- In-and-Out Election Finances Scheme - "Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done"

I Submitted this to MacLean’s Magazine, 29 Apr.’08

Reply to: Local campaigns are largely a fiction anyway - For all the opposition hyperventilating, it's not clear the Tories did anything wrong, by Andrew Coyne, 23 Apr. '08; http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=20080423_16408_16408&id=8

"Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done"

It seems to me that “Democracy” is, by its very meaning, ‘grass roots’. Party politics is a form of “oligarchy“ but a necessary evil, in large part dues to finances. The intention in an election is that the locally elected candidate's duty and obligation is to represent each and every individual in their constituency, no matter which candidate they may have supported. In reality when they get to Ottawa they follow 'party lines ', where it is in the best interests of their constituency, or not. Party lines are determined by the leader, and a very few of his/her appointed advisors, the leader, of course, being elected by the party and not the people. The biggest fiction is when the Primed Minister or Ministers introduce a policy that is riddled with self interest, promoting their particular ideology and with a blatant disregard of the general good, and they say "it is the will of the people".

Surely, it is the above fantasy that ought to be addressed. The Canada Elections Act is a major tool to bring our way of government back to the people (more free votes, less confidence votes, would help, too). It is done, for one, through regulating campaign expenses.

The In-and-Out financing scheme appears to fly in the face of this and in so doing undermines the democratic underpinning of our political system. Can we say that this scheme lies within Parliament 's intention in bring into force the Canada Elections Act.

By s.407(1), Canada Elections Act, a cost incurred is a "campaign expense" if it is "used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election period " [to paraphrase]. It may be that this allows a local campaign to buy advertising that supports the national campaign; but, no matter what, it must be done "directly". In other words, it is submitted that a local campaign may very well be prohibited from claiming something as an election expense when it is transferred to and spent by the national party campaign, whether the nation campaign uses it to purchase national advertising, local advertising or anything else. I fail to see how s.446(c) might come into play here to save the In-and-Out scheme since it is, it seems to me, referring to whether someone who has provided services or goods can sue the local candidate if there is nothing in writing. It is also referring to "expense in relation to a candidate’s electoral campaign" and not "campaign expenses", which as suggested above has that "directness" element.

And, of course, if the local campaign submits invoices addressed to their local campaign for these ads to support their claim to the 60% rebate from the Canadian government for election expenses, then, that is something that Elections Canada may very well be interested in.

If s.407(1) allows local campaigns to incur costs for the national campaign, and as far as I am concerned this is shortcoming of the Canada Elections Act – a piece of legislation that was apparently hurridly brought into law and in parts appears to be poorly drafted, then I have no problem with Elections Canada insisting on them doing it according to the law.


I posted the following (below) in reply to Ottawa Citizen, "The Tories might have a point ... ", John Robson, The Ottawa Citizen, Friday, April 25, 2008.
(http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f90d651c-4589-4dfc-8e20-23cfcf6de0bf&p=2#commentsFormTitle)

(it can be found on my website: http://www.cicblog.com/comments.html, "In-and-Out Election Finances Scheme "

. . . see below