2013--revised 2012 fda canadian provinces electoral finance report

2012 FDA Global Electoral Finance Audit of Canada’s 10 Provinces

Executive Summary

The FDA audit entailed a comprehensive audit of the electoral finance legislation of Canada's 10 provinces. The audit is restricted to capturing systematic corruption. The FDA measured exceptional legislation in Québec and Manitoba, very good in Nova Scotia, acceptable in New Brunswick, unacceptable (passing) in Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, and unacceptable (failing) in Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. The FDA believes that the legislation from Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan is systematically corrupt by favouring minority/special interests over the interests of the people. The FDA identified major deficiencies in many areas of these provinces' legislation including the addition of corporations and trade unions in electoral contributions, high caps on contributions, no expenditure limits, public subsidies which favor large, established parties, no regulation of third party expenditure, and/or low fines on corporations and trade unions for electoral wrongdoing. In contrast, FDA auditors measured zero deficiency in Québec's legislation. This measurement means that Québec's legislation is working completely in the interests of the people of Québec. The FDA recommends that the rest of Canada's provinces model their legislation after Québec's.

Electoral Fairness Audit Completed April 10, 2012

Revised September 29, 2013

Prepared By

Mr. Stephen Garvey, Executive Director Foundation for Democratic Advancement, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.

Purpose of the Canadian Provinces Electoral Finance Audit

The purpose of the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA)’s electoral finance audit (the Audit) is to determine a comprehensive grade for electoral finance in Canada at the provincial legislative level of government. This Audit is an extension of the FDA’s global audit of electoral fairness involving all countries that hold political elections. The purpose of the global audit is to quantify electoral fairness, establish benchmarks for electoral fairness, identify areas of democratic advancement and progression, and encourage democracy reform where needed.

The goal of the FDA's provincial report is to give the people of Canada and other stakeholders an informed, objective, comparative perspective of the Canada's provincial electoral systems and provide recommendations for reform of the systems where needed. Canadians may want to use this information as a way to help determine their electoral choices in upcoming provincial elections. The release of the FDA province report just prior to the 2012 Alberta Election coincides with this initiative.

The views in this electoral finance audit are the views of the FDA only. The FDA’s members are in no way affiliated with any of the provinces' election administrators or any of the provinces' registered/nonregistered political parties. The Audit is an independent assessment based on objectivity, transparency and non-partisanship. The FDA assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors in the measurement and calculation of its audit results or inaccuracies in its research of relevant provincial legislation.

About the Foundation for Democratic Advancement

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is an international independent, non-partisan democracy organization. The FDA’s mission is

to measure, study, and communicate the impact of government processes on a free and democratic society.

Overall, the FDA works

1. to ensure that people become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of government processes and can then make decisions that are more informed;

2. to get people involved in monitoring government processes at all levels of government and in providing sound, practical, and effective suggestions. (For more information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org)

To ensure its objectivity and independence, the FDA does not conduct privately paid research. However, if you or your organization has an important research idea or are aware of an important issue on government processes, the FDA is available to listen to your idea or issue and possibly help

raise public awareness by initiating and leading change through report research and analysis. Please contact the FDA at (403) 669-8132 or email us at [email protected] for more information.

An online version of this report can be found at: www.democracychange.orgFor further information and/or comments on this report please contact Mr. Stephen Garvey at [email protected]

Table of Contents

Introduction 6

How to Read the Report 7

Chapter 1: Electoral Finance 9

Alberta 9 Analysis 14

British Columbia 16 Analysis 21

Manitoba 22Analysis 27

New Brunswick 28Analysis 33

Newfoundland and Labrador 34Analysis 37

Nova Scotia 39Analysis 44

Ontario 45 Analysis 49

Prince Edward Island 51Analysis 54

Quebec 56Analysis 63

Saskatchewan 64Analysis 68

Chapter 2: Overall Audit Results 69

Chapter 3: Analysis 70

Chapter 4: Conclusion ` 76

Chapter 5: Recommendations 78

References 79

Appendix: Research Methodology 81

FDA Audit Team & Associates 86

Introduction

The FDA audit of the Canadian provinces' electoral finance legislation is based on non-partisanship and objectivity.

The audit process entails three major components:

1. Research of the provinces' electoral legislation.

2. Audit of the legislation based on audit team consensus, and FDA matrices and scoring scales.

3. Analysis of findings.

The value of scores in the FDA matrices are based on fundamental democratic principles of legislative neutrality, political freedom, and political fairness, and the comparative impact of variables on democracy. For example, if there is no electoral finance transparency then this result will impact other sections such as the legislative process, because without financial transparency, it will be difficult to enforce electoral finance laws and prevent and discover electoral finance wrongdoing. Consequently, according to the FDA scoring system, zero financial transparency will result in a zero score for legislative process as well.

The FDA research component is objective, because it is simply a compilation of the same legislative and financial data for each province.

The FDA audit component is both objective and subjective. It is objective when determining yes and no facts, such as does Province A have caps on electoral contributions—yes or no? It is subjective because of the predetermined scores for each audit section, and the scores given for each section. The FDA acknowledges that there is no absolute scoring system.

The FDA minimizes subjectivity through non-partisanship, the predetermination of scores based on consensus of FDA auditors, the application of core democratic concepts such as the neutrality of electoral legislation, political freedom, and political fairness, and the valuation of the comparative impact of variables on democracy. In addition, the FDA has a minimum quorum of five experienced auditors during audit sessions. For further discussion of the FDA methodology please see the Research Methodology chapter on page 81.

Foundation for Democratic Advancement | 2012 FDA Canadian Provinces Electoral Finance Report 6

How to Read the Report

Chapter 1 focuses on the FDA’s electoral finance audit of the Canada’s 10 provinces. These chapters are formatted in the following manner

1) Introduction to the audit. 2) Summary for audit results for each province.3) Audit questions, legislative research and audit findings on each province.4) Analysis of audit measurements and findings for each province.

Chapter 3, ‘Overall Analysis’, pertains to the measurements and findings from the audit results and findings for each province.

Definition of Key Terms

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement characterized the following definitions

Electoral fairness

The impartiality and equality of election law before, during, and after an election period. In the context of the audit, electoral fairness involves concepts relating to election content in the media, candidates and parties, electoral finance, and voters. In particular, this includes evaluating impartiality and balance of political content in the media, equitable opportunity and ability for registered candidates and parties to influence voters and government, equitable electoral finance laws, and equitable opportunity and ability for voters to voice political views and/or influence the outcome of an election.

Electoral fairness does not allow bias through, for example, legislation that gives a distinct electoral advantage to one registered party over another, or laws that allow equitable access to media without facilitating equal opportunity to take advantage of this access. In contrast, electoral fairness would include a broad, balanced diffusion of electoral propaganda by registered political parties during the campaign period, equal campaign finances (beyond equal expenditure limits) for all registered parties according to the number of candidates endorsed, and the registration of parties based on reasonable popular support (rather than financial deposit or unreasonable popular support).

Electoral fairness in any democratic process must include an equal playing field for registered parties and candidates, distinguishable by voters according to a clear political platform, and a broad and balanced political discourse in where information about electoral choices are clear and available to the voting public.


Electoral finance

Electoral finance laws applied to registered candidates and parties before, during, and after an election period. Electoral finance also encompasses campaign finance which is restricted to the campaign period.

In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, electoral finance includes:

1) Caps on electoral contributions (or the lack of).2) Caps on candidate and party electoral expenditures (or the lack of).3) Procedures for financial disclosure and reporting of candidate and party electoral finances.4) Procedures for the handling of electoral contributions by registered candidates

and parties. Electoral finance does not include non-financial laws, regulations, procedures etc. such as those relating to candidate and party access to media, civil rights laws such as freedom of speech and assembly, rules on right of reply in the media, laws on the election content of media, and laws on voter assistance.

Special interest-based democracy

A system in where either individual or corporate interests dictate government action, and factions with the most economic and political power in society influence policies and legislation. The electoral system is set up to allow special and minority interests to impact election outcomes primarily through electoral finance and media access and exposure. In addition, people do not have substantial political say on government policy and legislation between elections.

People-based democracy

A system where political power is invested in the people and the population as a whole to influence government policies and legislation. The electoral system is set up in a fair and equitable manner so that all people, within reason, have an opportunity to influence the election outcomes to the same degree. In addition, people have mechanisms for substantial political say on government decision-making, policies, and legislation between elections.


Chapter 1: Electoral Finance

This chapter focuses on Canadian provincial electoral finance laws and the FDA's audit of them in terms of electoral fairness. Based on the political concepts of egalitarianism and political liberalism, the FDA team audits electoral finance laws according to their equity for registered candidates, parties, and voters (see Appendix: Research Methodology for further explanation). The FDA team audits from the standpoint of a peoples-based democracy.

The FDA focuses on six finance variables:

electoral finance transparency, contributions to candidates and parties, caps on contributions to candidates and parties, campaign expenditure limits, caps on third-party expenditures, and legislative process for electoral finance.

The FDA chose these finance variables because they represent core areas of electoral finance. The audit of electoral finance includes examination of Canadian provincial electoral finance legislation and the application of legislative research to the FDA matrices. Matrix scoring is based on an overall score of 0 to 10 out of 10.

What follows are the audit results and questions, legislative research, and audit findings for each province:

Alberta

Tables 1 Electoral Finance Audit Scores and Percentages for Alberta

Electoral Finance Section Variables

% Subsection Audit Weight

Numerical Subsection Audit

Weight

Alberta Audit

Results

% Results

Electoral Finance Transparency

20% 2.0 2.0 100%

Contributions to Candidates & Parties

15% 1.5 1.0 66.6%

Caps on Contributions to Candidates & Parties

20% 2.0 1.0825 54%

Campaign Expenditure Limits

22.5% 2.25 0.0 0.0%

Caps on Third-party Expenditures

12.5% 1.25 0.2794 22.35%

Legislative Process 10% 1.0 0.40 40%Total 100% 10 4.76 47.6%



Are candidate and party finances transparent to the public?

Legislative Process

The Chief Electoral Officer may examine all financial statements and affairs of all political candidates, election campaigns and registered third parties (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 4). All records must be maintained for a period of at least three years (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 10.1). All documents filed with the Chief Electoral Officer are public records and available upon request during normal business hours (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 11). Any campaign funds not used are held in trust, to be used during the next election.These funds may be transferred to the registered party that supported the candidates bid for election in the previous election. If the candidate is not nominated for the following election, he is to transfer these funds to the registered party or candidates that supported his bid in the previous election. If funds cannot be transferred, they are transferred to the Crown (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 12).

All contributions must be deposited in the account registered with the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 14). Every candidate, constituency association and political party must have a chief financial officer who is not eligible for election and is appointed prior to the party registering with the Chief Electoral Officer. Contributions may only be accepted by the chief financial officer or another person who is deemed authorized to accept contributions, according to the records of the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 29, 31). A third party must register if it has or plans to incur expenses of $1,000 or more, or makesadvertising contributions of $1,000 or more (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 9.1).

Contributions to Candidates and Parties

Are contributions restricted to citizens? Are contributions disallowed by foreigners, public institutions, and charities? Are anonymous contributions set at a reasonable level?


Research Findings

No Party or Candidate may accept contributions unless they are registered. Requirements: must be non-profit, funds must be deposited within a financial institution in a registered account, must file a report of contributions and expenditures at the end of each tax year (before April 1) (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 6).

No contributions to registered parties, constituency associations, and candidates from non-Alberta corporations and trade unions, public post-secondary institutions, prohibited corporations, school boards, Métis settlements, municipalities, and provincial corporations (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Definition of prohibited corporation). No contribution of funds may be made if said funds do not belong to the contributor or originate out of province. During a campaign period, a provincial party may accept a maximum $150 per candidate from a registered federal political party (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Articles 34, 35, 36).

Anonymous contributions are not allowed in excess of $50. Those in excess must be returned to the contributor. If this cannot happen, it must be paid into the general revenue fund through the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 21.1).

Caps on Contributions to Candidates and Parties

Are there caps on contributions to candidates and parties? Are the caps on candidates' and parties' contributions reflective of mean total income? Are there caps on contributions by candidates to their own campaigns? Are the caps on candidates own contributions reflective of mean total income?

Research Findings

Alberta's 2009 mean total income is $35,250 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

In any year contributions may not exceed $15,000 for a registered party and $1,000 for a registered constituency association (only during a campaign period) and $5,000 in aggregate for registered constituency associations of each registered party (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 17).

In any campaign period, contributions may not exceed $30,000 to registered parties less any contributions made that calendar year, and $2,000 to any registered candidates (only during a campaign period) and $10,000 in the aggregate to registered candidates of each registered party (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 17).

Contributions to a candidate may only be made during an election period (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 17).


No party or candidate may knowingly accept contributions greater than these limits (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 19). Goods, services or gifts that do not exceed $50 are not considered contributions, and are not to be transferred, but are recorded under the gross amount (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 12).

Contributions other than money must be valued at market value at the time of the election (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 44.31).

The unanimous decision of the FDA audit team is that 10% of personal mean income is a reasonable limit to contribute to candidates and parties.

10% of average income is $3,525.

The maximum contribution is $40,000.

3525/40000 = .0881

0.0881 out of 1.0 (FDA Audit Team, 2012).

Registered candidates own contributions to their own campaigns are subject to the contribution limits to registered candidates ($2,000 limit) (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 17).

Based on the 2009 Alberta mean total income of $35,250 (Statistics Canada, 2011), the FDA auditors think that $2,000 is a reasonable limit on contributions by candidates to their own campaigns. The FDA auditors believe that candidates would likely be more willing to contribute to their own campaigns than to others, and that if candidates did not have personal financial resources to cover the $2,000 limit, they have the opportunity to raise electoral monies through contributions from citizens and corporations and fund raising events. Further, a $2,000 difference in campaign contributions by candidates, for example, will likely not determine the election results for a particular constituency (FDA Audit Team, 2012).


Are there campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties? Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments for candidates and parties?

Research Findings

There are no electoral expenditure limits on registered candidates and parties (FDA researchers could find no Alberta legislation that placed direct limits on electoral expenditures). In contrast, the Canadian federal electoral system has candidate expenditure limits on each constituency based on location and size of population, and expenditures limits


on political parties based on the number of candidates endorsed by each party (FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Canada, Electoral Finance, 2011).

FDA researchers could find no legislation on public subsidies, ergo, conclude that there are no provincial subsidies of candidates, parties, or third parties.

Caps on Third Party Spending

Are there caps on third party spending?If there is third party spending, is it restricted to citizens only? If there are caps on third party spending, are they attainable, reasonably, by all adult citizens? Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments that create an equal level of third party spending?

Research Findings

Alberta's 2009 mean total income is $35,250 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

Third party expenditure is limited to $15,000 in one calendar year and $30,000 in year of an election less any expenditure made that year (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 44.2(3)).

Those who may not register as a third party are: individuals that are not permanent residents of Alberta; corporations that do not carry out business in Alberta; registered charities; prohibited corporations; and trade unions or organized labor groups not defined by the Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 9.1).

No advertising contribution may be made or used unless it is by someone registered as a third party and subject to the same limits (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 44.2).

The FDA assumes that all corporations and unions can afford the $30,000 expenditure.

$30,000 limit on third party expenditure in election year. 10% of income equals 3,525.

3525/30000 = .1175

0.1175 out of .25 (max score) = 0.0294

(FDA Audit Team, 2012).

There are no provincial subsidies of candidates and parties, and third parties (FDA researchers could find no legislation on public subsidies).

Legislative ProcessFoundation for Democratic Advancement | 2012 FDA Canadian Provinces Electoral Finance Report 13

Is legislative process to enforce the electoral finance laws? Is there an effective legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws?

Research Findings

Alberta has comprehensive laws and regulations for the enforcement of the Alberta Election Act. There are established fines and persecution through the Provincial Courts that covers both offenses and violations to the Election Act and electoral corruption. However, the Chief Electoral Officer is only person who has the power to proceed with prosecution under the Election Act (Election Act, Articles 154-184).

The maximum fine for contraventions for registered parties is $10,000 and $1,000 for registered candidates and constituency associations. The maximum fine for a general offence is $10,000 for corporations and trade unions, and $1,000 for individuals. Maximum fines for third party advertising violations are $10,000 for an individual and $100,000 for corporations and unions. There are no prison sentences for electoral infractions in Alberta. (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Articles 4553).

Based on low general fines of $10,000 for corporations (except for third party fines), low fines for registered candidates and individuals, and no prison sentences, the FDA auditors determine a 20% score. (The FDA auditors assume that a fine $200,000 and/or 1 or more years imprisonment is effective against corporations, and $5,000 fine and/or 1 or more years imprisonment is effective against individuals).

20% of .75 = .15The Court may order parties to bear their own costs for an appeal and/or recount. Depending on the situation, costs may be paid by the Crown in right of Alberta (Election Act, Article 148.1).

Finances Act does not apply to leadership conventions within political parties (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 2).

Finances Act does not apply to leadership conventions within political parties (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 2).

Total score for the electoral fairness of electoral finance: 47.6 percent out of 100 percent.

Analysis

Based on the FDA scoring scale (see the Conclusion chapter), Alberta is in the failing zone for fairness of electoral finance legislation. The scores reflect systematic corruption in Alberta’s electoral finance legislation. Systematic corruption refers to legislated public processes that favour minority interests over the interests of people as a whole.

Barring electoral finance transparency and reasonable caps on contributions to candidates, Alberta’s electoral finance legislation favours the wealthy segments in society. The inclusion of corporations


and trade unions in electoral contributions and third party spending, high caps on contributions to parties, no campaign expenditure limits, high third party expenditure limits, and ineffective penalties against corporations and trade unions is evidence of this fact.

Québec, which attained a 100 percent score for electoral finance legislation, provides an example and model of electoral finance legislation that reflects the interests of people as a whole. In Québec, unlike Alberta, contributions and third party expenditure is limited to the electorate, the Court imposes effective fines for corporate contraventions, and there are reasonable caps on contributions and expenditures for parties and candidates.


British Columbia

Tables 2 Electoral Finance Audit Scores and Percentages for British Columbia




Weight

British Columbia

Audit Results

% Results


20% 2.0 2.0 100%


15% 1.5 0.5 33.3%


20% 2.0 0.25 12.5%


22.5% 2.25 1.25 50%


12.5% 1.25 0.25 20%

Legislative Process 10% 1.0 0.65 65%Total 100% 10 4.91 49.10%

Electoral finance transparency

Are candidate and party finances transparent to the public?Are candidate and party finances only transparent to candidate and parties and not the public? Are candidate and party finances only transparent to the government?

Legislative Process

Parties and constituency organizations must register to incur election expenses (Election Act, Article 154).

Donations of money and the value of goods and services to parties and constituency associations, as well as to candidates, leadership contestants and nomination contestants where it is to be used for their campaign, are considered contributions (Election Act, Article 180).

Loans that are write-offs, forgiven, or unpaid six months past their due date without legal action by the creditor are considered contributions. In the case of loans given at less than the prime rate of interest, the difference between the interest charged and that expected by the prime rate is considered a contribution (Election Act, Article 181).


Election expenses include expenses used to promote or oppose, through direct or indirect means, the election of a candidate or a party. This includes expenses used for this purpose prior to becoming a candidate and any deficit incurred from a fundraising function. Election expenses are nomination expenses in excess of 10% of total election expenses. Nomination expenses less than this amount and personal election expenses, such as family care, travel and lodging costs or disability expenses, are not considered election expenses (Election Act, Article 183).

Registered political parties, constituency associations, candidates and leadership contestants must have a financial agent. Financial agents can serve more than one individual or group (Election Act, Article 175).

The financial agent must maintain records of all contributions, expenses and loans incurred by the individual or group they represent for five years. The financial agent must also document the particulars of expenditures greater than $25 and ensure that an appropriate financial institution handles all money received or spent by the person or organization (Election Act, Article 177).

All registered parties, registered constituency associations and candidates must appoint an auditor. Auditors may serve more than one individual or group (Election Act, 179).The financial agent must record a contribution's value, date of contribution, contributor name, address and classification. For those donating more than $250 the record must indicate contributor names, classification, and date and amount of the contribution. For anonymous contributions, the agent must report a description of the function at which they were collected, its date, the number of people in attendance, and the total anonymous amount accepted. For any other contributions, the total amount and number of contributors must be reported (Election Act, Articles 190 and 206).

Financial agents must provide records for each candidate to their political party within 60 days of polling. They must also provide records for a constituency association to their party by February 15 of the following year (Election Act, Article 191).

The chief financial officer for a party or constituency organization must file a financial report with the Chief Electoral Officer by March 31 regarding finances of the previous year for the parent organization and any subsidiary organizations. This report must include all of that year's political contributions, assets, liabilities, receipts and loans. The report must also include contributions to one or more members of a party, its constituency associations and its candidates if the total is greater than $250 (Election Act, Articles 206 and 207).

A candidate must provide a personal expenses report within 60 days of polling to a financial agent, provided the candidate is not acting as his or her own financial agent (Election Act, Article 208).

A candidate's financial agent must file a report with the Chief Electoral Officer within 90 days of the election. The report must contain election expenses, contributions, receipts and income, and is available for public viewing at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer during regular office hours for one year following the election (Election Act, Article 209).

The financial agent of a party or constituency association must file a report for the party or constituency association, and any subsidiary organizations with the chief electoral officer


within 90 days after the polling day. The report must detail the expenses, contributions, tax receipts etc. of a party, constituency association, and any subsidiary organizations incurred between December 31 of the previous year and the end of the campaign period (Election Act, Article 210).

If the financial agent discovers that information disclosed in any report has changed or is inaccurate or incomplete, s/he he must file a supplementary report, subject to the same requirements as the report it supplements, with the Chief Electoral Officer within 30 days of discovery (Election Act, Article 212).

For all reports required by the British Columbia Election Act, the auditor of the party, constituency association or candidate must make a report to their respective financial agent, using accepted auditing standards to ensure that the report follows typical accounting practices. The financial agent must grant the auditor access to financial records deemed necessary for their audit (Election Act, Article 214).Following the election, the Chief Electoral Officer must publish a report summarizing political financing, including the information from election financing reports, election expenses limits, advertising disclosure reports, as well as a list of all individuals and groups who did not file the necessary reports, filed reports late, or exceeded election expenses limits (Election Act, Article 215).

Independent sponsors incurring expenses greater than $500 during, or 60 days before, the election period, must file a report with the Chief Electoral Officer that outlines contributions, the value of advertising and the sponsor's assets. The records are retained at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer for no less than five years and are available for public inspection during regular office hours (Election Act, Articles 244,245 and 250).

Electoral contributions to candidates and parties

Are electoral contributions restricted to citizens?Are electoral contributions disallowed by foreigners, public institutions, and charities? Are anonymous electoral contributions set at a reasonable level?

Research Findings

British Columbia's 2009 mean total income is $27,970 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

Contributors can include individuals, corporations, unincorporated businesses, trade unions and non-profit organizations (Election Act, Article 190).

Unregistered political parties, unregistered constituency associations, parties registered by the Canada Elections Act and charities cannot make political contributions. Contributions must be made from one's own funds. (Election Act, Articles 186 and 187).

Anonymous contributions can only be collected as part of a fundraiser specifically related to the purpose of the group or individuals running it. Anonymous contributions are limited to $50 and may total no more than $10,000 for a party or $3,000 for a candidate in a calendar year (Election Act, Articles 186 and 188).


Electoral caps on contributions to candidates and parties

Are there caps on contributions to candidates and parties?Are the caps on candidates' and parties' contributions reflective of mean total income?Are there caps on contributions by candidates to their own campaign?Are the caps on candidates own contributions reflective of mean total income?

Research Findings

British Columbia's 2009 mean total income is $27,970 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

Anonymous contributions can only be collected as part of a fundraiser specifically related to the purpose of the group or individuals running it. Anonymous contributions are limited to $50 and may total no more than $10,000 for a party or $3,000 for a candidate in a calendar year (Election Act, Articles 186 and 188).

FDA researchers found no other caps on contributions.

Campaign expenditure

Are there campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties?If there are campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties, are they attainable, reasonably, by all registered candidates and parties?Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments for candidates and parties? If there are public subsidies or other financial instruments, do they create an equal level of campaign finances for candidates and parties?

Research Findings

A candidate, party, constituency association, or any of these in cooperation with a third party must not incur expenses if they will result in exceeding the expense limit (Election Act, Article 196).

For general elections and by-elections, the Chief Electoral Officer must adjust election expense limits in accordance with a consumer price index. S/he will publish these limits in the Gazette and inform the candidates, parties and constituency associations of the changes (Election Act, Article 204).

For general elections, the total election expenses incurred by a registered political party must not exceed $1.1 million for the 60 days prior to the campaign period and $4.4 million during the campaign period. If the campaign period is extended due to the death of a candidate, election expenses for that district are increased by $70,000 (Election Act, Article 198).

For all elections, prior to and during a campaign, the total election expenses incurred by a candidate must not exceed $70,000. If the campaign period is extended due to the death of a


candidate, and the new candidate is nominated prior to new election proceedings, the expenditure limit is $140,000. If the candidate is nominated after election proceedings, the expense limit is $70,000 (Election Act, Article 199).

The FDA researchers found no public subsidizing of parties or candidates.

Electoral caps on third parties

Are there caps on third party electoral spending?If there are caps on third party spending, are they restricted to citizens?If there are caps on third party spending, are they attainable, reasonably, by citizens?Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments that help create an equal level of third party spending?

Research Findings

Third party spending by individuals or organizations on advertising for a general election may not exceed $3,000 for a single district, or $150,000 overall, for a single individual, group, or by a collective, for the period 60 days before the campaign period to the end of the campaign. For a by-election, spending may not exceed $3,000 (Election Act, Article 235.1)

$150,000 maximum expenditure for third parties. 10% of income = $2,797.

2,797/150000 = 0.0186.

0.0186 out of .5 = 0.0093.

The FDA researchers did not find public subsidizing measures for third parties.

Legislative process


Research Findings

The British Columbia Election Act outlines contraventions to the Act and the corresponding punishments, including fines as high as $20,000, two years imprisonment, or both, though usually a $10,000 fine, one years imprisonment or both (Election Act, Article 251-267).

The FDA auditors assume that $200,000 is a minimum effective fine against corporations and trade unions, and $5,000 against individuals. The FDA auditors deducted 40% of the score for low fines against corporations and trade unions, in consideration of the high fines against individuals and lengthy prison sentences.


60% of .75 = 0.45


Analysis

Based on the FDA scoring scale (see Conclusion section), British Columbia received a failing score for its electoral finance legislation, which means that British Columbia's electoral finance legislation is systematically corrupt. Systematic corruption refers to legislated public processes that favour minority interests over the interests of the majority.

Despite electoral finance transparency and expenditure limits, British Columbia’s legislation is biased. This is evident in the inclusion of corporations and trade unions in electoral contributions and third party spending, no caps on contributions, no public subsidies to help create an equal playing field for candidates and parties, high caps on third party expenditures, and low fines against corporations and trade unions for electoral misconduct.

The FDA believes that British Columbia’s political establishment favours wealthy segments of British Columbia and large, established political parties, and functions at the expense of British Columbians as a whole.


Manitoba

Tables 3 Electoral Finance Audit Scores and Percentages for Manitoba




Weight

Manitoba Audit

Results

% Results


20% 2.0 2.0 100%


15% 1.5 1.5 100%


20% 2.0 1.9493 97.46%


22.5% 2.25 2.25 100%


12.5% 1.25 0.0 0.0%

Legislative Process 10% 1.0 0.8125 81.25%Total 100% 10 8.512 85.12%


Are candidate and party finances transparent to the public?Are candidate and party finances only transparent to candidate and parties and not the public? Are candidate and party finances only transparent to the government?

Research Findings

Registered parties are required to keep a designated bank account (Elections Finances Act, Article 10).

The Chief Electoral Office can request financial information from registered parties, candidates, constituency associations, and third parties. They have 30 days to comply with the request (Elections Finances Act, Article 57 (2)).

Registered parties and candidates, constituency association organizations, and third parties must preserve their financial records for at least 5 years from date of filing, and maybe longer if the Chief Electoral Officer requests an additional period (Elections Finances Act, Article 58).

Within 3 months of the end of each year, registered parties must submit audited financial statements to the Chief Electoral Officer (Elections Finances Act, Article 59).

Contributions to individuals must include record of contributor's name and residential address, date received, amount, and name of person collecting or receiving it. For


contributions over $100, the record must include the contributor’s signature (Elections Finances Act, Article 37.2(1)).

Contributions to registered candidates, parties and constituency associations must include a record of the contributor's name and residential address, date received, amount, and name of person collecting or receiving it. For contributions over $100, the record must include the contributor’s signature (Elections Finances Act, Article 37.3).

All electoral financial documents, statements, reports, receipts, invoices etc. filed with the Chief Electoral Officers are public information, and the public may inspect and copy them (Elections Finances Act, Articles 70(1)-70(2)).



Research Findings

Only individuals who are normally residents of Manitoba can contribute (Elections Finances Act, Article 37.1(1)(a)).

Only individuals who are normally residents of Manitoba can receive contributions from another individual (Elections Finances Act, Article 37.1(2)).

Anonymous contributions cannot exceed $10 (Elections Finances Act, Article 42). Electoral

caps on contributions to candidates and parties


Research Findings

Manitoba's 2009 mean total income is $28,480 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

In a year, an individual can make two contributions in kind with a market value of less than $20 to the same registered candidate, party, and constituency association and the law does not consider those donations contributions. Any subsequent donations in the same year the law does consider a contribution (Elections Finances Act, Article 40.1 (1)).

Electoral law considers contributions in the form of goods and services at market value at the time of the donation (Elections Finances Act, Article 40 (1)).


In a year, individual contributions are limited to $3,000 to any combination of candidates, constituency associations, registered parties, and leadership contestant (after the leadership contest ends) (Elections Finances Act, Article 41(1.1))

Individuals cannot contribute more than $3,000 to one or more leadership contestants during a leadership contest period (Elections Finances Act, Article 41(1.1.1)).

Individuals cannot contribute through monies received on behalf or from other individuals or organizations (Elections Finances Act, Article 41(1.2)).

Electoral law considers loans to registered parties, candidates, and constituency associations a contribution if the interest rate is less than prime, with the contribution being the difference between rates (Elections Finances Act, Article 44.1(2)).

Loans from an individual or organization to registered parties, candidates, and constituency associations are limited to $3,000 in a calendar year (Elections Finances Act, Article 44.1(3.2)).

Maximum contribution is $3,000.

10% of mean income is $2,848. (The FDA auditors assume that income earners can spend reasonably 10% income on contributions.)

2948 of 3000 = 0.9493



Research Findings

In 2010, Manitoba's per capita income for individuals is $29,840 (Manitoba Bureau of Statistics, 2011); in 2007, the top 20% of earners had 8.1 times more income than the bottom 20% of earners (Statistics Canada, 2011).

Registered parties during a general election cannot have electoral expenses that exceed $1.79 times the number electors on the voting lists in which the party endorses candidates (Elections Law, Article 50(1)(a)).

Registered parties during a by-election cannot have electoral expenses that exceed $3.22 times the number electors on the voting lists (Elections Law, Article 50(1)(b)).


In an area of less than 30,000 square miles, registered candidates' election expenses cannot exceed $2.72 times the number names on the voter lists for the electoral divisions (Elections Finances Act, Article 51(1)(a)).

In an area of greater than 30,000 square miles, registered candidates' election expenses cannot exceed $4.33 times the number names on the voter lists for the electoral divisions (Elections Finances Act, Article 51(1)(b)).

Expenditure limits can decrease or increase based on any percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for the City of Winnipeg (Elections Finances Act, Article 52).

Advertising expenses in a year of fixed date election and outside of the election period are $250,000 for a registered party and $6,000 for a registered candidate (Elections Finances Act, Article 54.1(1)).

In a general election, advertising expenses for a registered party shall not exceed $0.92 times the number of names on the voter lists for all electoral divisions in which party endorses candidates (Elections Finances Act, Article 50(2)(a)). In a by-election, advertising expenses shall not exceed $1.61 times the number of names on the voter lists for all electoral divisions (Elections Finances Act, Article 50(2)(b)).

The total advertising expense of a candidate, whether incurred by the candidate, constituency association or individual acting on the candidate's behalf, shall not exceed $0.56 times the number of names on the voters list for the electoral division in which candidate is part of (Elections Finances Act, Article 51(2)).

Advertising expenses are part of election expenses (Elections Act, Article 50(3)).

Registered parties are entitled to public subsidy each non-election year based on $1.25 times the number of valid votes received by each candidate endorsed by the party in the most recent election. The maximum for said subsidy is $250,000, which is subject to the total expenses paid by the party in the year (Elections Finances Act, Articles 70.2(2)).During an election year, a registered party is entitled to a public subsidy based on the following formula:

$1.25 × [(A× B/E) + (C × D/E)]

In this formula,A is the number of valid votes received by each candidate endorsed by the party in the general election;B is the number of days in the year after the polling day of the general election; C is the number of valid votes received by each candidate endorsed by the party in the preceding general election;D is the number of days in the year up to and including polling day of the general election;E is the number of days in the year.


If a registered party had at least one elected member in the Assembly during the previous election, the minimum allowance payable to that party in an election year is $10,000, or $600 in any other case (Elections Finances Act, Article 70.2(4)).

A registered candidate is entitled to receive a public subsidy if the candidate receives at least 10% of all eligible votes cast in the electoral division in which s/he was a candidate (Elections Finances Act, Article 71(1).

The public subsidy covers 100% of the following expenses:(i) the reasonable child care expenses incurred by the candidate to enable the candidate to campaign in the election period,(ii) the reasonable expenses incurred by a disabled candidate in relation to his or her disability to enable the candidate to campaign in the election period; and(b) 50% of the actual election expenses, excluding donations in kind, incurred by or on behalf of the candidate, to a maximum of 50% of the total election expense limit of the candidate under subsection 51(1), as varied in accordance with section 52 (Elections Finances Act, Article 71(2)).

A registered party is entitled to reimbursement of election expenses if it obtained at least 10% of all valid votes cast in the last election. The amount of the reimbursement is 50% of the actual election expenses, excluding donations in kind, incurred by it or on its behalf, to a maximum of 50% of the total election expense limits (Elections Finances Act, Articles 71(3) and 71(4)).


Are there caps on third party electoral spending?If there are caps on third party spending, are they restricted to citizens?If there are caps on third party spending, are they attainable, reasonably, by citizens?Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments which help create an equal level of third party spending?

Research Findings

FDA researchers could not find legislation that regulates third party expenditures.

Legislative process


Research Findings

The Election Commissioner through his or her own initiative or at the request of another person may investigate any act which violates the Elections Finances Act (Elections Finances Act, Article 77.3(4) to 77.3.1(3)).


The FDA researchers found extensive legislation that enforces the Manitoba Electoral Finance Act, including up to $50,000 fines against corporations, $25,000 fine against registered parties, and maximum general fine of $5,000 against individuals (The Elections Finances Act, Articles 78-91(5)).

The FDA auditors assume that a minimum effective fine against corporations is $200,000, therefore, deducted 50% of the maximum score for low fines against corporations and absence of imprisonment terms.

50% of .75 = 0.5625


Analysis

Numerous areas of Manitoba’s electoral finance legislation stand out, and based on the FDA scoring scale (see Conclusion chapter), Manitoba's score of 85.12 percent is exceptional. This measurement means that Manitoba's electoral finance legislation is highly democratic and puts the interests of the majority in Manitoba above the minority.

The FDA measured exceptional legislation in almost all aspects of the Manitoba's electoral law, with the exception of third party expenditure and legislative process. The FDA believes that reasonable caps on third party expenditure and higher fines for corporate electoral misconduct would move Manitoba's score even higher.

Unlike Alberta and British Columbia, Manitoba disallows contributions by corporations and trade unions to candidates and parties. However, with no regulation of third party expenditures, corporations and trade unions could have a disproportionate influence on elections outcomes.


New Brunswick

Tables 4 Electoral Finance Audit Scores and Percentages for New Brunswick




Weight

New Brunswick

Audit Results

% Results


20% 2.0 2.0 100%


15% 1.5 1.0 66.6%


20% 2.0 1.0863 54.15%


22.5% 2.25 2.25 100%


12.5% 1.25 0.25 20%



Are candidate and party finances transparent to the public? Are candidate and party finances only transparent to candidate and parties and not the public? Are candidate and party finances only transparent to the government?

Research Findings

Contributions from individuals that total more than $100 for a semi-annual period are disclosed to the public (Election Financing Manual).

All contributions from corporations and unions are disclosed to the public (Election Financing Manual).

Registered political parties, candidates, and district associations must disclose all sources of revenue and expenditures. They must submit financial returns to the Supervisor of Political Financing. Financial returns are available to the public for examination (Election Financing Manual).


All third parties are required to disclose their advertisements, which include name and phone number of person who manages books and records, and signed authorization from third parties for advertisements (Election Financing Manual).

Registered third parties must have a Chief Financial Officer (Election Financing Manual).

All third party advertising expenditure books are made available to the public for examination, and details of contributions to third parties over $100 will be made available to the public (Election Financing Manual).

Registered parties and candidates must have official representatives and agents who manage electoral finances (Election Financing Manual).

Registered parties shall have licensed auditors (accountants practicing in Province) (Political Process Financing Act, Articles 51-57).

Registered parties are required to submit two detailed financial returns a year: one for first 6 months and one for last 6 months (Political Process Financing Act, Articles 58-64).



Research Findings

Only individuals, corporations, and trade unions can contribute to registered parties and candidates. Contributions can be made only to registered parties, candidates, and district associations (Election Financing Manual).

Corporations that contribute must do business in New Brunswick, and trade unions that contribute must hold bargaining rights in New Brunswick. There is no requirement that individuals who contribute reside in New Brunswick (Election Financing Manual).

Corporations are deemed associated if they are controlled by one or related person. Associated corporations can only contribute to one source (Election Financing Manual).

Associations and groups cannot contribute. However, individual partners in a partnership may contribute in their own names (Election Financing Manual).

Contributions from individuals that total more than $100 for a semi-annual period are disclosed to the public (Election Financing Manual).

All contributions from corporations and unions are disclosed to the public (Election Financing Manual).




Research Findings

New Brunswick's 2009 mean total income is $25,890 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

Contributions are limited to $6,000 to each party and any of its district associations per year (Election Financing Manual).

Contributions are limited to $6,000 to one registered independent candidate per year (Election Financing Manual).

Candidates may incur personal election expenses during the election period up to $2,000. The Province does not reimburse these costs (Election Financing Manual).

The maximum contribution is $6,000 per party, and there are five parties in New Brunswick, therefore the maximum contribution is $30,000 (5 times $6,000)

10% of mean income is $2,589

2589 of 30000 = 0.0863

0.0863 of 1.0 = .0863


Maximum candidate contribution is $2,000

2589 of 2000 = 1.2945


Are there campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties? If there are campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties, are they attainable, reasonably, by all registered candidates and parties?


Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments for candidates and parties? If there are public subsidies or other financial instruments, do they create an equal level of campaign finances for candidates and parties?

Research Findings

Election expenses apply to the election period and to all expenditures before an election for literature, objects or materials of an advertising nature (Election Financing Manual).

Electoral law does not consider volunteer service that is not part of one's employment a contribution (Election Financing Manual).

Election expenses less than $100 incurred by an individual, but not reimbursed to the individual, are not considered election expenses (Election Financing Manual).

Registered candidates and parties have expenditure limits.

Expenditures other than expenses incurred for advertising on broadcasting in newspapers, periodicals, or other printed matter, are limited to $3,500 per year for registered parties and $2,000 per year for registered district associations and registered independent candidates (Political Process Financing Act, Article 50(1)).

During the campaign period, election expenses for registered parties shall not exceed $1.00 times the number of electors in the total number of electoral districts in which the party has candidates. The expenditure limit is set at $7,000 for each by-election (Political Process Financing Act, Article 77(1)).

During the campaign period, expenses for registered candidates shall not exceed $1.75 times each elector in the electoral district s/he is a candidate. In no case in a general election shall a candidate's expenditures be limited to less than $11,000 and exceed $22,000. In a by-election, the expense limit for registered candidates is set at $2.00 times each elector in the electoral district s/he is a candidate (Political Process Financing Act, Articles 77(2)-77(3)).

Registered candidates receive reimbursement of their election expenses if they receive at least 15% of the votes cast in their electoral district. Candidates who are entitled to receive reimbursement will receive an amount equal to the lesser of:

1. the amount of the election expenses of the candidate or2. $0.35 for each elector in the electoral district (Political Process Financing Act,

Articles 78(1)-78(2)). Registered parties receive an annual allowance if they have representation in the Legislative Assembly or had at least ten official candidates at the preceding general election. The parties receive public monies based on the following formula:(A-B) x (C/D) whereA is the amount of the appropriation authorized by the Legislature for making all of the


payments which are required under this Act to be made to all of the registered political parties during the fiscal year;B is the total amount paid under section 57 to all registered political parties during the fiscal

year;C is the total number of valid votes cast for all of the official candidates of that qualifying

political party at the preceding general election; andD is the total number of valid votes cast for all of the official candidates of all the qualifying

political parties at the preceding general election (Political Process Financing Act, Articles 31-33).


Are there caps on third-party electoral spending?If there are caps on third-party spending, are they restricted to citizens?If there are caps on third-party spending, are they attainable, reasonably, by citizens? Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments which help create an equal level of third-party spending?

Research Findings

New Brunswick's 2009 mean total income is $25,890 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

Individuals, corporations, trade unions, charitable organizations, social groups etc. can spend electorally as third parties (Election Financing Manual).

Only third parties that incur expenses over $500 are required register (Election Financing Manual).

Third parties expenditures are restricted to 1.3% of the election expenses limit of registered political parties that present a full slate of candidates in the 55 electoral districts. (1.3% of $1.00 times the number of electors in all 55 electoral districts.) (Political Process Financing Act, Article 84.15(1)).

In 2010, there were 520,872 electors on the New Brunswick voter list, which means that in 2010, the law capped third party expenditures at $6771.40 (CBC News, “N.B. voter turnout lowest since 1978”, October 1, 2010).

Electoral advertising expenses in a single electoral district or a by-election are capped at 10% of the province-wide limit (Political Process Financing Act, Articles 84.15(2)84.15(4)).

Third parties can receive contributions from individuals, trade unions, and corporations only (Political Process Financing Act, Article 84.5).

1.3% times number of electors in all 55 districts.

In 2011, there were 520,909 electors (2010).


1.3% times 520,909 = 6771.817

10% of mean income = $2,589

2589 of 6771.817 = 0.3823

0.3823 of .0.5 = 0.1912

Legislative process


Research Findings

Under the Provincial Offences Procedures Act, there are severe penalties in place for violators of the election finance laws. Convictions can result in a fine ranging from $500 to $10,250 and jail terms of not more than 180 days (Election Financing Manual).

The maximum fine in New Brunswick is $10,250. The FDA auditors assume that the minimum effective fines against corporations and trade unions are $200,000 and jails times of at least one year according to the offense. Ergo, the FDA auditors deducted 50% from the score.

50% of 0.75 = 0.375


Analysis

Based on the FDA scoring scale (see Conclusion chapter), New Brunswick received a satisfactory score for its electoral finance legislation. The score means that New Brunswick's electoral finance legislation is working overall in the better interests of the people of New Brunswick. At the same time, the FDA recognizes there is room to improve the legislation. For example, it believes that corporations and trade unions should be banned from making electoral contributions to candidates and parties, that there should be reasonable caps on third party expenditures, and that the province should increase significantly the fines against corporations and trade unions for electoral misconduct. The FDA assumes that a lack of regulation for third party expenditures may allow wealthy segments of New Brunswick to have a disproportionate influence on election outcomes, and the minimal fines against corporations and trade unions may not be enough to discourage electoral misconduct.


Newfoundland and Labrador

Tables 5 Electoral Finance Audit Scores and Percentages for Newfoundland and Labrador




Weight

NF Audit Results

% Results


20% 2.0 2.0 100%


15% 1.5 1.0 66.6%


20% 2.0 1.0 50%


22.5% 2.25 1.5 66.6%


12.5% 1.25 0.25 20%



Are candidate and party finances transparent to the public?Are candidate and party finances only transparent to candidates and parties and not the public? Are candidate and party finances only transparent to the government?

Research Findings

Parties must disclose to the Chief Electoral Officer the existence of trusts (Election Act, Article 271).

On reasonable grounds, the Chief Electoral Officer or representative can inspect books, papers, and records of a candidate or party, enter and search premises, and make copies of documents (Election Act, Article 274).

The Auditor General shall audit the financial transactions of the Chief Electoral Officer (Elections Act, Article 276).

All documents filed with the Chief Electoral Officer are public records, and may be inspected and copied by the public (Elections Act, Article 277).

The names and addresses of electoral contributors and the amount of contributions are recorded by the chief financial officer of each party (Elections Act, Articles 299 (1) and (2)).


Registered parties are required to record contributors (individually or in sum) and related information who exceed $100 in contributions (Elections Act, Article 299 (3)).

During the campaign period, contributions over $100 to candidates or parties must be filed with the Chief Electoral Officer (Elections Act, Article 299 (4)).

Publishers of political advertisements must maintain advertisement records for 2 years and relevant information including the cost for advertisements and names of persons who sponsored the advertisement. The records must be made available to the public for inspection (Elections Act, Article 288 (3)).



Research Findings

Only citizens, corporations, and trade unions can make electoral contributions (Elections Act, Article 282 (1)).

Corporations must conduct business in the province, trade unions must hold bargaining rights in province, and citizens must be natural persons of the province, whether or not they are residents of Newfoundland and Labrador (Elections Act, Article 282 (2)).

Only registered parties and candidates may accept contributions (Elections Act, Article 282 (3)).

Contributions in excess of $100 must include the name of the contributor. (Elections Act, Article 282 (5)).

Electoral law does not allow anonymous contributions in excess of $100 (Elections Act, Article 283).

Contributions must be from the private funds of an individual, corporation, or trade union (Elections Act, Article 285).

The FDA auditors assume that charities have to be non-partisan and thereby contribute equally to candidates and/or parties. Therefore, the auditors gave full marks for subsection two.


Are there caps on contributions to candidates and parties?Are the caps on candidates' and parties' contributions reflective of mean total income?


Are there caps on contributions by candidates to their own campaign?Are the caps on candidates own contributions reflective of mean total income?

Research Findings

Newfoundland and Labrador's 2009 mean total income is $24,550 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

The FDA Researchers found no legislation that places caps on contributions.



Research Findings


The election expenses of a registered party must not exceed $3.125 times the number of electors in the electoral district where the party endorses candidates (Elections Act, Article 310 (1)(a)).

The by-election expenses of a registered party must not exceed $3.125 times the number of electors in the electoral district where the by-election occurs (Elections Act, Article 310 (1)(b)).

The election expenses of candidates shall not exceed $3.125 times the number of electors in the electoral district where s/he is a candidate (Elections Act, Article 310 (2)).

Regardless of Articles 310 (1) and (2), no election expenses of a candidate or party shall be limited to an amount less than $12,000 (Elections Act, Article 310 (3)).Election expense amounts in Article 310 are adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index for the 12 month period and dividing the aggregate number by 12 (Elections Act, Article 311).




Research Findings


The FDA researchers could find no restrictions on independent third party electoral expenditures, other than to identify both the persons buying advertisements and the sponsor of the political advertisement to the publisher (Election Act, Article 288 (2)).

Electoral advertisements which have the consent or knowledge of a registered party or candidates that promote or oppose a party or candidate are considered contributions to the relevant party or candidate (Elections Act, Article 288 (1)(a)).

Legislative process

Is legislative process to enforce the electoral finance laws?Is there an effective legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws?

Research Findings

The legislation outlines various punishments and fines for electoral offenses. For example, corporations are subject to a maximum fine of $10,000 for violating the Elections Act and individuals are subject to a $1,000 fine or 3 months imprisonment or both for general offences. For exceeding the election expenditure limit or related misconduct, the offender is subject to a maximum fine of $10,000 or 3 months imprisonment or both. Delivering false statements or false receipts carries a maximum fine of $5,000 or 3 months imprisonment or both (Elections Act, Articles 316-327).

With a maximum fine of $10,000 and prison time of 3 months, the FDA auditors deducted 50% of the score. The FDA auditors assume the minimum fine for corporations should be $200,000 and minimum prison time of one year.

50% of 0.75 = 0.375


Analysis

Based on the FDA scoring scale (see Conclusion section), Newfoundland and Labrador received an unsatisfactory score of 51.25 percent. This score means that Newfoundland and Labrador has numerous deficiencies in its electoral finance legislation and borders on a failed democratic state. The FDA believes that this legislation is not working in the interests of the majority in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Although there is electoral finance transparency and campaign expenditure limits, Newfoundland and Labrador does not limit contribution amounts, offer public subsidies, or regulate third parties. It allows contributions from corporations and trade unions and imposes minimal penalties for electoral


misconduct. The FDA believes that the shortcomings in these areas could undermine a fair and democratic election process in Newfoundland and Labrador. Candidate and party funds might not reflect popular support due to a lack of caps on contributions and allowance for corporate contributions. The absence of third party regulations might allow for wealthy segments of society to have a disproportionate influence on election outcomes.


Nova Scotia

Tables 6 Electoral Finance Audit Scores and Percentages for Nova Scotia




Weight

Nova Scotia Audit

Results

% Results


20% 2.0 2.0 100%


15% 1.5 1.5 100%


20% 2.0 1.0513 52.5%


22.5% 2.25 2.25 100%


12.5% 1.25 0.3168 25.34%




Research Findings

The Chief Electoral Officer reports to the Assembly after an election (Election Act, Article 163).

The Chief Electoral Officer shall retain election documents transmitted pursuant to Article 160 until the appeal has expired, or in accordance with Government Records Act, whichever is longer (Election Act, Article 165).

Official agents are responsible for recording contributions and campaign expenditures, issuing tax receipts etc. for candidates, parties, and electoral district associations (Election Act, Article 171).

Every party shall have a public accountant who acts as an auditor, and who must adhere to the provided audit and reporting standards or face disqualification (Election Act, Article 177).


Parties must fully disclose assets in its annual report to the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Act, Article 192).

Electoral district associations must fully disclose their assets in an annual report to the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Act, Article 194-198).

Candidates, parties, and electoral district associations must deposit all monies in a designated financial institution disclosed to the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Act, Articles 209-212).

Electoral law categorizes loans to candidates, parties, and electoral district associations where the difference between a lower interest rate and the prime rate as a contribution (Election Act, Article 215-219).Within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year, a registered party must publish an audited financial statement that is readily available to the public free of charge (Election Act, Article 222).

Within 120 days of a by-election or election, a registered party must file a report with the Chief Electoral Officer that contains all electoral expenses, invoices, receipts, vouchers etc. (Election Act, Article 223).

Within 10 days of receiving parties' expense reports, the Chief Electoral Officer will publish of the summary of the reports (Election Act, Article 223).

Invoices, receipts, vouchers etc. which are the part of the parties' expense reports are held by the Chief Electoral Officer and s/he shall permit any elector to inspect them (Election Act, Article 223).

Electoral district associations must file an annual financial report (Election Act, Article 227).

Candidates have 80 days after a by-election or election to file expense reports with the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Act, Article 229).

The Chief Electoral Officer will publish a summary of a candidate’s expense report within 10 days of receiving the report (Election Act, Article 229).

The Chief Electoral Officer shall keep invoices, receipts, vouchers from each candidate’s expense reports for six months, and shall permit any elector to inspect them (Election Act, 229).

Candidates must file an annual financial report (Election Act, Article 229).

Parties, candidates, and electoral district associations that receive any contribution in excess of $200 must disclose the source of the contribution to the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer publishes the information (not including residential addresses) for public viewing (Election Act, Articles 240).


Third parties must submit an election advertising report to the Chief Electoral Officer that s/he will publish (Election Act, Article 284).


Are electoral donations/contributions restricted to citizens?Are electoral donations/contributions disallowed by foreigners, public institutions, and charities?Are anonymous electoral donations/contributions set at a reasonable level?

Research Findings

Only individuals who are residents of Nova Scotia can make one or more contributions to registered parties, electoral district associations, registered candidates, or registered third parties (Election Act, Article 236).

No organization can contribute to registered parties, candidates, electoral district associations, or registered third parties (Election Act, Article 236).

Individuals who are residents of Nova Scotia and are temporarily outside of the province can make one or more contributions to registered parties, electoral district associations, registered candidates, or registered third parties. This provision does not apply to persons who are temporarily away for personal or commercial reasons (Election Act, Article 236).

Electoral law does not allow anonymous contributions (Election Act, Article 241).



Research Findings

Nova Scotia's 2009 mean total income is $26,710 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

Total annual contributions to each registered party cannot exceed $5,000 and total contributions to all electoral district associations and candidates of that party cannot exceed $5,000 (Election Act, Article 236).

Total contributions to third parties cannot exceed $5,000 per year (Election Act, Article 236).Candidate contributions to their own campaigns cannot exceed $5,000 per year (Election Act, Article 236).



2761/5000 = 0.534

0.534 of 1.0 = 0.534

0.534 of 0.5 = 0.2671



Research Findings

A registered party has an expenditure limit based on $2.29 per number of electors in the electoral districts where it presents one or more candidates (Election Act, Article 259).

During a by-election, registered parties have an expenditure limit of $5,723.20 (Election Act, Article 259).

During an election, a candidate must not exceed the following expenditure limits:

$5.72 per elector in any district with up to 5,000 electors

$4.86 per elector in any district with more than 5,000 electors and less than 10,000 electors

$4.29 per elector in any district with more than 10,000 electorsThese limits apply to multiple candidates from the same party running in an electoral district. The law views them as one candidate and they can divide the expenditure limit between themselves (Election Act, Article 260).

Each fiscal year the province provides registered parties with $1.53 per each vote received in the most recent election (Election Act, 191).

Elected candidates and candidates who garner at least 10% of valid votes cast receive $1.43 from the provincial government. Multiple candidates from the same party are viewed a one candidate, and may divide the reimbursement if they qualify (Election Act, Article 267).


Are there caps on third party electoral spending?If there are caps on third party spending, are they restricted to citizens?If there are caps on third party spending, are they attainable, reasonably, by citizens?


Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments that help create an equal level of thirdparty spending?

Research Findings

Nova Scotia's 2009 mean total income is $26,710 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

Third parties have an expenditure limit of $10,000 during an election (Election Act, Articles 275).

No more than $2,000 of third party expenditure can be used to promote or oppose a leadership candidate in a given electoral district (Election Act, Article 275).

Individual residents of Nova Scotia and corporations that are registered in Nova Scotia can make third party expenditures (Election Act, Article 275).

10% of mean income is $2671.

Maximum expenditure is $10,000.

2671/10000 = 0.26710.2671 of 0.25 = 0.0668

Legislative process

Is there an effective legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws? Research Findings

Nova Scotia has an extensive legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws, including compliance agreements. Fines range from $5,000 for individuals to $50,000 for registered parties and imprisonment for up to one year. There are no specific provisions for corporations and trade unions (Election Act, Articles 285-348).

Although Nova Scotia has effective penalties for individuals and registered parties, it is deficient in fines applied to corporations and trade unions, and therefore, FDA auditors deducted 50% from score out of .75.



Analysis

Based on the FDA scoring scale (see Conclusion chapter), Nova Scotia received a very good score for its electoral finance legislation. This score indicates that the legislation is working in the interest of the majority in Nova Scotia. For example, Nova Scotia does not allow corporations and trade unions to make electoral contributions, and the campaign expenditure limits reflect the provincial mean income. However, the FDA identified certain areas of legislation that are deficient and could potentially affect the election outcome by weakening voice of the majority at the ballot box. Although campaign expenditure limits are reasonable, contribution caps and third party spending by corporations and trade unions are not reflective of the mean income and therefore favour wealthy segments of society. Penalties for electoral misconduct against corporations and trade unions are also decidedly low and potentially ineffective for preventing electoral fraud.


Ontario

Tables 7 Electoral Finance Audit Scores and Percentages for Ontario




Weight

Ontario Audit

Results

% Results


20% 2.0 2.0 100%


15% 1.5 1.0 66.6%


20% 2.0 1.1934 59.67%


22.5% 2.25 2.25 100%


12.5% 1.25 0.0 0.0%




Research Findings

Only registered parties, constituency associations or candidates can accept contributions. In registering with the Chief Electoral Officer, political parties, constituency associations and candidates must declare the names of all individuals who may accept contributions and the names and addresses of the financial institutions that will hold their contributions. Parties and constituency associations must also declare their assets and liabilities (Election Finances Act, Articles 10, 11 and 13).

Prior to registration, all parties, constituency associations and candidates must declare a chief financial officer. It is the responsibility of the chief financial officer to create and maintain an accurate record of expenses and contributions, to issue receipts, and file financial statements with the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Finances Act, Article 33).


Candidates must appoint a licensed auditor at the time of registration, and by parties and constituency associations within 30 days of registration. An auditor will provide a report regarding financial statements to the chief financial officer, and has access to the necessary records and documents from the candidate, party or constituency association whom the auditor is working with (Election Finances Act, Article 40).

Before May 31 of each year, the chief financial officer of a party or constituency association must file a report with the Chief Electoral Officer concerning the assets, liabilities, income and expenses (excluding campaign expenses) for the previous year. In the case of an election, the chief financial officer files a subsequent report with the Chief Electoral Officer within six months of the poll containing all election-related income received or incurred by parties, constituency associations and candidates during the campaign. In the case of a by-election, only contributions and expenses of related candidates, parties or constituency associations must be reported (Election Finances Act, Articles 41 and 42).

Contributions greater than $100, in a single donation or in the aggregate from a single contributor, must be reported by the chief financial officer to the Chief Electoral Officer within 10 days of its receipt. In turn, the Chief Electoral Officer publishes the report and its contents online (Election Finances Act, Article 34).

The public may view all documents filed at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer during normal office hours. They are entitled to make copies of these documents, or extracts of, at the cost of making such copies (Election Finances Act, Article 15).

The Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for publishing a summary of income, expenses and reimbursement for all candidates and their constituency organizations both online and in The Ontario Gazette (Election Finances Act, Article 2).


Are electoral donations/contributions restricted to citizens?Are electoral donations/contributions disallowed by foreigners, public institutions, and charities? Are anonymous electoral donations/contributions set at a reasonable level?

Research Findings

Contributions to parties, constituency organizations and candidates may only be made by individuals, their estate, non-charity corporations and trade unions (Election Finances Act, Article 16).

Contributions may only be accepted from persons residing in Ontario, corporations which carry out business in Ontario, and trade unions which hold bargaining rights for Ontario employees (Election Finances Act, Article 29(1))

Funds from federal political parties are only acceptable during the campaign period. These funds may only be accepted by a party, and may only total $100 per candidate endorsed by


that party. These are not treated as contributions, but are still sourced and recorded with the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Finances Act, Article 20).

Affiliated political organizations may make contributions to their related parties, constituency associations, or candidates (Election Finances Act, Article 26(3)).

Contributions which break the Ontario Election Finances Act must be returned. Anonymous contributions are not allowed. If received, they must be given to the Chief Electoral Officer for use in their role (Election Finances Act, Article 17).



Research Findings

Ontario's 2009 mean total income is $29,980 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

Contributions are multiplied by an indexation factor, which is the percentage change in Statistics Canada's Consumer Price Index over a five-year period. The Chief Electoral Officer publishes the indexation factor both online and in the Ontario Gazette. The current five-year period is 2009-2013 (Election Finance Act, Articles 18(1) and 40.1; Essensa, 2009).

During a calendar year or a campaign period (treated as a separate year), an individual, corporation or trade union may donate a maximum of $7500 (currently adjusted to $9300). The maximum contribution to a single constituency association or candidate is $1000 (currently adjusted to $1240) or $5000 (currently adjusted to $6200) taken together, per calendar year (Election Finances Act, Article 18 (1); Essensa, 2009).

Electoral law treats the personal funds of candidates used for their campaigns as contributions and must be recorded as such (Election Finances Act, Article 18(3)).

At the discretion of the contributor, goods or services having an aggregate total of $100 or less, contributed by a person, corporation or trade union, are not considered a contribution (Election Finances Act, Article 21 (2)).

Annual membership fees for parties may not be considered contributions as long as they do not exceed $25 and membership payment records are maintained (Election Finances Act, Article 30).

10% of mean income equals $2,980.Maximum contribution is $9,300.2980 of 9300 = 0.1943


0.1934 of 1.0 = 0.1943



Research Findings

Campaign expenditure limits for all registered parties, individuals and organizations acting on their behalf are multiplied by an indexation factor dependent on the percentage change in Statistics Canada's Consumer Price Index over a five-year period. The current five-year period is 2009-2013 (Election Finances Act, Articles 38 and 40.1; Essensa, 2009).

The expenditure limit for all registered parties, individuals and organizations acting on their behalf is $0.60 ($0.74 today) multiplied by the number of electors in all the districts they run in, or in the case of a by-election, the relevant district (Election Finances Act; Essensa, 2009).

The expenditure limit for a registered candidate, a constituency association endorsing them, and any other organization acting on their behalf is $0.96 ($1.19 today) multiplied by the total number of electors in their district. For example, in 2011 in the district of Brampton-Springdale, the expenditure limit was $1.19* 87, 543 = $104,176.17. For those running in select northern districts, the expenditure limit is increased by $7000 ($8680, currently). For example, in 2011 in the district of Kenora-Rainy River the limit was $1.19 * 48, 369 = $57559.11 + $8680 = $66239.11 (Election Finances Act, Article 38; Elections Ontario, 2011a, 2011b; Essensa, 2009).

Candidates who receive at least 15% of the popular vote for their district may be reimbursed the lower of 20% of their campaign expenses or 20% of their expenditure limit. Candidates running in certain northern districts will have their total eligible amount increased by $7000 ($8680 currently). Political parties that receive at least 15% of the popular vote in any district may be reimbursed an aggregate amount of $0.05 for every elector in the district. In addition to these requirements, any candidate, party or constituency association seeking reimbursement must file a financial statement (Election Finances Act, Article 44).


Are there caps on third-party electoral spending?If there are caps on third-party spending, are they restricted to citizens?If there are caps on third-party spending, are they attainable, reasonably, by citizens?


Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments that help create an equal level of thirdparty spending?

Research Findings

Ontario's 2009 mean total income is $29,980 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

Third parties must register and appoint a chief financial officer if they incur expenses of $500 or more. The chief financial officer must file a report concerning the third party’s expenses, contributions and receipts with the Chief Electoral Officer within six months from polling day (Election Finances Act, Articles 37.5, 37.6 and 37.12).

Third-party contributors are limited to Ontario residents, non-charitable corporations that do business in Ontario, and trade unions representing Ontario employees (Election Finances Act, Article 37.10(1)).

Third parties must appoint an auditor if they incur expenses greater than $5000. The auditor will report to the chief financial officer, and must have access to the relevant documents to do so (Election Finances Act, Article 37.7, 37.13).

Legislative process

Is legislative process to enforce the electoral finance laws?Is there an effective legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws? Research Findings

The Ontario Election Finances Act enforces electoral laws, with $50,000 as the maximum possible fine for corporations and unions, and $5000 as the maximum fine for all others (Election Finances Act, Articles 46-53).

The FDA determined that the maximum fine of $50,000 is well below its accepted effective penalty of a minimum fine for corporations of $200,000 and/or a year prison sentence. Ergo, FDA auditors gave a 25% score.

25% of 0.75 = 0.1875


Analysis

Based on the FDA scoring scale (see Conclusion chapter), Ontario received an unsatisfactory score for its electoral finance legislation. The score means that Ontario's legislation has deficiencies that could potentially benefit the wealthy segments of society and prevent the electoral process from working in the interests of the majority.


Ontario has electoral finance transparency, reasonable caps on campaign expenditures, and public subsidiaries that encourage broad political participation. However, it allows corporations and trade unions to contribute to campaigns, does not apply caps on contributions that reflect the mean income, does not regulate third party expenditure, and imposes minimal penalties against corporations and unions for electoral misconduct. This could allow third parties to have a disproportionate influence on the electoral discourse and election outcome. Additionally, high contribution caps for third parties do not reflect the mean income; therefore, the funds for candidates and parties might not be a sign of popular support. As is the case with Newfoundland and Labrador, any of these areas can potentially prevent a fair and democratic election process in Ontario.


Prince Edward Island

Tables 8 Electoral Finance Audit Scores and Percentages for Prince Edward Island




Weight

PEI Audit Results

% Results


20% 2.0 2.0 100%


15% 1.5 0.525 35%


20% 2.0 0.0 0.0%


22.5% 2.25 1.875 83.3%


12.5% 1.25 0.0 0.0%



Are candidate and party finances transparent to the public? Are candidate and party finances only transparent to candidate and parties and not the public?Are candidate and party finances only transparent to the government?

Research Findings

The Chief Electoral Officer has the authority to inspect the books, papers, and documents of registered parties and candidates (Election Expenses Act, Article 5).

The Chief Electoral Officer may de-register a party that fails to comply with the Election Expenses Act (Election Expenses Act, Article 8).

All documents filed the Chief Electoral Officer are public records and may be inspected and copied by any elector (Election Expenses Act, Article 10).

Broadcasters and publishers must maintain political advertisement records for two years, and these records must be open to the public for inspection (Election Expenses Act, Article 13(4)).


Official agents of registered parties and candidates must maintain proper records of all receipts and expenditures, and be responsible for financial statements including audit reports (Election Expenses Act, Article 15).

Contributions from a single source in aggregate of $250 must include the name and address of the contributor (Election Expenses Act, Article 16).

Every registered party and candidate shall have a licensed auditor who will produce a report based on financial statements (Election Expenses Act, Article 19).

120 days after an election, registered parties and candidates must produce a financial report of election expenses, which includes all expenses, receipts, vouchers etc. (Election Expenses Act, 20(1)).

Before May 31 of each year, registered parties must file a record of contributions with the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Expenses Act, Article 20(2)).



Research Findings

Individuals, corporations, and unions can contribute to registered parties and candidates (Election Expenses Act, Article 11).

Unions are restricted to those that hold bargaining rights for employees of PEI. There are no provisions on corporations and individuals (Election Expenses Act, Definitions).

Electoral law does not allow anonymous donations (Election Expenses Act, Article 13).

There are no provisions on corporations and individuals, and therefore corporations and individuals outside of Prince Edward Island can contribute.



Research Findings

The FDA researchers could find no caps on contributions.




Research Findings

Prince Edward Island's 2009 mean total income is $26,400 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

Registered parties, including any individual or organization acting on their behalf, are restricted to $6.00 multiplied by the number of electors in each district where the party presents at least one candidate (Election Expenses Act, Article 18).

Registered candidates, including any individual or organization acting on their behalf, are restricted to $1.75 multiplied by the number of electors in each district where the party presents at least one candidate (Election Expenses Act, Article 18).

Registered candidates that receive at least 15% of the vote will receive .75 cents for each elector, subject to a minimum payment of $1,500 and a maximum payment of $3,000 (Election Expenses Act, Article 18).

Registered parties holding one or more seat in the Legislative Assembly will receive an annual allowance from the provincial government. This amount is determined by the total number of votes cast for official candidates of the party multiplied by, but not exceeding, $2.00 (Election Expenses Act, Article 23).

The FDA auditors determine that the public subsidies favour large, established political parties by requiring 15% of the vote and a seat in Legislature, ergo, grant a 25% score.

25% of .05 = 0.125




Research Findings

Prince Edward Island's 2009 mean total income is $26,400 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

The only provision the FDA identified for third parties is that third party electoral advertisements that are valued over $100.00 (whether a single advertisement or cumulative) that operate with the consent or knowledge of a registered party or candidate are considered contributions (Election Expenses Act, Article 13).

Campaign advertising can only occur during the election period, although the legislation does not specify for third parties acting independent of registered parties and candidates (Election Expenses Act, Article 17).

Legislative process


The FDA researchers found extensive legislation to enforce compliance with the Election Expenses Act. For example, there is maximum fine of $10,000 for corporations and unions, and $1,000 for individuals that violate this Act (Election Expenses Act, Articles 25-32).

The Controverted Election Act outlines a detailed process for petitions against political corruption and illegal electoral acts.

Articles 125-144 of the Election Act outline detailed legislation against election corruption and misconduct.

The FDA determines a 25% score out 0.75 based on the minimal fines for contraventions by corporation and trade unions, significantly lower than the national average, and due to a lack of prison sentences as a penalty for election misconduct.

25% of 0.75 = 0.1875


Analysis

Based on the FDA scoring scale (see Conclusion chapter) Prince Edward Island received a failing score of 48.37 percent. This means that Prince Edward Island's electoral finance legislation is systematically corrupt and supports a process that favours the interests of the minority over the majority.


The FDA acknowledges that campaign expenditure limits should nullify the fact that there is no limit to campaign contributions, however, this provision does not apply to third party expenditures and does little to offset third party spending. Despite the advantage of electoral finance transparency and established caps on campaign expenditures, the FDA measured glaring deficiencies in PEI’s legislation. Most notably, it does not regulate or prohibit third party contributions and expenditures, it does not establish caps on campaign contributions, it allows public subsidies to favour large and established parties, and imposes minimal penalties for electoral misconduct. Again, and as with several other Canadian provinces, this system could allow third parties to have a disproportionate influence on electoral discourse and outcomes. It could easily misrepresent popular support for large and small political parties alike or allow larger parties to control a majority of the financial resources from the province. Together, this could prevent a fair and democratic process in Prince Edward Island.


Québec

Tables 9 Electoral Finance Audit Scores and Percentages for Quebec




Weight

Quebec Audit

Results

% Results


20% 2.0 2.0 100%


15% 1.5 1.5 100%


20% 2.0 2.0 100%


22.5% 2.25 2.25 100%


12.5% 1.25 1.25 100%

Legislative Process 10% 1.0 1.0 100%Total 100% 10 10.0 100%



Research Findings

Electoral finance transparency is tangible in the Québec electoral process. Financial reporting and election expenses follow strict guidelines, monitored closely, and are available for public examination (FDA researchers).

Every party must appoint a qualified auditor and grant him/her full access to examine, review, and report on its finances to the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Act, Articles 107, 110, 111).

Every political party or independent candidate wishing to collect contributions, incur expenses or obtain loans must have authorization from the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Act, Article 41).

Contributions are deposited into an account at a Québec bank or financial service designated to the official party representative or authorized candidate (Election Act, Article 99).


The Chief Electoral Officer has full access to the financial affairs and records of every registered party and independent candidate on demand. Parties and independent candidates must submit an annual financial report to the Chief Electoral Officer that must include all relevant expenditures, revenue, and income statements. This report must be accompanied by the auditor’s report and the information used to compile the report must be kept by the party for five years (Election Act, Articles 112-113, 116, 118).

Financial reports must indicate relevant financial institutions and account numbers, the value and source of contributions, donations and loans, the total amount of sums transferred, etc. (Election Act, Article 115).

The financial representative of each leadership candidate must file a return relaying its campaign expenses with the official party representative that s/he keeps for a period of five years. This return is available to the Chief Electoral Officer upon request or within 120 days of the leadership vote (Election Act, Articles 127.16, 127.19).

Financial representatives for leadership candidates must submit contribution slips to the Chief Electoral Officer on a weekly basis, where s/he will publish the information for public viewing. (Election Act, Article 127.9).

If the party’s financial report filed after the due date, the leader of the party cannot sit or vote in the National Assembly until they file the report (Election Act, Article 127). Any independent candidate not elected must discharge all debts incurred during their election campaign by December 31 of the following year, otherwise s/he cannot run in the next election (Election Act, Article 125). The information contained in the reports, returns and documents is available to the public to examine and copy (Election Act, Article 126).



Research Findings

Eligible voters are the only ones who can contribute to authorized political parties and candidates in Québec. Contributions include monetary donations and goods and services provided free of charge, and must be made voluntarily and without compensation or solicitation (Election Act, Article 87-88. 90, 92).

The maximum amount for contributions to parties and candidates by each donor cannot exceed $1,000 per year, and must be paid to the Chief Electoral Officer. However, cash contributions less than $100 can be paid directly to an official party representative but must


be recorded. When the Chief Electoral Officer receives a contribution, s/he will publish the information relating to both the donor and the amount on its website (Election Act, Articles 91, 93, 93.1).

Before May 2011, only electors who donated over $200 were publicly identified. As from May 1, 2011, the surnames, given names, postal codes and cities of every individual who donates any amount whatsoever to a political party is publicly identified (www.electionsquebec.qc.ca).



Research Findings

Québec's 2009 mean total income is $27,210 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

The maximum amount for contributions to parties and candidates by each donor cannot exceed $1,000 per year, and must be paid to the Chief Electoral Officer. However, an official party representative can accept cash contributions less than $100 but must record the donation. When the Chief Electoral Officer receives a contribution, s/he will publish the information relating to both the donor and the amount on its website (Election Act, Articles 91, 93, 93.1).

Volunteer work, bank loans, membership dues, media coverage outside of an election period, and other authorized transfers of funds do not constitute a contribution (Election Act, Article 88).

The Chief Electoral Officer must return, when possible, any contribution it deems unacceptable to the donor. The party representative or candidate must turn over unacceptable contributions to the Chief Electoral Officer. If the contributor’s identity is unknown, the Minister of Finance receives the funds (Election Act, Article 100).

The maximum contribution permitted by electors to political parties was lowered from $3,000 in 2009 to $1,000 on 1 January 2012. The 2010 reports revealed a 23.2% drop in contributions to political parties from the previous year. In addition, political parties received $8,122,207 from the provincial treasury in that same year (19 June 2011 www.democracylawblog.ca).

Before May 2011, only electors who donated over $200 were publicly identified. As from May 1, 2011, the surnames, given names, postal codes and cities of every individual who donates any amount whatsoever to a political party is publicly identified (www.electionsquebec.qc.ca).



Are there campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties?If there is campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties are they attainable, reasonably, by all registered candidates and parties?Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments for candidates and parties? If there are public subsidies or other financial instruments, do they create an equal level of campaign finances for candidates and parties?

Research Findings

Public financing for political parties and candidates takes several forms in Québec, ranging from an annual allowance, partial reimbursement of election expenses and tax credits for contributions made by electors (www.electionsquebec.qc.ca).

Each registered political party receives an annual allowance determined by the Chief Electoral Officer. The amount is calculated “by dividing between the authorized parties, proportionately to the percentage of the valid votes obtained by them at the last general election, a sum equal to the product obtained by multiplying the amount of $0.85 by the number of electors entered on the lists of electors used at that election”. The amount is adjusted annually, and published by the Chief Electoral Officer for public viewing. The allowance is used to cover expenses required to carry out party functions. Related receipts and invoices must be held by the party for two years and be made available at any time to the Chief Electoral Officer and the public for review (Election Act, Article 81-84, 86). From January 1 to December 31, 2010, a total of $2,866,988 was paid in allowances to the official representatives of registered political parties (www.electionsquebec.qc.ca). Any costs to promote or oppose the election of a candidate, to propagate or oppose party policies, and to approve or oppose party acts during an election period are considered election expenses (Election Act, Article 402). The following are not election expenses: the cost of publishing articles, news etc. in any publication provided they are published without payment; the cost of broadcasting a program of public affairs, news or commentary, provided it is broadcast without payment; leadership selection activities, not exceeding $4,000 and cannot include publicity; reasonable personal, travel, and transportation expenses for election purposes; reasonable expenses incurred for the operation of no more than two permanent party offices; interest accrued on a loan for election expenses ... (Election Act, Article 404).

During an election period, broadcasters and print media can make air time or space in a publication available to parties and candidates free of charge, provided the offer is extended equally to all candidates of the same electoral division or to all party leaders in the National Assembly that obtained at least 3% of votes in the last general election (Election Act, Article 423).


Party expenses during an election cannot exceed $0.69 per elector for all the electoral divisions where that party presents a candidate. Election expenses for each candidate cannot exceed $1.19 per elector during a general election. These amounts are adjusted annually according to the Consumer Price Index for Québec provided by Statistics Canada. The Chief Electoral Officer publishes the results of any adjustment in the Gazette officielle du Québec (Election Act, Article 426).

The Chief Electoral Officer will reimburse elected candidates who garnered at least 15% of the vote and each political party that garnered at least 1% of the vote an amount equal to 50% of the election expenses incurred and paid. This amount cannot exceed the maximum amount outlined in Article 426 (Election Act, Articles 457, 457.1).



Research Findings

Québec's 2009 mean total income is $27,210 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

Québec’s Act prohibits third party spending from legal persons, for example, corporations, unions, and interest groups. The Act reserves contributions to candidates and parties for electors and limits this amount to $3,000* per year to each party (www.electionsquebec.qc.ca). (*This amount was lowered to $1,000 per year in the latest revision used for this report.)

“A private intervenor is an elector or a group of electors planning to incur publicity expenses during an election period, without directly promoting or opposing a candidate or a party, to either make known his/its views on a matter of public interest or win support for such views, or to advocate abstention or the spoiling of ballots.” (www.electionsquebec.qc.ca.) Only qualified electors or groups not endowed with legal may apply for the required authorization as a private intervenor. Political parties without a running candidate can present a private intervenor upon notice to the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Act, Article 457.2). An individual elector who applies for authorization must provide personal information (name, address, date of birth), declare that s/he does not intend to promote or oppose any candidate or party, explain the matter of public interest or viewpoint s/he seeks to promote, declare that s/he is not a member or acting on behalf of any party or candidate, etc. The applicant must take an oath to comply with all related legal provisions (Elections Act, Article 457.3).


A group that applies for authorization must indicate the name, address, and telephone number of its leaders or representatives, provide the approximate number of members in the group, declare that it does not intend to promote or oppose any candidate or party, explain the matter of public interest or viewpoint it seeks to promote, declare that it is not acting on behalf of any party or candidate and that the representative is not a member of any party etc. (Election Act, Article 457.4). A private intervenor cannot incur expenses, individually or in association with another person or group, that do not reflect the stated purpose of the application, or that promote or oppose a candidate or party (Election Act, Articles 457.13, 457.14). Individual private intervenors must finance activities from their own funds. For a group that is a private intervenor, only the representative can incur expenses on its behalf. Any expense over $25 requires an itemized invoice indicating the good or service and the cost. Intervenors must draw payment from an account in a bank or financial service that has an office in Québec (Election Act, Articles 457.15, 457.16, 457.17). Private intervenors must file a report of all expenses, including invoices, receipts, vouchers and documents with the Chief Electoral Officer within 30 days of the election (Election Act, Article 457.18). The only expenses that a private intervenor can incur during the election period must relate to advertising and cannot exceed $300 (www.electionsquebec.qc.ca). The Chief Electoral Officer can, on his/her own initiative or on an application, withdraw the authorization of a private intervenor (Election Act, Article 457.20).

Legislative process

Is there a reasonable legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws? Research Findings

The Chief Electoral Officer reviews the returns and may correct them or pronounce them insufficient and demand additional payment. S/he informs the official agent of this decision, who has the right to contest the claim (Election Act, Article 440).

If the return is not filed within the time limit, the candidate or party leader is disqualified from sitting or voting in the National Assembly until the return is filed (Election Act, Article 442).

The Chief Electoral Officer is sees to the administration of the Election Act. S/he carries out mandates by the National Assembly and can consult with the Government about legislation relating to elections. Individually or with an advisory committee, s/he can conduct analysis, assessment, and studies of electoral procedures, conduct, and financing (Election Act, Article 485).


In terms of financing and control of election expenses, the Chief Electoral Officer authorizes parties and candidates, verifies their compliance with the Act, receives and examines financial reports and returns, receives and examines contributions, and ensures the legality of expenditures, contributions, and expenses (Election Act, Article 487). During leadership campaigns, the Chief Electoral Officer verifies legal compliance of the candidates, receives and examines reports and returns, and ensures the legality of contributions and expenses (Election Act, Article 487.1). The Chief Electoral Officer provides any applicant with information and guidance relating to the administration of the Election Act; provides public access to information relating to the Act, whether through publication or public meetings; and trains and informs candidates and their representatives (Election Act, Article 488). Any official agent, representative, or financial representative of a leadership candidate who exceeds the prescribed limits for election expenses, files a false report, return, invoice or the like, is subject to a fine between $5,000 and $20,000. Any private intervenor that makes a false declaration or files a false report or invoice is subject to a fine between $1,000 and $10,000 (Election Act, Articles 559, 559.0.1, 550.0.2). Any candidate or party leader who allows election expenses to contravene this Act is subject to a fine between $5,000 and $20,000 (Election Act, Article 560).

Any individual who solicits, collects, or incurs expenses without authorization from the Chief Electoral Officer is subject to a fine between $5,000 and $20,000, or in the case of a “legal person”, between $10,000 and $50,000 (Election Act, Article 561). Any member of the National Assembly who sits or votes contrary to section 127 or 442 is subject to a fine of $500 for each day they do so (Election Act, Article 562). Anyone who contravenes any of sections 62, 66, 74, 76, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 102 to 106, 127.1, 127.2 and 127.4, the second paragraph of section 127.7, the third paragraph of section 127.8, sections 127.10, 408, 410, 416 to 420, 422 to 424, 457.2, 457.9 and 457.11 to 457.17, and the first paragraph of section 127.8 and section 127.11 to the extent that they refer to any of those sections is liable to a fine of $500 to $10,000 (Election Act, Article 564). An elector who make false statements about personal contributions or anyone who threatens or coerces an elector to make a contribution are subject to a fine between $5,000 and $20,000 for a first offence and $10,000 to $30,000 for any subsequent offence within 10 years. If convicted, a judge can demand an additional fine to twice the amount of the illegal contribution even if the maximum fine was imposed (Election Act, Article 564.1). A person who contravenes or attempts to contravene any of sections 87 to 91, 100, 127.5, 127.6, the first and third paragraphs of section 127.7, sections 413 to 415, 429 and 429.1, and the first paragraph of section 127.8 and section 127.11 to the extent that they refer to any of


those sections subject to a fine between $5,000 and $20,000 for a first offence and a fine of $10,000 to $30,000 for any subsequent offence within 10 years, or to a fine of $10,000 to $50,000 for a first offence and a fine of $50,000 to $200,000 for any subsequent offence within 10 years, in the case of a “legal person”. If a person is convicted of an offence for contravening or attempting to contravene any of sections 87, 90 and 91, the first and third paragraphs of section 127.7, and section 127.8 to the extent that it refers to any of those sections, a judge can demand an additional fine to twice the amount of the illegal contribution even if the maximum fine was imposed (Election Act, Article 564.2).

The FDA auditors determine 100% score out of 0.75 because of the high fines on corporations and legal persons of $200,000 or more and high fines on individuals up to $30,000 or more. These fines are well above the national averages.

Total score for the electoral fairness of electoral finance: 100 percent out of 100 percent.

Analysis

Based on the FDA scoring scale, Québec received a 100 percent score, which is the highest attainable score. The score means that the electoral finance legislation is working completely in the interests of the people of Québec, as opposed to for minority or special interests. The FDA auditors measured zero deficiency in Québec's legislation, and therefore the FDA believes it is model legislation for the rest of Canada's provinces.


Saskatchewan

Tables 10 Electoral Finance Audit Scores and Percentages for Saskatchewan




Weight

Saskatchewan Audit Results

% Results


20% 2.0 2.0 100%


15% 1.5 0.275 18.3%


20% 2.0 0.0 0.0%


22.5% 2.25 2.0 88.88%


12.5% 1.25 0.0 0.0%

Legislative Process 10% 1.0 0.625 6.25%Total 100% 10 4.9 49%



Research Findings

Parties must register in order to incur election expenses or receive contributions (Election Act, Article 223).

A candidate’s campaign finances include expenses such as meals and accommodations during an election. Contributions are gifts, loans, advances, deposits and all other forms of assistance. Election expenses are any goods and services used to promote a party or candidate, including any candidate salary and interest accrued on loans and lines of credit (Election Act, Article 220).

Upon registering, candidates must declare a business manager and an auditor; parties must declare an auditor and a chief official agent and release an audited statement of all assets and liabilities (Election Act, Articles 44 and 222).

An auditor must be in good standing with auditing organizations in Saskatchewan, and must subscribe to auditing principles in their work (Election Act, Article 222).


The auditor of a party must report receipts and expenses to the party's chief official agent, and may examine any discrepancies perceived. Auditors must make note of discrepancies in this report and have access to relevant documents pertaining to these actions. The auditor for a candidate has the same rights and responsibilities (Election Act, Articles 237 and 238).

A party's chief official agent must ensure that a chartered bank, trust, loan corporation or credit union keep party accounts. They must also keep records of a party's contributions, contributors, bills, invoices, vouchers and receipts and ensure necessary reports, returns and documents are filed with the Chief Electoral Officer. A candidate's business manager must do the same for the candidate (Election Act, Articles 235 and 236).

Each party's chief official agent must file a return with the Chief Electoral Officer, with contribution overviews, receipts and expenses for the fiscal year, minus election expenses incurred. Within six months of polling day, a separate return is required concerning election expenses, including an overview of the amount of money expended and commercial value of any donated goods (Election Act, Articles 250-251).

Within three months of polling day, each candidate's business manager must file with the returning officer a return covering election expenses and contribution overviews (Election Act, Article 261).

The Chief Electoral Officer must supply copies or extracts of any returns which candidates or parties are required to register with the officer, to any member of the public when requested. Returns must be provided during the office hours of the Chief Electoral Officer, at a fee equaling the cost of copy or extraction if necessary (Election Act, Article 232).

A returning officer must make copies of all expense returns submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer, and make copies available for public viewing during the office hours of the returning officer for a minimum of six months after filing. The Chief Electoral Officer must retain all such returns for two years. In addition, the Chief Electoral Officer must publish a summary of candidate's receipts and expenses in the Gazette (Election Act, Article 262).


Are electoral donations/contributions restricted to citizens?Are electoral donations/contributions disallowed by foreigners, public institutions, and charities? Are anonymous electoral donations/contributions set at a reasonable level?

Research Findings

Contributions can only be made from one's own funds (Election Act, Article 239).

An agent may be used for one to contribute to a party. The business manager or chief official agent who receives contributions from an agent must clarify the contributor's identity, and disclose this information in any documents requiring contributor identity (Election Act, Article 240).


Parties and candidates cannot accept contributions from non-Canadian residents, unless said contributors are Canadian citizens living abroad (Election Act, Article 242).Election law allows contributions from individuals, corporations, trade unions and other groups (Election Act, Articles 250 and 261).

Legislation does not allow anonymous contributions in excess of $250. A donation received from an agent where the contributor is not identified is deemed an anonymous donation. Excess donations are forfeited to the Crown, and the circumstances of reception and amount received are forwarded in a report to the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Act, Article 241).

The FDA did not find legislation that prohibits contributions from charities or public institutions, or out of province corporations and trade unions.

The FDA auditors assume that out-of-province corporations could have a significant impact on electoral finance. The 0.075 score reflects the restriction on out-of-province residents from contributing.

15% of 0.5 = 0.075



Research Findings

The FDA researchers found no caps on contributions. Elections Saskatchewan supports this (2011b).


Are there campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties?If there are campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties, are they attainable, reasonably, by all registered candidates and parties?Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments for candidates and parties?If there are public subsidies or other financial instruments, do they create an equal level of campaign finances for candidates and parties?

Research Findings

Saskatchewan's 2009 mean total income is $30,430 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

The Saskatchewan Consumer Price Index, as published by Statistics Canada, determines the adjusted amounts for expenditure limits. At the beginning of each year, the Chief Electoral


Officer determines the adjusted amounts, provides this information to all registered parties, and publishes this information in the Gazette (Election Act, Article 221).

The expenditure limit for a party, official agent for a party and any individual working for the official agent, taken together, is the adjusted amount of $673, 783 ($908, 093 in 2009) for a general election. For any other election, the expenditure limit for a candidate in the constituencies of Athabasca or Cumberland is the adjusted amount of $39, 082 ($52, 674 in 2009), and the greater of the adjusted amount of $32, 567 ($43, 833 in 2009) or $2.60 ($3.52 in 2009) multiplied by the number of names on the eligible voters list, for all other constituencies. An additional adjusted amount of $195, 407 ($263, 360 in 2009) may be incurred by a party's organization, candidates or Members of The Legislative Assembly for advertising expenses during a fiscal year using party funds (The Constituency Boundaries Act, Articles 12 and 14; Election Act, Article 243, Elections Saskatchewan, 2011a)

The electoral expenditure limit for candidates, their business managers and anyone working under their authority is the greater of adjusted amount of $52, 108 ($70, 230 in 2009) or the adjusted amount or $5.21 ($7.00 in 2009) multiplied by the number of names on the eligible voters list in the constituency, for the constituencies of Athabasca and Cumberland. For those in all other constituencies, the limit is the greater of the adjusted amount of $39, 082 ($52, 674 in 2009) or the adjusted amount of $2.60 ($3.52 in 2009) multiplied by the number of names on the eligible voters list in the constituency. Campaign expenses may be included or excluded from election expenses. Campaign expenses may or may not be included as part of filing election expenses (The Constituency Boundaries Act, Articles 12 and 14; Election Act, Article 252; Elections Saskatchewan, 2011a).

Parties which receive at least 15% of valid votes in an election, and who file their expenses with the returning officer within the three months following polling day, are eligible to have 50% of lawful election expenses reimbursed by the Minister of Finance. Candidates who receive at least 15% of valid votes in their riding, and who file their expenses with the returning officer within the three months which follow polling day, are eligible to have 60% of their lawful election expenses reimbursed by the Minister of Finance (Election Act, Articles 264).

The FDA auditors determine that the established public subsidies of 50% and 60% of electoral expenses if parties or candidates garner 15% of the vote are insignificant in creating an equal financial playing field for these political actors. The score of 0.25 out of 0.5 reflects a 50% deduction for not providing public subsidies to small and new parties.




Research Findings

The FDA Researchers found no caps on contributions to third parties.

Legislative process


The Saskatchewan Election Act contains extensive sections pertaining to election offences and corrupt practices (Election Act, Article 180-219)

If a person contravenes any part of the Election Act, they are penalized in accordance with the provisions of the Act and liable for a maximum of two years imprisonment or a fine no greater than $5000 if no specific penalty is given. The law determines that all prosecutions be carried out within two years of the offence being committed (Election Act, Articles 216 and 219).

The fines are below the national averages, and the prison times are above the national average. Due to this inconsistency, the FDA determines a 50% deduction.

50% of 0.75 = 0.375

Total score for the electoral fairness of electoral finance: 49 percent out of 100 percent.

Analysis

Based on the FDA scoring scale (see Conclusion section), Saskatchewan received a failing score of 49 percent. This means that Saskatchewan's electoral finance legislation is systematically corrupt and favours minority interests over the provincial majority.

In many ways, its legislation resembles that of Prince Edward Island and shares similar flaws. The most prominent deficiency is the lack of provincial regulation for third parties, which as mentioned, can lead to a disproportionate influence on electoral discourse. In addition, public subsidies are not adequate to create an equal playing field for candidates and parties. An absence of caps on contributions cannot guarantee that the funding received by parties and candidates represents popular support. Finally, minimal penalties against corporations and trade unions for electoral misconduct are not an effective method against these contraventions.


Chapter Two: Overall Audit Results

1. Québec (100 percent)2. Manitoba (85.1 percent)3. Nova Scotia (77.4 percent)4. New Brunswick (72.1 percent)5. Ontario (68.8 percent)6. Newfoundland and Labrador (51.2 percent)7. British Columbia (49.1 percent)8. Saskatchewan (49 percent)9. Prince Edward Island (48.3 percent)10. Alberta (47.6 percent)11.


Chapter Three: Analysis

According to the FDA evaluation, six of Canada’s provinces received a passing score; however, only four received acceptable scores or better. This means that six provinces received unacceptable scores after rating their electoral financial legislation.

The mean score for Canada's provinces is an unacceptable (passing) score of 64.6 percent.

The evaluation revealed that four provinces, Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan are in a failed state of democracy for electoral financial legislation. However, these provinces are between 1.0 percent and 2.9 percent from unacceptable, yet passing scores, and between 21.0 percent and 22.9 percent from an acceptable passing score of 70 percent.

Ontario is 1.2 percent from an acceptable passing score.

The FDA determined that the main deficiencies in provinces with unacceptable scores are the inclusion of third parties as electoral contributors of campaign funds. The FDA believes that this inclusion creates in inequity by favouring corporations, for example, over individuals. Provinces that allowed corporations to contribute had higher caps on contributions and higher expenditure limits on third party spending than provinces that did not. For example, Alberta has a $30,000 contribution limit to parties during an election year, while Québec has $1,000 contribution limit during an election year. As to third party expenditures, Alberta has a $30,000 expenditure limit in an election year while Québec has a $1,000 expenditure limit for the same period.

Interestingly, this pattern of increased caps and limits when corporations are included in the electoral process does not apply to the legislative process regarding electoral misconduct. For example, Alberta has a $10,000 maximum general fine for corporations that violate electoral financial provisions whereas Québec has a $50,000 maximum general fine for corporations on first offense, and on second offense, a $200,000 maximum fine.

With a score of 100 percent, the FDA views Québec's electoral finance legislation as completely fair, and therefore, the FDA does not recommend reform in this arena. This is a very positive result for Canada. It demonstrates an exceptional standard of electoral legislation, proves that a democratic process is attainable, and provides a model that other provinces can emulate.


Table 11: Main Variances in the Provinces Electoral Finance Legislation

Provinces Finance Transparency

No Corps and UnionsContributions

Low Caps on Contributions

Caps on Campaign Expenditure

Public Subsidies create equal playing field

Low Caps on ThirdParty Expenditures

Alberta 47.7%

*

British Columbia49.1%

*

Manitoba85.1%

* * * * *

Newfoundland and Labrador51.3%

* *

New Brunswick72.1%

* * * *

Nova Scotia77.4%

* * * *

Ontario 66.3

* *

Prince Edward Island48.4%

* *

Québec 100% * * * * * *

Saskatchewan 49%

* *


The bar chart captures the electoral finance fairness scores based on the percentage of Canada's population: 32.2% of the population is in an acceptable (passing) or better zone of electoral finance fairness, 40.3% of the population is in an unacceptable (passing) zone, 27.5% of the population is in unacceptable (failed) zone of electoral finance fairness, and 67.8% of the population is in an unacceptable (passing) or worse zone of electoral finance fairness (Foundation for Democratic Advancement, 2012).


The pie chart captures the provincial electoral finance grade scores based on percentage of Canada's population (Foundation for Democratic Advancement, 2012).


The bar chart demonstrates that there is no correlation between the electoral finance score and mean income (Foundation for Democratic Advancement, 2012).


The map shows the geographic distribution of electoral finance scores. Note the three westernmost provinces are all in the failing zone for fairness in their electoral finance legislation. This map is strictly a geographic illustration, and it is not meant to indicate how much populations are affected by the electoral finance scores (Foundation for Democratic Advancement, 2012).


Chapter Four: Conclusion

According to its evaluation, the FDA determined that Canada's provinces performed poorly with an unacceptable mean score of 64.6 percent. Four of the provinces, Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan are in urgent need of electoral finance reform. Two of the provinces, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador require electoral finance reform. Three other provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba have room for reform, but it is neither necessary nor required. Québec is the only province that does not require electoral finance reform. The FDA measured systematic corruption in Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. Without a transformation in the electoral system, the parties and candidates in these provinces will not likely arrive in power, nor take direction, from the provincial majority. However, it is unclear to the FDA how this reform can take place. The FDA anticipates that an informed public on this issue will elect parties and candidates that they trust will act in their interests and demand changes in the legislation that will facilitate this outcome. Fortunately, Québec provides an exceptional benchmark for electoral finance legislation and demonstrates that the ideal can function effectively and realistically in a democracy.


FDA Scoring Scales Score Range 2012 Scores

A +

Exceptional democratic process and reasonably

attainable

85% to 100%

100% maximum score

Québec: 100% Manitoba 85.1%

A

Outstanding democratic process

80% to 84.99% n/a

B+

Very good democratic process

75% to 79.99% Nova Scotia 77.4%

B

Acceptable democratic process

70% to 74.99% New Brunswick 72.1%

D to C+

Unacceptable democratic process (many deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in

the electoral legislation)

50% to 69.99% Ontario 68.8%Newfoundland and

Labrador 51.2%

F

Unacceptable, failed democratic process

0% to 49.99%

0% minimum score

British Columbia 49.1%

Saskatchewan 49%

Prince Edward Island 48.3%

Alberta 47.6%

Foundation for Democratic Advancement (2012)

Chapter Five: Recommendations


The FDA recommends that Canada’s provinces emulate Québec’s electoral finance legislation. The FDA auditors found zero deficiency in Québec's electoral financial legislation and believe that it is a critical aspect of the electoral process and reflective of the interests of the people of Québec. The FDA audit only captures systematic corruption as opposed to any other forms of corruption. Any system, no matter how advanced, is susceptible to other forms of corruption. The FDA is convinced that the Québec's electoral finance laws are optimal in terms of fairness and democracy.To ignore or dismiss the exceptional standard set by Québec is to act contrary to democracy.


References

Constituency Boundaries Act, Statutes of Saskatchewan. (1993, c-27.1). Retrieved March 26, 2011 from http://www.publications.gov.sk.ca

Controverted Elections (Provincial) Act. (for PEI). Retrieved from Elections PEI's website: http://www.gov.p e.ca

Election Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia. (1996, c.106). Retrieved March 26, 2011 from http://www.bclaws.ca

Election Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta. (2000, c. E-1). Retrieved from the Service Alberta website: http://www.qp.alberta.ca

Election Act. (for PEI). Assented to on May 2, 1996. Retrieved from Elections PEI's website: http://www.gov.pe.ca

Election Act (for Québec). Updated September 2013. Retrieved from the Government of Quebec:http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/E_3_3/E3_3_A.html

General Election Information for Québec. Retrieve from www.electionsquebec.qc.ca

Election Act, Statutes of Saskatchewan. (1996, c.E-6.01). Retrieved March 26, 2011 from http://www.publications.gov.sk.ca

Election Finances Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario. (1990, c.E-7). Retrieved March 26, 2011 from http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca

Election Financing Manual. (for New Brunswick). (May 12, 2010). Retrieved from Elections New Brunswick: http://www.gnb.ca

Elections Act. (for Newfoundland and Labrador). Assented to June 2, 1992. Retrieved from Elections Newfoundland and Labrador website: http://www.assembly.nl.ca

Elections Act. (for Nova Scotia). As amended by 2011 c.60. Retrieved from Elections Nova Scotia's website: http://www.electionsnovascotia.ca

Elections Alberta. (2009). “2008 Annual Report of the Chief Electoral Officer: The Electoral Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act for the Calendar Year 2008.” Retrieved from the Elections Alberta website: http://www.elections.ab.ca

Elections British Columbia (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved March 26, 2011 from http://www.elections.bc.ca


Elections Ontario. (2011a). Official Return From The Records Brampton-Springdale. Retrieved March 26, 2011 from http://www.elections.on.ca

Elections Ontario (2011b) Official Return From The Records Kenora-Rainy River. Retrieved March 26, 2011 from http://www.elections.on.ca

Elections Saskatchewan. (2011a). Contributions. Retrieved March 26, 2011 from http://www.elections.sk.ca/finance/contributions

Elections Saskatchewan. (2011b). Expenditures and Election Expense Limits. Retrieved March 26, 2011 from www.elections.sk.ca/finance/expenditures-election-expense-limits

Essensa, G. (2009) Parliamentary Notice of the Indexation Factor. Retrieved March 26, 2011 from http://www.elections.on.ca/en-ca/candidatesandparties

Political Process Financing Act. (for New Brunswick). (Current since February 26, 2010). Retrieved from http://www.canlii.org/en/nb/laws

Statistics Canada. (2011). Individuals by total income level, by province and territory. Retrieved March 26, 2011 from http://www40.statcan.ca

The Elections Act. (for Manitoba). (Assented to on June 13, 2010). Retrieved from the Government of Manitoba's website: http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes

The Elections Expenses Act. (for PEI). Retrieved from Elections PEI's website: http://www.gov.pe.ca/law/statutes

The Elections Finances Act (for Manitoba). (C.C.S.M. c. E32, in effect since June 16, 2011). Retrieved from the Government of Manitoba's website: http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes


Appendix

Research & Audit Methodologies

The FDA research methodology is rooted in non-partisanship and the political concepts of egalitarianism and liberalism. A non-partisan approach allows the FDA to remain as objective as possible.

Egalitarianism is part of the FDA methodology from the standpoint of political equality (or neutrality), in which each person has one vote of equal value. The FDA extends political equality into non-election and election periods, demanding a relatively equal playing field for registered candidates and parties and broad and balanced political discourse. The FDA believes that political equality is a core component of democracy, whereby electoral legislation is neutral for all candidates and parties, the value of a vote is same for all eligible voters, and candidates and parties have an opportunity to disseminate political viewpoints in a reasonably balanced manner. The FDA recognizes that complete political equality is not likely attainable, but assumes that a reasonable state of political equality is possible.

Liberalism is part of the FDA methodology from the standpoint of political freedom, and progress, innovation, and reform through the freedom to initiate reform. The FDA believes that political freedom is also a core component of democracy, whereby candidates and parties, citizens, and media persons are permitted to express their political views.

The FDA believes that the union of freedom and equality, an essential part of democracy, means compromise for the greater democratic good of society and political freedom within the bounds of political equality.

Based on its research of international electoral systems and study of fundamental democratic concepts, the FDA believes that optimal democracy results from a balance of freedom and equality. Too much freedom can allow the most powerful (or wealthy) to dominate politically, and too much equality can weaken individual freedoms to a point that impedes progress and innovation. The FDA's methodology centers on finding the optimal balance between freedom and equality.

The FDA methodology has two main components: research and audit. The research component is qualitative, based on collecting relevant facts and data, and sourcing the information collected using APA guidelines. The audit process too is qualitative but also employs a quantitative aspect. The audit entails team analysis of research using matrices and financial spread sheets and statistical data, and the interpretation of the audit results using scoring scales.

Matrices

The FDA matrices are a detailed, spreadsheet scoring system of relevant data and information. The matrices' scores conform to the concept of optimal democracy defined as a balance of freedom and


equality. The purpose of the matrices is to objectify the audit process and help create result reliability through an established structure of scoring. Relevance to the electoral process and the four

audit sections inform the variables in the matrices. To illustrate, the two subsections below were part of the matrices used in the 2013 Canadian electoral fairness audit:

Table 12 Media Election Coverage, Audit Matrix Section, for Canada

Categories Measures Example or Alternative

Scale

Rational Score

Freedom of the Media

Is the freedom of the media (including journalists) established through constitutional or legislative law?

If yes<4; if no=0

The score of 4 represents the significance of media freedom within reasonable limits. The score of 0 represents imbalanced, one-sided political discourse in the media through unreasonable restrictions on media freedom.

4

Broad & Balanced Political Coverage

During the campaign period is the media (private and public) required legally to publish/broadcast broad/balanced coverage of registered candidates and parties?

If yes=2; if no=0; if freedom of media=0, then yes=0

The campaign period is the most heightened period in terms of voter awareness. The media due to its mass influence has the means to impact significantly electoral discourse. The requirement of balanced, broad media coverage would prevent the media from being imbalanced and partisan.

0

In this example, media freedom garnered significant weight (40 percent of the total score for election content of media) and value in other subsections. (As an example, see the intersection of column 'Example or Alternative Scale' and row 'Broad and Balanced Political Coverage' above.) Broad and Balanced Political Coverage is weighted on grounds of the democratic importance of a broad and balanced electoral discourse and a corresponding well-informed electorate. As mentioned, a positive or negative impact on the electoral process determines matrix weightings and scores. According to the scores in the matrix example above, the FDA assumes that freedom of media has more impact on the electoral process than impartial and balanced political coverage.


The FDA matrices (for this report) are comprised of one section:

1) Electoral finance.

In this section there are 6 subsection variables.

Weighting and Scoring

Overall, the soundness of reasons for scores and the relevancy of each area guides FDA grading. Since each audit section has a maximum and minimum score, subsection scores are determined based on their relation to each other and their impact on optimal democracy as related to the relevant section. The FDA acknowledges that the determination of scores is an unavoidable qualitative step. The FDA minimizes the subjectivity of scores through required group consensus on their values.

Each audit section has a score range between 0 and 10, and each section counts equally. As mentioned, the FDA matrices allow, based on relevancy, subsections apply to multiple sections. For example, the subsection 'electoral finance transparency' is part of the electoral finance, voters and candidates and parties sections.

As illustrated in the matrix example above, scores are based on the formula if yes=#, if no=#. The scale rests on yes and no answers. In the case of ambiguous answers, the FDA uses the lesser than and greater than values (“<” and “>”). When these values are used, the FDA audit team attempts to reach consensus on the score, and if that it is not possible, the FDA takes the mean of the individual scores, with each score having equal weight. Relevant and sound evidence, facts, and/or reasons, whether team or individual, must support audit scores. To enhance the reliability of audit results, the FDA has a group of experienced auditors. An audit team has a minimum quorum of five auditors and maximum of nine auditors. Any auditors in excess of nine act as silent observers. New auditors are introduced to the process first as observers, then as researchers, and finally as auditors within a team of experienced auditors.

Survey

The FDA has an ongoing survey of relevant persons with a background in political science, finance, accounting or related field on the FDA’s main variables for electoral finance. The FDA used two surveys: a scoring table and preference table (reproduced below). The purpose of the surveys is to test the validity of FDA weights for its electoral finance variables.


Survey 1

Please weight each section so that the total score for all sections is 10; weights based on the relevancy to the fairness of democratic processes (for registered candidates and parties).

Sections Score RationaleElectoral finance transparency

Contributions to candidates & parties restricted to citizens

Caps on electoral contributions to candidates & parties

Campaign expenditure limits & party subsidies

Third-party spending limits

Electoral legislative processes


Survey 2

Rank each section based on the relevancy to the fairness of democratic processes (for registered candidates and parties).

Sections Highly insignificant

Very Insignifican

t

Insignificant Significant

Very significant

Highly significant

Rationale


Contributions to candidates & parties restricted to citizens Caps on electoral contributions to candidates & parties Campaign expenditure limits & party subsidies Third-party spending limits

Electoral legislative processes

Audit Focus

The FDA audits four electoral areas because they cover broad aspects of the electoral process. The FDA acknowledges that electoral laws may not necessarily correspond to the implementation of those laws or the public response to them. The implementation and response could be positive or negative, in terms of electoral fairness. Nevertheless, laws provide the foundation for democracy, framework for the electoral system, and an indication of electoral fairness. A country's constitutional and/or electoral laws are part of the functionality of its democracy. The FDA acknowledges that in countries that are lawless, process audits are useless. However, in countries guided by the rule of law, process audits are extremely useful in determining electoral fairness.


FDA Audit Team and Associates

FDA Researchers

Mr. Shane Donovan, 4th year Political Science, University of Calgary.Mr. Stephen Garvey, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and

Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.Mr. Mark Schmidt, Bachelor of Science in Psychology, University of Calgary.Ms. Lindsay Tetlock, Master of Arts in Historical Studies, University of Calgary and Bachelor of

Arts in International Relations, University of Calgary.

FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Team

Chief Electoral Auditor

Mr. Stephen Garvey, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.

Electoral Auditors

Mr. Shane Donovan, 4th year Political Science, University of Calgary.Mr. Michael Fabris, Bachelor of Accounting, Brock University.Mr. Dale Monette, Bachelor of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan.Mr. Mark Schmidt, Bachelor of Science in Psychology, University of Calgary.Ms. Lindsay Tetlock, Bachelor of Arts in International Relations, University of Calgary and

Master of Arts in Historical Studies, University of Calgary.

Report Writer

Mr. Stephen Garvey, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.

Report Translator

Mr. Gildas P. Nangmaleu, Bachelor of Business Administration, University of Douala and Master of Public Administration, University of Laussanne.

Report Reviewers

Mr. Michael Fabris, Bachelor of Accounting, Brock University.Mr. Dale Monette, Bachelor of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan.Ms. Lindsay Tetlock, Bachelor of Arts in International Relations, University of Calgary and

Master of Arts in Historical Studies, University of Calgary.


2013--revised 2012 fda canadian provinces electoral finance report

News & Politics