$$ Handouts to Parties - Elections Canada (Incumbents' idea of 'fairness')

Sorry, the Elections Canada page format didn't stick, but click there yourself

Quarterly Allowances to the Registered Political Parties (2005)

Elections Canada: Political Parties, Candidates and Others, Political Parties, Quarterly Allowances,

1st Quarter(Jan.–Mar. 2005)Payable Apr. 2005
(With inflation adjustment as of Apr. 1, 2004 – Based on the 38th GE)

2nd Quarter(Apr.–June 2005)Payable July 2005
(With inflation adjustment as of Apr. 1, 2005 – Based on the 38th GE)

3rd Quarter(July–Sept. 2005)Payable Oct. 2005
(With inflation adjustment as of Apr. 1, 2005 – Based on the 38th GE)

Bloc Québécois
$755,740
$769,708
$769,708

New Democratic Party
$956,692
$974,375
$974,375

Green Party of Canada
$261,847
$266,686
$266,686

Liberal Party of Canada
$2,240,772
$2,282,187
$2,282,187

Conservative Party of Canada
$1,807,734
$1,841,146
$1,841,146

In accordance with section 435.01 of the Canada Elections Act, the payments made in January 2004 representing an advance on the quarterly allowances payable in that year were calculated based on the number of votes each party received at the 37th general election multiplied by $1.75 ($0.4375 on a quarterly basis) per valid vote received by each qualifying party, to arrive at the amount owing for the year. Following the 38th general election, adjustments were required to be made to the allowances already paid, starting with the first quarter following the election. The adjustments to the amounts already paid are based on $0.4375 per valid vote received by each qualifying party. The inflation adjustment factor for the period April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006, was also taken into account to arrive at the amount owing.

Questions? Call or mail us.
Last Modified: 2005-10-14
Privacy Statement, Important Notices and Disclaimers

Desperate Househusbands -The Coalition of the Willing-to-do-anything-to-stay-in-Power

Lovely ... Mr Martin suggests he's the Union cardholder's best choice & Buzz Hargrove agrees.

It seems the overwhelming influence of Union block-votes at NDP conventions and their mandatory financial contributions to the NDparty from Joe & Jane Canuck's unionized pay packet just ain't getting the bang that it used to get from the politicos of the national party.

That darn permanent Elections Canada money is making dear ol' Jack Layton too darn independent. He thinks it's HIS party (not the Unions')

Buzz needed to slap ol' Jack back to his senses and back into his place in the pecking order - nice work, Buzz-er-ino! You got the PM at your rally- DURING an election!!

hmnpf ... Paulie will take any friend(s) he can get.

Don't worry Buzz & Jack'll work out their differences over Christmas and all three Amigo's wll be singing the "accord or coalition" song.

Just remember, Mr Rt Hon majority stakeholder in the coalition-of-the-willing-to-do-anything-to-stay-in-power, Mr Pearson & Mr Trudeau got into BIG fiscal trouble in the 60-70's when they agreed to implement the syndicalists programs and yet dared not charge the taxpayers the full cost.

Whaddya think started the "deficit spending"? Guess whose deficit(s) turned into the Debt when those very same "revered" leaders kept borrowing the budget's operating shortfall for oh, ... 15 years?

It took nine years of BMW ( Brian Maz & Wison) to soften up the public so that fin.ca minister Martin could cut transfers and let too high UI/EI & PIT revenues run into surplus.

We don't need or want these "Desperate HouseHusbands" running the show!

Out of Proportion (read the next time someone talks about PR voting)

Canadians have lost faith in their elective-democratic systems.

We hear the phrase "democratic deficit" and the need for "Parliamentary reform" all the time.

One oft-mentioned solution by Small Political Parties is Proportional Representation - a system intended to allow more (i.e. the SPP's) viewpoints to be represented in the House of Commons.

The "fault being corrected" by PR is that in multi-party elections with a "who-got-the-most" system, many times an MP is selected with only 35-45% of the ballots cast (nevermind the ever-diminishing voter turn-out)

May I be so bold as to say that the time and attention paid to this "fault" and this solution is largely misdirected, if not wasted.

PR only addresses the election-of-members-of parties part, it does nothing to make the House of Commons function better - the House will still be populated with people who owe their place to membership in a party. All PR does is create more parties.

In my view to 'fix" Parliament, leave the electoral system in place but raise the standard of "majority" from 50%+1 to 66&2/3%. Rarely will one party get 2/3 of the seats and NEVER AGAIN will 50%+1 of the members representing 35-45% of each riding get to run the country.

Whose Dominion is it? - Understanding Crown Governance in Canada

For those Canadians who hope to understand WHY the government is not doing what THEY want, not representing THEIR interests and cannot seem to fathom why .... I submit the following backgrounder


Whose Dominion is Canada? The Crown's? The Parliament's? or the Citizen's?


Our hierarchical, triune 'One Parliament' (BNA s.17) was EXPRESSLY designed to counter the "democratic element" - the folks here and in Britain had learned that any sharpie with a policy of "free money to the little guy" could get elected by the general populace.

Our system was designed to give voice to the "popular will", but to balance it with other opinions - it was never intended to be a democracy or a republic.

The Upper House was designed to be our House of Lords, but due to the absence of any Lords in Canada, a Senate with property-ownership AND net-worth qualifications was devised (s.23 & 31.3)- these propertied people could moderate the views of the Not-so-Rich people, particularly when it came to taxing wealth & property.

To balance and double-check the (kind of, sort-of) rep by pop system in the lower House, these folks were selected equally from the 3, then 4 Divisions (s.22) and they were appointed vs. elected to remove any taint of pandering-to-the-people prevalent in elected Houses.

No bill could be presented for Royal Assent without passing through both the Rich & not-so-Rich assemblies.

Further & quite purposefully, in 1867 any bill needed the signification of the local representative of the Monarch, the Governor General, to come into effect. BUT, the Governor General was under no obligation to grant assent simply because the bill was passed by both Houses.

Since the GG could be a newbie on the Canadian scene, s/he was provided with a set of Advisors -the Privy Council (s.11) - to aid and advise this sometimes-stranger on local issues. BUT the GG was under no obligation to follow the "Advice" or the "Advice and Consent" (s.12) of the Privy Council.

As a further double-check on the potentially self-serving or short-sighted measures passed by the Canadian Commons or Senate, the Governor General could flat out withhold Royal Assent (s.55) or could reserve judgment on any bill and send it over to the Monarch-in-Council (British Cabinet) for the final yea/nay.

As an even further double-check on any shenanigans over here, the Monarch-in-Council held the power of Disallowance (s.56) - any bill could be annulled within 2 years of its passing in Canada, no questions asked.

No sovereignty was ever passed to Canada or to the Canadian people. No independence was granted FROM the Crown-in-Council's ultimate control. The whole Canadian system was set up to forestall any person or party from becoming a tyrant (as were the 2 American Constitutions) and to impede any person or party from being a poor or self-serving steward of the Crown's assets and Treasury.

This is what is meant by constitutional-Monarchy - the Monarch is the source of all sovereignty, all powers to make and change laws, but the constitution lays down some areas where the confederal or the provincial governments (acting in the Name of the Crown) are given jurisdiction to act and authority to make law.

At no time or in no way was Great Britain giving Canada or Canadians independence - nor was this sought by Canadians as the Americans had sought it. Canadians felt comfortable and protected. Canada liked being a North American 'dominion'; they felt they had the best of both the old and new worlds - just as we do today.

But today more than a few Canadians feel that "something is not quite right" with our government and its stewardship of the Crown's assets and the people's welfare .... but they just cannot put their finger on what the problem is.

Part of the problem is NOT KNOWING the government system - conceptually and constitutionally. What it was, why it was and what's happened since its inception.

Notwithstanding common knowledge & expert opinions ONLY 4 essential things have changed within our Executive Power system since 1867. ( I'm not counting the territorial expansions 1870-1949, the granting of an independent foreign policy in 1931 and the addition of a condition-ridden Charter & the virtually-impossible to use Amending Formulae in 1982)

#1 Inflation has undermined the value of the property-ownership & net-worth qualifications for Senators - $4,000 just ain't what it used to be

#2 An order-in-Council in 1940 (#1940-1121) combined the position of Clerk of the Privy Council with the post of Secretary to the Cabinet. The Prime Minister (Wm L M King) took over the Governor General's Privy Council - the Governor General now had NO independent advisors.

#3 The Governor General's powers as the Monarch-in Council's delegate/ agent /representative as set out in the 1867 BNA Act were re-affirmed in the Letters Patent of 1947.

#4 The UK's 1982 Canada Act declared "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom ... shall extend to Canada as part of its law". As a result the limitations on the Office of Queen/King ("Monarch-in-Council" bound to accept the Advice of Her/His Ministers) were ended. The person holding the office of Queen/King rules Canada as an individual, embodies 'the Crown in Canada' as an individual and owns the assets of Canada as an individual.


So what? You say. What's your point? You ask.

If the Queen/King is the Crown, and the Crown holds all the sovereignty of Canada and title to all its assets, why is there a movement afoot to dump QE2 after She leaves this mortal coil? Who or what would inherit/take over that huge role as ultimate Canadian? Since the Queen/King is not really 'hands-on' now, who's running the show on Her/His behalf?

If the Governor General has been delegated to hold all the Queen/King's powers, why is the Governor General thought of as a useless and expensive frill? And why is the appointment of a new GG thought of as a high-society nicety rather than as a transfer of ultimate power? Since the GG is not really 'hands-on' now, who's running the show? Is this the significance of the Secretary of the Cabinet taking over the job of Clerk of the Privy Council?

If the Senate was supposed to represent the propertied & more-well-off part of Canadian society, why is it full of party-loyalists who think the pay-packet is heaven-on-earth? And why do Canadians not regard Senators as holders of a superior office, quite legitimately countering the actions of the 50%+1 Party-in-Power in the Lower House?

If many Canadians think "democracy" is lacking in government and that the Common's 50%+1 Party-in-Power does not take regular folks needs into account, why don't they realize that the Party-in-Power has not sworn allegiance to the regular folks? Every person who holds office swears allegiance to the Crown and only NEEDS the regular folks at election time - needs them ONLY to get their contracts renewed (to control the Crown's assets and Treasury) or to take over the control contract from someone not-as-crafty at fooling most of the people some of the time.

The Common's 50%+1 Party-in-Power was never intended to run 'the whole show'. The whole purpose of Confederation was to divide power, to double check everyone. The purpose of Confederation was to provide for the Peace, Order and Good Government of the population, the Crown's assets and the Treasury. The 1867 framers wanted the best for their countrymen and for the soon to come waves of immigrants by spreading "the power" around - no one could dominate, all would participate and a 'benevolent autocrat' would hold a veto.


What undid the plan?

-inflation undermined the Senate, Mackenzie King usurped the powers of the Governor General (revenge for refusing King's dissolution in 1926);

-general well-being kept Canadians from paying attention till their taxes were 30% too high due to interest on debt payments (not repayments, just payments);

-the people were divided into umpteen little interest-groups based on race, religion, sex, national & provincial origin, wealth, tax-treatments, education, language, aboriginal or not status etc etc PLUS every possible combination thereof;

-the soil, sea and land were either stripped for local use or exported raw (normally for pennies-a-pound);

-the urban begrudged 'paying for' the rural and the rural thought the urban was wasteful, selfish and decadent;

-the sort-of-Free Trade (but not really that good) Agreement of Myron Baloney destroyed the old Canadian economic model. The branch plants of big US firms (that fueled Ontario so that she didn't mind sending all that extra tax money to Ottawa to re-distribute) were closed as unnecessary.

.. add your favourite

What to do next?

Acknowledge that you've never heard it 'splained like this before.
Dig out your Constitution Book or visit Online Constitution and verify my facts and interpretations.

If you then agree that the 1867 hierarchical, double-triple-check system was and still is extremely well-suited to the country, bring it up in this election.

Insist that all our Parliamentary institutions return to practises that follow the written rules of governance- unseat the PM from control of the PCO (notwithstanding that s/he'll still have a ex-officio place within the Privy Council), work on adjusting-for-inflation the Senate qualifications and re-instate the GG as the penultimate benevolent autocrat (with no real power to initiate- just to decide on implementation) supervising the country and responsible for ensuring we receive 'good' (i.e. benefiting the governed, not the governors) government.