorist in the FBI poster, to being a tenured prof relying on money from conservative foundations and Uncle Sam. Not exactly the image he was cultivating back in his underground days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I know the PQ is in tough times, but this is exactly what I mean. A severe economic downturn - and Quebec will get it hard - can change political arrangements quickly. I seriously doubt Quebec would actually ever leave Canada. We are too good to them. But another 50.4% yes, would be rough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A severe economic downturn - and Quebec will get it hard - can change political arrangements quickly. |
Well, I could MAYBE see the PQ coming back to power as a result of some sort of anything-can-happen tumult resulting from the economic situation. But then, I could just as easily see the ADQ coming into power, or people playing it safe and sticking with the Liberals.
But okay. Let's say the PQ does get into power. You'd still have to make the case that a recession-racked Quebec would be better off as an independent country. And I personally don't see any credible arguments to be made on that side.
Oh, just for clarification...
| Quote: |
| But another 50.4% yes, would be rough. |
I'm not sure what this number is supposed to signify. Do you mean if the Non side gets 50.4%? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I meant 50.4% no. What was the last tally? 15k between or so? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| I meant 50.4% no. What was the last tally? 15k between or so? |
I'm not sure, but 50.4% sounds right for what the "non" forces got in 2005.
I still don't think it would be a big deal. The question would, as usual, be something like "Do you favor a program under which Quebec would undertake to set into motion negotiations aimed at furthering the development of a new degree of autonomy blah blah blah". We can even say that that question gets 55% of the vote. The feds would still be able to play extreme hardball in the negotiations, because it would be clear to everyone that the Quebec electorate has no stomach for a prolonged fight on this issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And the constitution would have to be amended, which would require Atlantic Canada's support. I'm sure they don't want to float off to sea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| And the constitution would have to be amended, which would require Atlantic Canada's support. I'm sure they don't want to float off to sea. |
No, but if(and I say "if") it were made clear through a referendum that an overwhelming majority of Quebeckers wanted an independent country, I don't think there would be a lot that Atlantic Canada could do about that. If you rejected the referendum results, you'd basically be saying to the world that Canadians were okay with holding an entire region and culture prisoner, out of some sentimental attachment to geographical continuity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So we'd just throw more cash at them to keep them quiet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| So we'd just throw more cash at them to keep them quiet. |
Yeah, but you know, if the economy were bad enough, it wouldn't have to be much more cash than usual. The feds could probably just say "Hey, ya like the money you're getting at the current rates? Well, if you wanna keep that going, you'll vote Non". The alternative would be to separate from Canada, and get zero cash. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
