Tories attacking Liberals is par for the course in Canadian politics. The style with which they stage these attacks is, of course, debatable. What is not up for debate should be MPs using their print budgets at the expense of taxpayers for partisan attacks.
According to documents made available by the Liberal party, the Tories plan to spend thousands on taxpayer-supported mailings to inform Canadians of the purported inadequacies of Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. Traditionally, these mail-outs are intended to update constituents on the doings of the House of Commons. Not surprisingly, MPs often use them to lecture riding residents on how well they’re being served and all the good things — or bad things, if you’re an opposition MP — the government is doing.
The Tories, however, appear intent on crossing the ethical divide with mail-outs that are nothing more than an extension of their attack ad campaign against the new Liberal leader. They should not. They can spend as much as they want to discredit Trudeau — whether it will do them any good is another matter — but not on the taxpayer’s dime.
The flyers, which were presented to the Conservative caucus in mid-April and are to be distributed June 1, show pictures of Trudeau with a moustache and jacket over his shoulder against a backdrop of quotes — “He’s in way over his head,” for example — and encircled by what looks like a comet trail of pixie dust sprinkled by Walt Disney’s wand-waving fairy. Another part of the mail-out suggests the Liberal leader is naive on such issues as Quebec separatism, tax credits for families and the economy.
The cost of mailing these attacks for 166 Conservative MPs comes in at about $29,000, but throw in the full price of printing and distribution and, according to the Liberals, it will be more than $220,000. The money will come out of the Tories’ House of Commons budget. In other words, taxpayers will pay.
Government House Leader Peter Van Loan defends the expenditure, saying it is within rules approved by Parliament and the all-party Board of Internal Economy that oversees MPs’ expenditures. He says it’s “entirely appropriate” for the Tories to inform Canadians in this way about Trudeau’s leadership qualities (or lack thereof).
What a specious justification for ripping off taxpayers. Householders were intended to provide MPs with a way to communicate “information” — farm subsidy programs, home renovation credits, etc. — to constituents. Yet they have become a vehicle for partisan propaganda.
Admittedly, the Board of Internal Economy, which oversees MPs’ expenditures, is fuzzy on whether the partisan use of this material runs afoul of the “parliamentary functions.” MPs use two types of mailers in communicating with constituents. There are “householders” and “10 percenters.”
The board defines “householders” as “printed material sent by Members to inform their constituents about parliamentary activities and issues.” MPs can send out householders up to four times a year, which on average represents 45,000 households for each householder.
On the other hand, “10 percenters” are printed or photocopied material reproduced in quantities not exceeding 10 per cent of the total number of households in an MP’s riding. Members can print and mail as many of these as they wish, although each one must be significantly different in content from the others and can only be distributed in the MP’s constituency, which, on average, represents 4,500 copies for each flyer.
All this may be confusing, but more importantly, it’s costly for taxpayers. In 2011-’12, MPs’ expenditure on householders, “10 percenters” and other print-related material was $4.7 million. The year before that, in 2010-’11, it was $9.6 million, while in 2008-’09 it was just over $10 million. That’s a lot of paper and ink in the digital age.
Despite such expenditures, however, there don’t appear to be any rules solely related to the proper or improper use of householders. To be sure, the Board stipulates what it considers improper parliamentary functions, including “activities related to the administration, organization and internal communications of a political party” such as participating in a party leadership campaign or convention, asking for contributions, and soliciting membership to a party. Also prohibited are “activities designed, in the context of a federal, provincial, or municipal election, or any other local election, to support or oppose a political party or an individual candidate.”
That sounds fairly comprehensive until you consider that the anti-Trudeau flyer, while clearly intended to “oppose a political party or an individual candidate,” is not being issued in the “context” of an election. You might even reasonably argue it is related to the “organization and internal communications of a political party.” After all, the Tories are communicating their “internal” position on Trudeau. Yet, as we’ve said, there doesn’t seem to be a specific rule to prevent the Conservatives spending taxpayers’ money attacking the Liberal leader.
There should be. To give the Tories a modicum of credit on this file, they have cut MPs print-related spending by a significant amount in recent years. Now they need to match fiscal prudence with ethical awareness.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Ottawa Citizen Editorial
According to documents made available by the Liberal party, the Tories plan to spend thousands on taxpayer-supported mailings to inform Canadians of the purported inadequacies of Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. Traditionally, these mail-outs are intended to update constituents on the doings of the House of Commons. Not surprisingly, MPs often use them to lecture riding residents on how well they’re being served and all the good things — or bad things, if you’re an opposition MP — the government is doing.
The Tories, however, appear intent on crossing the ethical divide with mail-outs that are nothing more than an extension of their attack ad campaign against the new Liberal leader. They should not. They can spend as much as they want to discredit Trudeau — whether it will do them any good is another matter — but not on the taxpayer’s dime.
The flyers, which were presented to the Conservative caucus in mid-April and are to be distributed June 1, show pictures of Trudeau with a moustache and jacket over his shoulder against a backdrop of quotes — “He’s in way over his head,” for example — and encircled by what looks like a comet trail of pixie dust sprinkled by Walt Disney’s wand-waving fairy. Another part of the mail-out suggests the Liberal leader is naive on such issues as Quebec separatism, tax credits for families and the economy.
The cost of mailing these attacks for 166 Conservative MPs comes in at about $29,000, but throw in the full price of printing and distribution and, according to the Liberals, it will be more than $220,000. The money will come out of the Tories’ House of Commons budget. In other words, taxpayers will pay.
Government House Leader Peter Van Loan defends the expenditure, saying it is within rules approved by Parliament and the all-party Board of Internal Economy that oversees MPs’ expenditures. He says it’s “entirely appropriate” for the Tories to inform Canadians in this way about Trudeau’s leadership qualities (or lack thereof).
What a specious justification for ripping off taxpayers. Householders were intended to provide MPs with a way to communicate “information” — farm subsidy programs, home renovation credits, etc. — to constituents. Yet they have become a vehicle for partisan propaganda.
Admittedly, the Board of Internal Economy, which oversees MPs’ expenditures, is fuzzy on whether the partisan use of this material runs afoul of the “parliamentary functions.” MPs use two types of mailers in communicating with constituents. There are “householders” and “10 percenters.”
The board defines “householders” as “printed material sent by Members to inform their constituents about parliamentary activities and issues.” MPs can send out householders up to four times a year, which on average represents 45,000 households for each householder.
On the other hand, “10 percenters” are printed or photocopied material reproduced in quantities not exceeding 10 per cent of the total number of households in an MP’s riding. Members can print and mail as many of these as they wish, although each one must be significantly different in content from the others and can only be distributed in the MP’s constituency, which, on average, represents 4,500 copies for each flyer.
All this may be confusing, but more importantly, it’s costly for taxpayers. In 2011-’12, MPs’ expenditure on householders, “10 percenters” and other print-related material was $4.7 million. The year before that, in 2010-’11, it was $9.6 million, while in 2008-’09 it was just over $10 million. That’s a lot of paper and ink in the digital age.
Despite such expenditures, however, there don’t appear to be any rules solely related to the proper or improper use of householders. To be sure, the Board stipulates what it considers improper parliamentary functions, including “activities related to the administration, organization and internal communications of a political party” such as participating in a party leadership campaign or convention, asking for contributions, and soliciting membership to a party. Also prohibited are “activities designed, in the context of a federal, provincial, or municipal election, or any other local election, to support or oppose a political party or an individual candidate.”
That sounds fairly comprehensive until you consider that the anti-Trudeau flyer, while clearly intended to “oppose a political party or an individual candidate,” is not being issued in the “context” of an election. You might even reasonably argue it is related to the “organization and internal communications of a political party.” After all, the Tories are communicating their “internal” position on Trudeau. Yet, as we’ve said, there doesn’t seem to be a specific rule to prevent the Conservatives spending taxpayers’ money attacking the Liberal leader.
There should be. To give the Tories a modicum of credit on this file, they have cut MPs print-related spending by a significant amount in recent years. Now they need to match fiscal prudence with ethical awareness.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Ottawa Citizen Editorial
No comments:
Post a Comment