TORONTO (March 8, 1995) - At a meeting arranged by the Commission On Election Finances for officially-registered Ontario political parties not represented on the Commission, Fp president Robert Metz was surprised to learn that his submitted suggestions for discussion comprised most of its agenda.
Formed in 1984, the Commission regulates all officially-registered political parties in the province of Ontario.
Of the six items open for discussion, five were submitted by Freedom Party:
Representation on the Commission by the Alternate Parties;
Upcoming changes to tax-credits for certain fund-raising events;
Philosophy determining the definition and guidelines distinguishing between activities that do or do not quality for tax credits;
The role of the Commission and its relationship to the alternative registered parties;
The feasibility of unregistered political parties and the Commission's assumed relationship with them.
The sixth item, submitted by the Ontario Confederation Of Regions Party (C.O.R.), concerned rules and guidelines on how political parties may spend the money they raise.
The meeting was attended by representatives of all of Ontario's six alternate political parties: Glenn Bedell and Liz Rowley of the Communist Party of Canada (Ontario), Henri Cloudt and Marie Young of the Family Coalition Party, Dan King of the Green Party, George Dance of the Libertarian Party, George Meekins of C.O.R., and Robert Metz on behalf of Freedom Party. All seemed interested in addressing the items brought forward by Fp.
With only the parties in power being able to appoint members to the Commission, any alternate or new party effectively ends up being regulated and controlled by the very parties it opposes in the political marketplace.
"With all due respect," opened Metz in his comments to the Commission, "we (at Freedom Party) have a slightly different idea of what a political party should be all about, and we find that the regulations imposed upon us force us to behave like the political parties we don't like."
Metz was referring to recent Commission interpretations of the Elections Finances Act regarding the awarding of official tax-receipts, and to upcoming changes (tentatively July 1, 1995) that will affect fund-raising functions for political parties in Ontario. He reminded Commission members of their own stated interpretation of the purposes underlying the Act "to be the election of candidates to the legislative assembly of Ontario and activities necessarily incidental thereto."
"Now here we can get into a major problem in terms of interpreting what activities are 'necessarily incidental' to these ultimate goals," said Metz.
"The way I interpret this is that if the policy we're pursuing agrees with that of the governments in power," Metz postulated, "we CAN give tax-credits for it; if the policy DISAGREES with the governments in power, we CANNOT give a tax-credit for it."
When he asked for reasons why the Commission distinguished between these two issues, Executive Director Gordon Kushner replied that one was federal, the other provincial.
"Therefore," responded Metz, "it would be alright for (Freedom Party) to raise money to defend a London landlord before a Human Rights Commission, because that's strictly provincial..."
"It's not for getting someone elected in the House..." began Kushner.
"...well (electing more women) isn't either," argued Metz. "We're not talking about electing a SPECIFIC WOMAN to parliament, but for a POLITICAL AGENDA of electing 'more women.' I see no difference between this agenda and what I'm suggesting with the Human Rights Commission."
"But how would that activity get you members in the House?" asked Kushner, evading the obvious question of how "electing more women" would do the same.
"Because," explained Metz. "people (would) associate that activity and stand with the party that puts candidates forward on that issue. That's what politics is all about. It's ideas and philosophy and differences of opinion."
"This is exactly my point, Mr. Murray," emphasized Metz. "Political parties ARE about PHILOSOPHY. That's why I'm here having to consider the feasibility of unregistered political parties, because I don't think that we can to what we must do within the mandates that this Commission is setting out for us."
"How have the other parties managed to?" retorted Kushner.
"Well," Metz illustrated, "Parties that generally represent BIGGER government are going to have the SUPPORT of government, but a parties that represent SMALLER GOVERNMENT and LOWER TAXES, and MORE INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, have got every card stacked against them. It places us in an awkward position whereby, BECAUSE OF WHAT WE BELIEVE AND BECAUSE OF OUR PHILOSOPHY, we have to place ourselves in a position of opposition (to the Elections Commission) in the regulatory sense."
"I've been impressed at how the Commission consistently works through the party to get compliance," said Murray, "and the level of compliance we get is because of that cooperation. I don't hear a lot of complaints. I don't hear anybody arguing that our guidelines are onerous ... in any way. I don't hear that."
"Now, the law also permits constituency associations to transfer funds among themselves," Bedell illustrated. "so I could contribute to four constituency associations, then transfer it all back to this one here. So why not just allow us to put $3000 into ONE? It just takes more bookkeeping that I see necessary."
"The parties are FREE TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT," emphasized Murray, "But IN TERMS OF THEIR FUNDRAISING, and getting money to do that, then we have to draw the line. Otherwise we're using public funds."
Another Commission member explained: "You can raise the money IN A NON-SPECIFIC WAY and SPEND IT VIRTUALLY ON WHATEVER YOU WANT."
To which one of the guests asked: "I guess the question is, we're allowed to raise money, but can we TELL (our supporters) WHAT we're going to spend the money on?"
"That's the problem," explained Murray.
"I start getting the feeling that we're being encouraged to MISLEAD our contributors if we want to raise money for specific issues (and give tax-receipts)," commented Metz. "What would be the restriction on a political party giving money to a lobby group?"
"...as long as you didn't RAISE the money for that purpose," explained Kushner.
To make things even more onerous, upcoming regulations regarding Ontario's political tax-credits are to be introduced on the principle that official tax receipts are NOT to be awarded where a member or supporter receives VALUE for his/her contribution.
"Our party was founded on the opposite principle," said Metz. 'When we founded (Freedom Party), we told our members that, unlike other political parties, we were going to give them value for their dollar."
"Are you giving them material goods?" asked Kushner.
"Yes," replied Metz. "Newsletters, information packages, dinners, various events. We do everything we possibly can to influence people. When we go out there to work on a particular issue, we're giving our members a tangible product. That's how we think. That's what we think a political party should be doing."
Metz argued that all these activities are "necessarily incidental" to Freedom Party's eventually getting candidates elected, but the Commission insisted that beginning July 1, political parties will have to operate on a "NETTING PRINCIPLE."
Metz asked what would happen in the case where a "free" dinner was held for members at year-end as an appreciation dinner: "What do we have to do in that case? At the end of the year do we have to calculate what the dinner cost and then backtrack through the year over the tax-credits that we've awarded our contributors and start deducting (what the contributor "consumed') retroactively?"
"A good case in point," responded Kushner, with others around the table agreeing. However, no one addressed the question.
After being pressed to explain why the Commission was planning these changes, the Commission finally admitted that it was using a "federal model" as its guide and that its actions arose because Revenue Canada sent them a letter expressing dissatisfaction with Ontario's policy of allowing full tax-credits for fundraising banquets and other similar events. (However, the new regulations EXEMPT "workshops", "conventions", or "seminars" from the so-called "netting" principle.)
While insisting that this was not the case, and that the main item to which the netting principle would apply would be the cost of a dinner CONSUMED at a banquet (as opposed to food served at a workshop, convention or seminar), Kushner emphasized that the consumption principle "doesn't just have to be a food item."
When Metz asked if the cost of a gold or silver pin given as appreciation to a supporter would have to be netted from that supporter's contribution, Kushner replied, "No, no."
"Then what EXACTLY are we to deduct?" asked Metz. "I want to hear a very clear and concise description of what is specifically eligible and what is not."
The issue was specifically raised by Libertarian Party representative George Dance, who could not understand the Commission's reluctance to even allow any OBSERVERS from the alternate parties to Commission meetings.
"My big concern," explained Dance, "is that the Commission has WIDE DISCRETION UNDER THE ACT TO REGULATE HOW OUR PARTY OPERATES. Unlike the legislatures, which operate in public, large portions of what happens at the Commission is IN CAMERA. So we don't KNOW, much less have a chance to respond to, the decisions that govern this organization."
"I think you've made your case," responded Murray. 'We certainly could spend some hours back and forth on this."
Citing federal precedents as grounds for its action, Murray stated that "We are (Revenue Canada's) agents in Ontario (!?!?) and we have that obligation to the taxpaying public NOT to subsidize individuals..."
"I take great exception to the idea that tax-credits issued in Ontario are PUBLIC SUBSIDIES," argued Metz. "My understanding is that they only apply to Ontario taxes. You're only directing YOUR OWN portion of YOUR OWN individual taxes to the party of your choice. If you don't have Ontario taxes paid or payable, you can't claim the tax-credits. No one else is subsidizing anyone.
"However, a subsidy DOES occur AFTER an election when a political party receives a certain percentage of money back on its campaign expenses, and that's something I would object to. But I certainly wouldn't regard the first as a subsidy in any way, shape, or form."
"Well, again, that's a philosophical question," responded Murray.
Free elections do not exist in Ontario.
GET THE DETAILS! Background information and partial transcripts of the Commission meeting are available to Freedom Party members and supporters on request.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
