Canada Election and Political Party Finances
The much publicized scandal involving Sir John Macdonald the prime minister and the promoters of the Pacific Railway led to the enactment of dominion Election Act (DEA) of 1874. The two parties allegedly gave campaign contribution to Federal Conservative Party so that they may gain favors from the government. The passage and subsequent implementation of DEA shaped Canadian politics as it contains both the requirement one has to fulfill to be appointed a political official and reporting of campaign expense clause (Johnston 214). This was a step to what Canadian politics is today. This Act became subject of amendment whenever a crisis arose (Johnston 214).
DEA never included expense limits for candidate and their political parties. The modern election financial regime seems to have had its first breath in 1963 following the enactment of Quebec Election Act. The Act also provided that all political candidates have official agents and to partially reimburse the candidate with election expenses.Canada’s election financing regime has evolved to a sufficient body of rule that is both effective and rational. In this paper, I will explain why Canadian election and political parties financing is sufficient.Between 1963 and 1970, the federal government formed two committees who were viewed as a federal response to the Quebec Act of 1963 (BLACK 70). Their report and extensive recommendation were considered during the drafting of Election Finance Act in 1974. Other parliamentary Acts followed but it is clear that they are but just the improvement of earlier developments. Modern Canadian election financing regime has evolved from insufficient principals of the past to sufficient provisions that can still serve into the political future. There is only one reason why there have been enquires, reports and subsequent amendments – to improve on equality, transparency, fairness and encourage partaking (BLACK 75). Funding of political parties
Political analysis of the behavior of the Canadian population during an electioneering period depicts that majority of the residents believe that the process is usually interfered with by wealthy and influential personalities- using their resources and finances. This is aimed at ensuring their personal interests and investments in the economy are safeguarded. Things would have been worse if regulations fell short. The limitation of campaign expenses is has done much good in saving political fairness. Public opinion from such findings is demagogic and the public and the political class are gradually learning to play within the rules. The government has in many instances played along with the antics of these powerful leaders and accomplished businesses men and ended-up compromising the legibility, credibility and authenticity of the processes. The voice of the common citizenry has been overstepped in such occasions while the interests of the top leaders and government officials stand (at the expense of the ordinary citizen's legal rights). This cannot in anyway be blamed to inefficiency in policy but just a political problem that requires political solution and government’s willingness to implement existing policies as it is, even if it goes against personal interests.
Canada is a multiparty state. Registration of parties is almost universal (here I make an exemption of Northwest Territories and Nunavut). Before 1970, parties were not recognized. Parties would enable people to control the government and develop interests that favor them. Political parties are, therefore, important to the people and sustaining them is important. Political parties are not policy makers but represent the interest of the people.In 2003, the amendment of Income tax and Canadian Electoral Act strengthened provisions governing the political parties and candidate financing. These amendments were indented to eliminate undue cooperation between political parties and corporation. Such alliances may lead to scandals that may not even be detected. The New bill, therefore, bans political donations by unions and corporations (exempting minors).The Bill also limits individual contribution, extends regulations on nomination requirement and enhanced the per-voter public funding. The rationality behind this is that money do not equal speech and parties may not reach the voter because of luck of finance. This method has increased participation. After a political party secures 275582 (2% of the total votes) votes they are guaranteed of 50% pay back of campaign money (Nakhaie 371). The per-vote tax subsidy is a trending issue now in Canada as the Government pledge to end it. Critics of the government are claiming the pledge by the prime minister has a political motive. This is a fair share as a party would receive $2 for every voter they get.
If the financing is tied to party’s own effort, then it is worthy. Government’s intention to end per-vote funding has been met with protest by some like Flanagan. He thinks that Stephen Harper is out to destroy the Liberty party and the NDP (Dickson et al. 101). This is visible. Public donation figures show that the Conservatives received donation from 95,000 diners each giving something over $20 in 2010 while the 70,000 people donated to Liberal, NDP, Green parties and Bloc Quebecois combined. If this plea goes through it will no longer the grade evolution that that Canadian Election and Political parties financing went through to be transparent and fair (Dickson et al. 108). It will be a political game that that will send home the liberals and NDP or twist their hands into collaboration. For the only party that can survive after the elimination of per-vote subsidy are the Liberalists because of its bigger endowment. PM. Stephen Harper has never in fact complained of inadequacies of tax subsidy but a political situation has risen when rival parties with little funding can access voter just like the Liberalists and that threatens the interests of those who want to keep the status quo. In his own statement he said parties already have enough sources of funding- unless he was speaking for all political parties, smaller parties need this funding for policy of transparency, fairness and participation to be up held.
The Canada Elections Act following the June 2001 amendment allowed political association of candidates without registered party membership to have their names in the ballot, as long as the group nominates at least twelve candidates. The ruling court allowed Appeal ruled that it was wrong to deny all the parties of being shown the ballot unless it was registered. This upholds the principals of fairness an participation by giving equal chance to all who have political ambitions Registration is however important for through it candidates enjoy privileges accrued to registered parties. Such benefits include: Reimbursement of Election ExpensesCandidates are reimbursed their election expenses as a tradition and a way to make politics a fair game rather than a risk business venture. The Reimbursement is dispensed through a registered party and belonging to a political party as a candidate makes the political venture not a risk game. This has encouraged people to take part in politics and has posted transparency as well.Ø Entitlement to issue tax receiptswith tax receipt one can file tax returns as required by the law. Failure to file returns with the auditor general may put at risk one's political ambitions for it is a requirement for entry into the following election.Ø Access voter's card and details on yearly basisa candidate registered under a registered political party, can access list of voters. This is crucial for every politician’s strategies. Access broadband without affiliation to any party, one may not access broadband to advertising.Initially, a political party was obligated to choose about 50 prospective candidates in a general election for it meets the criteria as a registered political party. The Court later stated that given the capacity to nominate more than one candidate contravene citizen’s rights to play a crucial part in the electioneering process; since the ruling there have been advancement in development of electoral system with an aim of bringing equality, fineness and encourage participation. Conclusion I have briefly reviewed the nature and operation of Canadian election and political parties finance system. It was however possible to highlight only principal features. Canadian Electoral law a surprisingly complex but quite complete principle, which are being constantly changed and fine-tuned. I here dealt with existing laws that govern election and campaign spending mentioning proposed changes that are in place already. Each jurisdiction has its own election and campaign finance system that are consistent with that of the federal Government. Different systems but many similarities but there are significant differences.
Works cited
BLACK, JEROME H. "The 2006 And 2008 Canadian Federal Elections and Minority Mps."
Canadian Ethnic Studies 41.1/2 (2009): 69-93. Academic Search Premier. Web 19 Nov. 2014.
Dickson, Vaughan, Mike Farnworth, and Jue Zhang. "Opportunism and Election Timing By
Canadian Provincial and Federal Governments." Canadian Public Policy 39.1 (2013): 101-118. Business Source Complete. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.
Johnston, Richard. "Alignment, Realignment, and Dealignment in Canada: The View From
Above." Canadian Journal of Political Science 46.2 (2013): 245-271. Academic Search Premier. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.
Nakhaie, M. Reza. "Electoral Participation in Municipal, Provincial and Federal Elections In
Canada." Canadian Journal of Political Science 39.2 (2006): 363-390.
Milner, Henry. "Electoral Systems, Integrated Institutions and Turnout in Local and National
Elections: Canada.." Canadian Journal Of Political Science 30.1 (1997): 89. Academic Search Premier. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.
Pross, A. Paul. "Barriers To Third-Party Advertising In Canadian Elections." Canadian Public
Administration 56.3 (2013): 491-505. Academic Search Premier. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.
"What The Next Election Will Really Be About." Maclean's 127.18 (2014): 12-13.
