Four Candidates Overspent the Limit in 2006
A review of candidate election returns for the 2006 General Election has so far found four candidates - 2 Liberals and 2 Conservatives - who overspent their riding election expense limit, in apparent violation of s.443(1) of the Elections Act.
Instant update: At least one of the candidates entered into a compliance agreement with Elections Canada in the matter, for example here is Mr. Shipley's.
Contravention of this section by a candidate or official agent constitutes a summary offence [s.497(1)(s)], punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or a prison term of up to 3 months or both [s.500(1)]. Moreover, "wilfully" exceeding the limit is an "illegal practice" [s.502(1)(c)], which if found to have been committed, means the candidate is not entitled to sit as a Member of the House of Commons for five years [s.502(3)(a)] or hold any office in the nomination of the Crown or the Governor in Council [s.502(3)(b)].
One assumes candidates and official agents do not set out to wilfully exceed the spending limits, but when examining the numbers, it does appear that four candidates have at least accidentally contravened s.443(1).
By way of background, just over a year ago I entered the most complete data available at that time (either "as reviewed" by Elections Canada, or if still unreviewed then "as submitted" by the candidate) for candidates in the 2004 and 2006 General Elections.
Over the past week or so, I've just made another pass through to update that data, moving another 133 candidates from "as submitted" to "as reviewed" in 2004 and another 203 candidates from "as submitted" to "as reviewed" in 2006. The process of reviewing candidate election returns by Elections Canada usually results in ensuring consistent reporting of financial data between candidates, making sure the numbers add up, and switching some items from one line item to another as required. Occasionally items reported as candidate expenses become election expenses, and vice versa as well. Overall, it does not significantly materially change the totals reported.
However, as I say, so far I have discovered the above four cases where candidates have, according to the Elections Canada review of their submitted returns, overspent the spending limit for their riding. In a subsequent post, I will summarize the current state of the "as submitted" vs. "as reviewed" status of the 2004 and 2006 candidate returns.
Remember, when reading candidate financial data from the "Financial Metrics" tab of any Riding Profile, if the data is in italics, it is still "as submitted" by the candidate, and has not yet been reviewed by Elections Canada.
Instant update: At least one of the candidates entered into a compliance agreement with Elections Canada in the matter, for example here is Mr. Shipley's.
Contravention of this section by a candidate or official agent constitutes a summary offence [s.497(1)(s)], punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or a prison term of up to 3 months or both [s.500(1)]. Moreover, "wilfully" exceeding the limit is an "illegal practice" [s.502(1)(c)], which if found to have been committed, means the candidate is not entitled to sit as a Member of the House of Commons for five years [s.502(3)(a)] or hold any office in the nomination of the Crown or the Governor in Council [s.502(3)(b)].
One assumes candidates and official agents do not set out to wilfully exceed the spending limits, but when examining the numbers, it does appear that four candidates have at least accidentally contravened s.443(1).
| Riding | Candidate | Pct Spent |
|---|---|---|
| Lambton – Kent – Middlesex, ON | SHIPLEY, Bev | 105.63% |
| Simcoe – Grey, ON | KIRLEY, Elizabeth | 103.96% |
| Haldimand – Norfolk, ON | FINLEY, Diane | 103.47% |
| Sudbury, ON | MARLEAU, Diane | 102.86% |
By way of background, just over a year ago I entered the most complete data available at that time (either "as reviewed" by Elections Canada, or if still unreviewed then "as submitted" by the candidate) for candidates in the 2004 and 2006 General Elections.
Over the past week or so, I've just made another pass through to update that data, moving another 133 candidates from "as submitted" to "as reviewed" in 2004 and another 203 candidates from "as submitted" to "as reviewed" in 2006. The process of reviewing candidate election returns by Elections Canada usually results in ensuring consistent reporting of financial data between candidates, making sure the numbers add up, and switching some items from one line item to another as required. Occasionally items reported as candidate expenses become election expenses, and vice versa as well. Overall, it does not significantly materially change the totals reported.
However, as I say, so far I have discovered the above four cases where candidates have, according to the Elections Canada review of their submitted returns, overspent the spending limit for their riding. In a subsequent post, I will summarize the current state of the "as submitted" vs. "as reviewed" status of the 2004 and 2006 candidate returns.
Remember, when reading candidate financial data from the "Financial Metrics" tab of any Riding Profile, if the data is in italics, it is still "as submitted" by the candidate, and has not yet been reviewed by Elections Canada.
posted by The Pundits' Guide at
1:27 AM
2 Comments:
Hi PG.
I'm trying to remember something pertinent to this, and don't know where to check.
Intuitively, you have to figure there some kind of grey area of penalties. In the case of the spending limits, EC finding a "willful attempt" means a sitting MP loses the seat.
But what of EC deciding not to press that extreme, but wanting to exact some kind od penalty? Has this happened in the last few years to a candidate where they have agreed to not contest the penalty exacted?
The only one that comes to mind is the [name escapes me] MP who as a Liberal did the "Mid-East" studies for Harper and then did the unsurprising floor cross.
In one of his races as a Liberal [2004?] he had some fairly significant infractions [around contributions?], the investigation of which went on for some time.
Whatever finding and penalty he ultimately agreed to- he was sitting as a Conservative by then- I believe it was more than the mild example with no penalty for Shipley that you linked to.
Do you know of a fairly handy list where penelties have been exacted on candidates?
The one I'm trying to think of may be the only one in the last several years, and even there the actual fine may have been zero or minimal in public embarrasement as well as monetary terms.
Ken Summers
Dear Ken,
They may have concluded the investigation into Wajid Khan's campaign returns, but interestingly, those returns still do not appear in "as reviewed" form at the Elections Canada website (his riding was Mississauga – Streetsville, ON).
It's up to the Commissioner of Elections (rather than the Chief Electoral Officer) to conduct investigations. Any compliance agreements have to be reported in Part I of the Canada Gazette: for example, here is the one with former Liberal (later Green) M.P. Blair Wilson from West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – Sea to Sky Country, BC.
I did a search at the Canada Gazette website for "Commission of Canada Elections" in the Part I Index category, and came up with these results.
Hope this helps. Thanks for reading and commenting, Ken.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home