The Canadian taxpayer continues to fund Quebec separatism

I agree with the general principle that Canadians should not be forced to subsidize political parties, but the problem with your particular argument is that each party is only supported by the same number of people who voted for it. For instance, the Bloc is only being supported by those Quebecers who voted for it.

Total votes for the Bloc in 2008 = 1.379,991 x $2.004 (current stipend) =$691,289

So no-one in the ROC is supporting the Bloc. In the same way, the CPC is supported by the same number of people that voted for it etc. If you did not vote in the last election, then sorry you don’t have a case to argue here.

The better argument would simply be that it is just plain WRONG to subsidize political parties, and not to try to tie it to one specific party.

The liberals decided to fund the separatist Bloc because they were trying to portray themselves as the only national party that could keep Canada safe from the separatists.
At the time their competition was the Reform party which they described as a regional party.
Trouble was the Bloc was broke and not a credible threat.
The Liberals ‘fixed’ that little problem by funding the Bloc with our taxes and making them a credible threat.

tax money should never go to support a political party. to be a valid party running in a federal election your party should be required to field candidates in every province.

The per-vote subsidy is only one funding mechanism for political parties. It is worth a quick reminder that direct donations to political parties are also heavily subsidized – to the tune of $300 on the first $400 donated per year.

As the most successful fundraiser, the CPC is also the largest recipient of taxpayer political subsidies.

I would suggest readers also review this Pundit’s Guide post that explains the wider scenario: http://www.punditsguide.ca/2010/08/expanding-the-debate-on-party-financing/

I can somewhat agree that the way political parties are funded in Canada should be revised. The level of grassroots funding for Obama’s campaign was very positive. But please don’t hold the US up as a complete example of political funding to be emulated. Now that corporate funding of political campaigns is essentially unrestricted , the corporate hold on both US political parties is nearly unbreakable, and the Americans will continue to get the best government that corporate money can buy.

Despite their separatist origins, the Bloc Québécois is far from a separatist party these days (to the dismay of real separatistes). The plain fact is that the Bloc has provided superior federal representation for the people of Quebec within Canada, and as a result, separatist feelings have significantly declined. Even the Liberals, with their strong Quebec ties, couldn’t achieve this. In effect, funding the Bloc has strengthened Canada, the exact opposite of your assertion that”The Canadian taxpayer continues to fund Quebec separatism.”

Another example of political party mis-labelling is, of course, the CPC. You might think you’re supporting a conservative party, and on some mostly token right-wing issues (LGR, census crippling, injection sites, abortion, immigration restriction) they have taken the right-wing stance. But on serious issues they are centrist, status quo … or negligent. Think stimulus, Afghan detainee crisis, foreign policy, F-35 purchase. As for reforming or shrinking government, they are AWOL. Howzat senate reform going? Instead of transparancy they have a Ministry of Propaganda to control the message. Harper likes the existing powertools too much to effect any real change, now.

Separatist, conservative… just empty labels for the moment, as far as our federal political parties go.

The Quebec issue is which will cause the demise of this country. I’d suggest however that, if those who can never see west of Toronto ever get their head out of the sand, it will not be quebec who leaves – it is simply too lucurative for them to stay. Hence, as kenn2 stipulates, the reduction in rhetoric since the “Clear question” initiative by Preston Manning which was eventually picked up by the Liberals.
Just as in Africa, any country in which one “tribe” has too much power over the others, the stage is set for conflict and/or “separation”. We have a polictical environment when 24% of the pop has a huge and unreasonable amount of the power (most in Quebec agree they are “half” of Canada and take the Constitutional power granted them) at the expense of others.
Slowly, (and happily) the West is saying it isn’t going to bankroll that any more and there are really only two “Have” provinces – both in the west. (welcome NFLD) NFLD is saying is still wants the Transfer payments to keep rolling in despite they are now too and have province so don’t look for help from them.
To learn and language one must be in an area it is used and be able to practicse – there is less than 1% of francophones in BC – it aint’ going to happen anymore that Ottawa will start learning Chinese (which would be a far better bet given the current world demographics and economic reality) so the result is that Westerners were asked to bankroll this idiocy and disqualified from participating in it. Strangely, this is precisely what happened in South Africa when the Boers started insisting everyone in government had to speak Africaans and managed to exclude the people like Janny Smuts – and the country which supplied the architech of the UN constitution went on to develop Aparthied. Sound familiar anyone? It won’t of course because “there are none so blind as those who will not see.”

(got a cold, Doug? It’s rather hard to understand what you’re saying today)

I never quite understood the mentality of people, who given incentive and funding, still rail against an opportunity to advance themselves. Take bilingualism. It is an indisputable, proven fact that knowing TWO languages is better than just having one. It causes more connections to form in the brain, and it generally improves one’s abilities to understand and adapt to new frameworks. It forces one to try a different perspective, and it provides structural insight that gives one a better objective knowledge of their first language.

This is of course in addition to the obvious benefits of easier travel and communication that a second language brings. Finally, if you can be open-minded enough, it’s part of an opportunity to learn, understand and participate in the other founding culture of our country.

I must confess that these days I don’t hear alot of complaint about bilingualism, even from western friends. Where is this burning outrage you speak of? It seems to mainly fester with some old farts carrying a grudge from the sixties. And, of course, you.

Word to the wise – if you can’t get a handle on French, you don’t have a chance in hell of learning Mandarin. Just sayin’.

I’ve never understood the mentality of racism, the concept that my tribe is better than your tribe, or that even though we are numberically inferior, it is necessary that we control and override the majority.
Frankly if you want to speak a second language I don’t give a damn – nor was that the point as you well know. When I lived in Ottawa I worked as a Ski Patrol in Quebec in the winter. In Quebec, I did my damnedest to learn and speak french as it was a bit untoward to go up to someone wrapped around a tree and ask “Ca va bien?”
Whether racism/discrimination is based on skin colour, culture, or religion it is immoral and the fact that the central Canada may be fine foisting their regional issues into national ones doesn’t suddenly make it right. If it was wrong for 22.9 percent of whites to have undue influence over the majority of others in South Africa, it is equally wrong for 24.3 % of Francophones to have undue influence over the rest of the country. I’m always impressed at the sheer arrogance of the Liberal mindset that their social engineering is for the best if only those who point out its immorality and their double standards would shut up. (See above). Does that mean that Westerners have been confined to Homelands? Not forcibly, but despite a 24.2 % and falling population of Francophones in the country, over 78% of people working in Parliament are. So the exclusion, again becuase if you never live in an area where and language is spoken the chances of you learning and being able to practice/develop it are unlikely is as effective unoffically as if it were mandated.
One francophone academic (and one has to take this with far more than a grain of salt) actually had the chutzpah to say Harper, by pointing out that the west is inadequately represented in both Parliament and the Senate, was threatening National unity. Apparently this erudite individual had never, as a school boy, been made to understand the concept of democracy. So here’s a bone for you. Next time the Liberals wonder why they get killed in the West, point out that racism out here is a negative thing.

Two old ladies at a restaurant…
Lady #1: Oooh, the food here is quite dreadful, isn’t it?
Lady #2: Yes… and such small portions!

(Translation: you lot are out to reduce the size of government, yet here you are complaining that Westerners can’t get government jobs)

Despite your best efforts, this French hate is not the issue it once was. Workable compromises have been reached just about everywhere in Canada. Most Canadians, if they care at all, recognize bilingualism for the opportunity it is (witness the popularity of immersion schools), and how our two dominant cultures together are greater than the sum of their parts.

I tend to think that anyone who deliberately plays up a cultural difference in order to breathe life into a wedge issue is the real racist. Fortunately, most of the die-hard French haters are older and on the sidelines. Trudeau’s dead, the sixties were 40 years ago, Canada is still very much alive. Move on, Doug.

To followup on my previous comment from a few days ago, friends of John Baird are hosting a fundraiser next month and make it clear that donations are subsidized a great deal (“your cost: $150″).

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2011/01/09/cabinet-ministers-fundraisers.html