I’ve met a lot of people over the years that have declared that they are religious but do not believe in organized religion. Sometimes, I feel the same way about politics. I believe in solid fiscal policy, on being socially progressive, on doing what’s best for Canada; But organized politics is sometimes the problem.
At the same time, I also think that there are advantages to organized parties that need to be acknowledged. Resources are far more numerous, and you have an audience of like-minded individuals to debate with. The whole idea of a caucus, and by extension the party as a whole, is to argue an idea before it even goes to the House. If you can believe that a party could truly achieve that, then you can probably understand the idea of toeing party line. I mean, your party decides its position, with your say, as well as the say of other MPs, or even members. And then you present that to the House with solidarity. That’s the idea, although unfortunately it often fails in practice.
I recently learned of an organization called the Coalition of Independent Candidates, who aim to get independents elected into the House. I like the idea of an organization promoting some of the advantages that independents can bring to the table, but, it also has the ability of, within itself, becoming party-like in its quest to get only the people it endorses elected.
Not all independents will be COIC candidates, however all COIC candidates will be independent.
-COIC Press Release, August 29, 2007
That said, I wrote an email to the COIC, partially to get a better idea of their mandate, but also to understand if they were more anti-party or more pro-independent.
A pro-independent organization that aims to inform, in my opinion, is a grand idea. An anti-corruption view is also good, trying to bring transparency and accountability to the system, through the election of independents. However, the idea of promoting select independents for the sake of them being independent can also be a disestablishmentarian (ok. I just had the need to use this word) view that ignores some of the implicit benefits of a party system, especially when considering the sheer geography of a country like Canada. I wanted to know which of these view(s) the COIC held…
Below I offer you their response. You can judge for yourself.
Dear Kirk
Thank you so much for writing. We are very encouraged by the response to COIC. Just to be clear COIC is not a party, but rather a concept. The Charter is for the public to understand a candidates commitment, ethics and understanding of the employment they seek. We feel strongly that Canadians are ready for real representatives who desire to keep their word and are free to do so.
We do not have supplemental information, other than what is on the website. There are new articles and concepts being posted everyday, so please check the site regularly. If you agree with the Charter and want your constituents to know you agree with those basic principles than we would present you as a member through the website. We do not design platforms, or tell candidates what their stand is, other than the basic Charter.
We are exploring the avenue of becoming a third party for financing purposes. Ultimately I think having all MP’s independent of any and all influence would be in the best interest of Canadians, however I don’t expect it to happen overnight. Party endorsed candidates who express independent thinking, are only free to speak, if their party allows it; so they are not truly free. It is a bit like an illusion of freedom, without the reality of it. I have just recently penned an article regarding this issue, which will be on the website shortly. The question is why do we need a middle man? Are MP’s not capable of speaking on their own, are they not competent? Are they just a spokesperson for the party, rather than the people’s representative? Those are important questions Canadians must begin to explore.
I am impressed with Bill Casey’s stand and his efforts on behalf of independents. It doesn’t really make sense for Canadians to fund the party machine, we are paying our MP’s a salary, perks etc, as well as a party to be their front; why?
…
Again I appreciate your taking the time to write, and look forward to your ideas.
30.Aug.07 
Uncategorized 
Read more 
Comments (2)
Since January 2006, I have been working on a bid to become an Independent Member of Parliament. Being an Independent, I knew I would face numerous issues that don’t preoccupy those with the protection and resources of parties and constituency associations. I was ready, and continue to be willing, to tackle these issues face on, and to simply deal with the two-tiered fundraising system between party-endorsed candidates and indepedents.
But it seems work is already being done to repair the rules. MP Bill Casey produced a press release on August 2 about the injustices of the electoral financing that face Independents. Casey, you may remember, stood up for his constituents and Atlantic Canada by voting against the Conservative budget - he was subsequently removed from the Tory caucus, and has sat as an Independent since.
After seeing his story in the Hill Times, I decided to contact Casey. As someone with a year and a half of Independent campaign planning under his belt, I felt that I had produced some ideas to try to promote fairness within the fundraising system while still trying to mitigate the number of ’sudden independents’ and without giving independents an advantage that party members don’t see. So, I sent Casey an email asking if he wanted to engage in a dialogue about this.
While I await Casey’s reply, I figured I’d post my thoughts on the weblog and generate an op-ed piece, as needed. I’m still interested in being a part of his Private Members’ Bill in any capacity I can, but I think that posting the distinction between the two sets of fundraising rules and where change could be beneficial is also good.
You see, candidates within a registered party can fundraise on behalf of the consituency association in non-electoral periods. And this isn’t just for the major parties, but for any party candidate whose party is Registered and has a registered constituency association. The monies raised are then held in trust with the Constituency Association. At election time, money is transferred from the association to the candidate. (While all technically true, the money is actually the constituency association’s to do with as they please, although in most cases the majority, if not all, is transferred to the candidate for the election.)
Now, candidates can fundraise for their own campaigns outside of the electoral period - but these contributions do not yield tax receipts. So, there is no incentive for someone to donate. Furthermore, for independents, all money raised is subject to the electoral contribution limit at the time of the event. So, let’s say for argument sake that the election will take place in 2009, and by then the limit is $1,200. If I were to donate $400 to my campaign this year, next year, and then during the electoral period, I would get a tax receipt for $300 (75% of $400 during the electoral period), and have contributed the maximum. The mechanism that party-endorsed candidates use to negate this is the constituency association, who can accept donations and produce tax receipts year round, and transfer monies to a candidate during an election.
The lack of a mechanism like that for independents creates the disparity. Letting me keep the funds raised is no good, but also not letting Independents fundraise is also not good. It produces a dichotomy in the system, and that dichotomy is a barrier to entry for people. Do I submit that there would be more Independents without that barrier? No. In fact, a natural barrier is the chance of winning, no matter the funds raised. If you look at campaign finances for the last election, at who ran as Independent, you will see instances of little money used and lots of votes, and cases of lots of money spent with little results. But this financial barrier is correctable, and what I offer below is some initial thoughts on how we can create a system that ensures accountability for Independents while also allowing them to fundraise in a similar way to parties’ candidates.
1. Independents must be registered with Elections Canada in order to raise funds. The nomination form must be filled out properly, including the 100 signatures of residents of the riding, and Independents must have appointed an Official Agent and Auditor. Once completed and verified by Elections Canada, Independents will be qualified to fundraise.
2. Funds raised outside of an election period should be made out to the Receiver General to be held in trust for the candidate. Any tax receipts will be produced by Elections Canada, and not to be given out by the candidate.
3. Should the Independent decide not to run, any monies received in trust for that candidate will become property of the Receiver General.
4. At the outset of the election, the monies held in trust will be transferred to the candidate within the first few days (48 hours? 72?), and he/she will be able to get tax receipts from the Returning Officer to provide to people who contribute within the electoral period.
5. Any campaign surplus will be remitted to the Receiver General to be held in trust for the candidate. In the case that the candidate becomes a candidate for a party, the funds held in trust will be transferred to the constituency association. Should the candidate not run in the subsequent election, all funds will be forfeited to the Receiver General.
6. With respect to interest generated from any monies held in trust: There are several options here. Given that normally the consituency association would hold the account and produce all tax receipts during a non-electoral period for a party-endorsed candidate, it would make sense for a portion, if not all, of the interest generated be used to mitigate expenses incurred by Elections Canada. However, depending on how pre-writ expenses are treated, this could also change. For example, if candidates are expected to take out a loan to cover pre-writ expenses, incurring interest for that loan, then it would serve that all interest generated by coffers (minus fees for EC?) should be the candidate’s. However, if the candidates can submit their expenses to EC periodically (quarterly or, even monthly), and funds can be remitted to the candidate (or vendor) for out-of-pocket expenses (out-of-pocket is handled officially by the candidate becoming the ‘vendor’), then perhaps it would serve as argument for EC to keep the interest generated. This is all up for debate.
Points 1, 2 and 3 are designed to ensure that we mitigate the number of ‘false’ independents. 1 requires the independent to do at least some leg-work, and 2 and 3 ensures that there is no financial gain to the candidate by running and then dropping out. 2 maintains fairness and transparency by providing a similar mechanism to a constituency association, and, being an organization designed to promote proper electoral processes, serve as a good governing body for trusts.
Point 4 is to ensure that there is a seamless change between pre-election financing and elecoral financing for the independent.
Point 5 addresses the fact that any surplus generated by the campaign, including the remittance of the candidate’s deposit, as well as the portion of paid election expenses returned to the candidate if they receive a certain percent of votes, typically gets given to the Receiver General and is no longer of use to the candidate. This provision would allow the candidate to run again, using the funds that they earned in the previous election to act as a starting point for their campaign. This is an advantage seen by party-endorsed candidates because they can remit all surpluses to their constituency association.
29.Aug.07 Uncategorized Read more Comments (0)
If there were going to be a fall election, here’s how it would play out.
October 16, 2007: The House resumes, and the Harper Government delivers its Throne Speech.
October 17, 2007: Debate begins.
October 18, 2007: Debate continues.
October 19, 2007: Debate continues. However, being a Friday, there will be no voting today.
October 22, 2007: The House votes. The Government Falls.
October 23, 2007: Exactly 21 months after Harper’s minority victory in the 39th General Election, Harper visits the Governor General to collapse the government. Due to the 36-day rule, the election is set for Monday, December 3, 2007 - a 41 day election.
However, it won’t happen. And here’s why:
The balance of power is still in the Tories’ favour. While it still needs the NDP at minimum to prop it up, it only needs 1 party to side with it. The 29 members of the NDP, combined with the 125 Conservative MPs, combine for 154 votes in the House. Given that, after the September 19 byelections, there will still only be 305 sitting members in the House, one of which is Peter Milliken, meaning that there are only another 150 votes against at maximum.
So the Harper government needs one party to prop it up. Two parties are talking about possible collapse - the Bloc and the Liberals. The Bloc is talking about possible collapse if Harper doesn’t firmly say that we’re pulling out of Afghanistan by 2009. Dion, on the other hand, threatens to take down the government on environmental issues. So where is the NDP?
Polls are starting to show that Layton is tiring in his role. The NDP’s polls aren’t showing a phenomenal improvement anymore. And Jack’s complaint with the government is only the idea of ending Parliament in September and going into a new Parliament in October. This is where NDP’s traditional role in Parliament may start to show itself again - asserting their lefty policies in return for support for the Throne Speech. So what could the Harper government give to the class-based party? Perhaps it’s a further reduction in consumption-based taxes, as alluded to by my opponent in a relatively recent interview with the Calgary Sun…
Plus, this is still assuming that Harper won’t make a firm environmental commitment in the Throne Speech. That he won’t make a firm commitment on Afghanistan. This is assuming that they take the smallest Opposition party to take its side.
28.Aug.07 Uncategorized Read more Comments (0)
Today I celebrate another successful orbit of the massive star a few rocks away. My parents, my sister, and her boyfriend, joined Robyn and I for the Stamps game last night. 45-45 was the final score.
I have also successfully completed two weeks of my new position at the charity. I’m really enjoying my job, and I don’t see myself moving from this position any time in the next few years, lest I get elected in the 40th.
It’s also been two weeks since Facebook has migrated my account to the Politician Profiles. I’m still getting used to the fact that I can’t add friends anymore (especially having started a new job, with half the staff with facebook accounts), and that I have reduced functionality in other parts as well. Although, at the same time, I’m starting to see people support me who have only known me as a politician, which is definitely a positive consequence of the recent change. We’ll see where it goes in the next few months…
18.Aug.07 Uncategorized Read more Comment (1)
