FDA Report on 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election Finances

FDA Electoral Finance Study of the
2010 Calgary Mayoral Election
Electoral Finance Study Completed October14, 2013
Executive Summary
This FDA electoral finance study focuses on the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election. The main
purpose of the research is to tabulate the amount of contributions for all candidates. As the
research progressed, further inquiry was made into the reporting system used by the City of
Calgary, within provincial legislation. (2013 election finance data is not publicly disclosed
until after Election Day on October 21, 2013; only voluntary and incomplete financial data is
available now.)
Our results indicate that the top three candidates accounted for two-thirds of total campaign
financing or 67 percent. The FDA also observed a wide variation between candidates with
respect to the proportion of financing originating from different types of contributors. This
includes distinctions based on contribution amount (under $100 versus over $100), and
contribution source (individuals versus business versus unions). For example, 95.9 percent of
gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were over $100, while 4.1 percent of gross
contributions to all mayoral candidates were under $100. Also, 51.1 percent of total
contributions to mayoral candidates were from corporations.
The FDA concludes that electoral finance process in the 2010 City of Calgary mayoral election
had a number of shortcomings, which in turn likely impacted the electoral fairness of the
election, and the correlation between the voice of Calgarians and the election results.
The FDA acknowledges that the root issue stems from Alberta’s Local Authorities Election
Act, which the Alberta Provincial Government has jurisdiction over. However, the FDA
believes that the City of Calgary still has the ability to improve the electoral finance process.
For example, for modest costs, the City Calgary can upgrade and standardize the way
campaign finances are reported to the City by candidates, and subsequently reported by the
City to the general public.

Foundation for Democratic Advancement | FDA Electoral Finance Report: 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election
Prepared By
Mr. Michael Fabris, Bachelor of Accounting, Brock University.
Purpose of the Calgary Mayoral Election Financial Study
The purpose of the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA)’s electoral finance study (the
Study) is to examine the nature and distribution of campaign finances during the 2010 Calgary
Mayoral Election. Analyses will be performed on the campaigns in aggregate, and also within each
individual campaign.
The views in this electoral finance study are the views of the FDA only. FDA members are in no way
affiliated with the City of Calgary, any of the Mayoral candidates from the 2010 Calgary Mayoral
Election, or any of the province's registered/non-registered political parties. The Study is an
independent assessment based on objectivity, transparency, and non-partisanship. The FDA assumes
no responsibility or liability for any errors in its data collection or inaccuracies in its research of
relevant electoral finance documents.
Acknowledgement
Representatives from the FDA requested and were granted a face-to-face meeting with the City’s Chief
Returning Officer, Barbara Clifford; the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the details of the
provincial legislation and how it is executed in practice. Subsequent requests for information were
made also via telephone and email. The FDA would like to thank Ms. Clifford for taking the time to
meet with us in her office and for providing us with first-hand information about the entire process.
© 2013 Foundation for Democratic Advancement. All rights reserved.
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

Foundation for Democratic Advancement | FDA Electoral Finance Report: 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election
contact the FDA at (403) 669-8132 or email us at info@democracychange.org for more information.
Visit our website for a complete report of FDA Report on Electoral Finances from the 2010 Calgary
Mayoral Election: www.democracychange.org
For further information and/or comments on this report please contact Mr. Stephen Garvey,
Executive Director of the Foundation for Democratic Advancement at
stephen.garvey@democracychange.org
The FDA is a registered Canadian not-for-profit organization, and therefore it cannot issue tax-
deductible receipts. In addition, the FDA is the sole funder of this report. As mentioned, to maintain
its independence and objectivity, the FDA does not conduct privately funded research projects. The
FDA relies on donations. If you value this report, please consider donating to the Foundation for
Democratic Advancement to help cover the costs of producing this report and communicating its
content to Albertans, and to continue its work in Alberta, Canada, and abroad.
The FDA is committed to providing the public with objective information. Please let us know how
we are doing at research@democracychange.org
How satisfied are you with the Alberta municipal electoral finance laws? Please let us know at
info@democraycracychange.org
After reading this Report, we want to know what you think; please go to this url and share your
perspective with us!
FDA Electoral Finance Report on the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election

Table of Contents
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 5
Analysis........................................................................................................................................... 6
Overall Breakdown and Relative Percentages............................................................................ 6
Campaign Contributions ................................................................................................................. 8
Contributions under $100 ......................................................................................................... 10
Contributions over $100 ........................................................................................................... 12
Analysis of Campaign Finances by Contributor Type .............................................................. 13
Contributors Who Gave to Multiple Candidates....................................................................... 15
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 30
Recommendations......................................................................................................................... 31
Advantages and Disadvantages of a Donation Transaction Database ...................................... 34
Practical Concerns and Recommendations............................................................................... 34
References..................................................................................................................................... 38
FDA Electoral Finance Study Team.............................................................................................. 39

of 39
Foundation for Democratic Advancement | democracychange.org | FDA Electoral Finance Report:
Introduction
The FDA's study on the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election based findings on non-partisanship and
objectivity.
The electoral finance study involved five main components:
1) Tabulation of all reported sources of campaign financing;
2) Breakdown of overall campaign financing, by candidate and by contribution amount
segments;
3) Further tabulation and analysis based on contributor source (individual, business, union);
4) Investigation of instances where the same contributor has supported more than one candidate;
and
5) Investigation of an improved format of campaign finance disclosure.
Raw data from all of the candidates’ legal public disclosure forms was entered into a master
spreadsheet; this was used to determine relative percentages within each campaign. To improve
the comprehension of the results, the FDA also looked at all of the campaigns in aggregate, in
order to determine which candidates captured the greatest proportion of donations under $100
and those greater than $100.
The report is limited in that all reported amounts are not audited by the City of Calgary, nor the
province of Alberta. In fact, the only supporting schedules that candidates are required to submit
are for all contributions greater than $100. Furthermore, these supporting schedules are not
checked by election officials to ensure that they equal the amounts reported on legal disclosure
forms.
The FDA acknowledges that private citizens and corporations have the legitimate right to
contribute to as many candidates as they choose. The FDA is not making any moral judgments
regarding this practice; however, the FDA believes that it is in the interest of democracy to
determine the frequency and magnitude of this practice. This analysis is justified since the
beneficiary candidates are usually “front-runners”.

of 39
Analysis
Overall Breakdown and Relative Percentages
A breakdown of the total finances for the 2010 Mayoral race, by candidate, is below. These
amounts include financing from all sources, including net contributions and other sources such as
fundraisers, the candidates’ own funds, and surpluses from prior campaigns.
Candidate Total Revenue Total Revenue %
Richard McIver 1,084,021$ 35%
Barbara Higgins 610,429$ 19%
Naheed Nenshi 404,654$ 13%
Melvin Stewart 326,953$ 10%
Robert Hawkesworth 290,221$ 9%
Craig Burrows 215,418$ 7%
Joe Connelly 182,215$ 6%
Jon Lord 24,970$ 1%
Bonnie Devine 1,647$ 0%
Sandra Hunter -$ 0%
Total 3,140,528$ 100%

of 39
These relative percentages are illustrated in the following chart:
Richard McIver
35%
Barbara Higgins
19% Naheed Nenshi
13%
Melvin Stewart
10%
Robert Hawkesworth
9%
CraigBurrows
7%Joe Connelly
6%
Jon Lord
1%
Bonnie Devine
0%
Sandra Hunter
0%
Total Campaign Revenue

of 39
CampaignContributions
Since 68 percent of campaign finances are derived from actual contributions, an analysis has
been prepared on this specific source.
The proportion of gross contributions of total campaign revenue has been calculated for each
candidate below. It is evident that gross contributions accounted for over half of the total
revenues for each candidate, with the exception of Richard McIver.
Candidate < $100 > $100
Total Gross
Contributions
Total Financing
Gross Contributions
as % of Total
Financing
Richard McIver 14,146$ 517,559$ 531,705$ 1,084,021$ 49%
Barbara Higgins 5,543$ 509,186$ 514,729$ 610,429$ 84%
Naheed Nenshi 47,958$ 350,471$ 398,429$ 404,654$ 98%
Melvin Stewart 3,433$ 306,050$ 309,483$ 326,953$ 95%
Robert Hawkesworth 14,476$ 165,390$ 179,866$ 290,221$ 62%
Craig Burrows -$ 113,150$ 113,150$ 215,418$ 53%
Joe Connelly 670$ 95,501$ 96,171$ 182,215$ 53%
Jon Lord 1,720$ 13,250$ 14,970$ 24,970$ 60%
Bonnie Devine 590$ 800$ 1,390$ 1,647$ 84%
Sandra Hunter -$ -$ -$ -$ 0%
Total 88,536$ 2,071,357$ 2,159,893$ 3,140,528$ 69%

of 39
The following chart illustrates the proportion of each candidate’s contributions, separated by
amount.
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
Calgary 2010 Mayoral Candidates' Contributions,
as Proportionof Total Campaign Revenue
< $100 > $100 Total Revenue

of 39
Contributions under $100
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40% 36%
12%
7%
5%
1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Under-$100 Contributions as Percentage of
Candidates'Finances
Percentage

of 39
Candidates captured the under-$100 pool of contributions in the following proportions. Clearly,
over half of this pool was captured by Naheed Nenshi. It must be noted that this pool only
represents 3 percent of total aggregate campaign revenues.
Naheed Nenshi
54%
Robert Hawkesworth
16%
Richard McIver
16%
Barbara Higgins
6%
Melvin Stewart
4%
Jon Lord
2%
Joe
Connelly
1%
Bonnie Devine
1%
Craig
Burrows
0%
Sandra Hunter
0%
Contributions < $100

of 39
Contributions over $100
In contrast, 66 percent of total aggregate campaign revenues came from contributions exceeding
$100. This pool of funds was captured by candidates in the following proportions:
Richard McIver
25%
Barbara Higgins
24%
Naheed Nenshi
17%
Melvin Stewart
15%
Robert
Hawkesworth
8%CraigBurrows
5%
Joe Connelly
5%
Jon Lord
1%
Bonnie Devine
0%
Sandra
Hunter
0%
Contributions > $100

of 39
Analysis of Campaign Finances by Contributor Type
Candidates are not required to report their contributions by type of source (individual, business,
or union). As a result, the FDA had to analyze each candidate’s supporting schedule to determine
the relative percentages. This required several steps:
 Conversion of PDF files (from the city’s website) into excel format;
 Identification of each contribution as either individual, business, or union; and
 Tabulation of the results
Candidate Individual Individual % Business Business % Union Union % Total Total %
Richard McIver 347,094$ 36% 613,275$ 63% 6,300$ 1% 966,669$ 100%
Barbara Higgins 199,249$ 39% 304,937$ 60% 5,000$ 1% 509,186$ 100%
Naheed Nenshi 224,392$ 64% 120,399$ 34% 5,000$ 1% 349,791$ 100%
Melvin Stewart 218,750$ 71% 87,300$ 29% -$ 0% 306,050$ 100%
Craig Burrows 126,450$ 68% 60,250$ 32% -$ 0% 186,700$ 100%
Robert Hawkesworth 99,985$ 60% 64,905$ 39% 500$ 0% 165,390$ 100%
Joe Connelly 19,001$ 27% 50,500$ 73% -$ 0% 69,501$ 100%
Jon Lord 2,250$ 18% 10,400$ 82% -$ 0% 12,650$ 100%
Bonnie Jean Devine 300$ 38% -$ 0% 500$ 63% 800$ 100%
Sandra Hunter -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0%
Total 1,237,470$ 1,311,966$ 17,300$ 2,566,737$

of 39
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
Campaign Finances by ContributorType
Union
Business
Individual

of 39
Contributors Who Gave to Multiple Candidates
Donor Candidate $ Amount
Albi Corp.
Craig Burrows $800
Melvin Wayne Stewart $1,000
Richard William McIver $3,400
Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $1,000
Total $6,200
Amalgamated Transit Barbara Joan Higgins $4,000
Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $500
Total $4,500
Aspen Properties Ltd. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Naheed Nenshi $5,000
Total $15,000
Atlas Development Corporation Naheed Nenshi $300
Richard William McIver $400
Total $700
Balmon Investments Ltd. Melvin Wayne Stewart $500
Total $3,000

of 39
Baywest Homes Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000
Total $6,000
Bennett Jones Barbara Joan Higgins $1,500
Total $3,100
BKDI Architects Barbara Joan Higgins $2,500
Craig Burrows $1,000
Total $9,500
Boardwalk Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $15,700
Brant McDermott Craig Burrows $150
Total $450
Brian Edy Richard William McIver $250
Total $500

of 39
Brian Felesky Naheed Nenshi $500
Total $1,000
Brian Rogers Professional Corporation Naheed Nenshi $500
Total $1,000
Brownlee LLP Barbara Joan Higgins $500
Total $1,500
Bruce Cameron Craig Burrows $150
Total $300
Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP Naheed Nenshi $500
Total $1,500
Burns West Corporation Barbara Joan Higgins $750
Craig Burrows $200
Total $950
Calgary Cab Drivers Society Naheed Nenshi $500
Total $1,500
Calgary Fire Fighters Assoc. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $15,000

of 39
Cam Bailey Naheed Nenshi $2,500
Total $3,500
Carma Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $28,150
Cedarglen Group Inc. Melvin Wayne Stewart $5,000
Total $10,000
Checker Cabs Craig Burrows $400
Total $850
Chris Davis Naheed Nenshi $250
Total $500
Citiland Capital Corp. Craig Burrows $400
Total $3,200
Cohos Evamy Richard William McIver $700
Total $1,200

of 39
D.A. Watt Consulting Group Ltd Naheed Nenshi $400
Total $900
Daniel Hays Melvin Wayne Stewart $1,000
Total $2,000
Daryl Fridhandler Barbara Joan Higgins $2,500
Naheed Nenshi $250
Total $2,750
David McLellan Naheed Nenshi $5,000
Total $5,800
Dialog Barbara Joan Higgins $2,000
Total $4,500
Ecco Waste Systems LP Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $11,000
Edmund Sardachuk Melvin Wayne Stewart $200
Total $700

of 39
Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Naheed Nenshi $300
Total $1,500
Encana Corporation Naheed Nenshi $3,000
Total $6,000
Genesis Land Development Corp. Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000
Total $4,350
Genstar Development Partnership Barbara Joan Higgins $1,500
Total $4,700
Geo-Energy Enterprises Ltd Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $9,700
George Brokman Melvin Wayne Stewart $1,000
Naheed Nenshi $500
Total $2,700
Gibbs Gage Architects Barbara Joan Higgins $2,500
Craig Burrows $400
Total $6,800

of 39
Gurmeet Brar & Kathie Mintoft Naheed Nenshi $1,000
Total $2,000
Harley Hotchkiss Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000
Total $4,000
Hoffman Dorchik LLP Melvin Wayne Stewart $750
Total $3,100
Homes by Avi (Canada) Inc. Richard William McIver $1,000
Total $2,000
Hopewell Development Corp. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Craig Burrows $400
Total $5,600
Hopewell Residential Communities Inc. Naheed Nenshi $2,500
Total $14,500
Interbase Consultants Ltd. - Calgary Craig Burrows $400
Total $3,400

of 39
Interplan Strategies Inc. Craig Burrows $200
Total $2,200
JEC Enterprises Inc. Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000
Total $14,250
Jim Dinning Naheed Nenshi $500
Total $1,000
Kabir Jivraj Melvin Wayne Stewart $2,500
Total $3,500
Kang Construction Ltd Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000
Total $2,000
Ken Cartier Craig Burrows $200
Total $800
Knightsbridge Homes Ltd. Barbara Joan Higgins $1,500
Total $3,000

of 39
Larry Ryder Melvin Wayne Stewart $500
Total $800
M Ann McCaig Barbara Joan Higgins $2,500
Naheed Nenshi $500
Total $3,000
Marchese Holdings Limited Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $9,100
Marquis Communities Development Inc. Barbara Joan Higgins $3,000
Total $9,000
Marton Murphy Naheed Nenshi $3,000
Total $10,000
Mary Rozsa de Coquet Naheed Nenshi $2,400
Total $2,900
Mattamy Homes Limited - Calgary Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $10,200
Matthew Brister Barbara Joan Higgins $3,500
Total $4,500

of 39
McLeod & Company Melvin Wayne Stewart $500
Total $1,500
N. Murray Edwards Craig Burrows $4,400
Total $11,400
New Urban Consulting 2009 Inc. Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000
Total $1,600
Nexus Builder Group LP Barbara Joan Higgins $2,500
Total $5,000
Norr Architects Planners Barbara Joan Higgins $1,500
Craig Burrows $400
Total $7,300
Odgers Brendston Naheed Nenshi $500
Total $1,250
Opus Corporation Naheed Nenshi $5,000
Total $5,800

of 39
Penn West Petroleum Ltd. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $15,000
Quinn Corp. Holdings Inc. Barbara Joan Higgins $1,250
Total $3,550
RGO Office Products Partnership Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $6,700
Richard Haskayne Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $15,000
Rick Balbi Architects Richard William McIver $300
Total $600
Riddle Kurczaba Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000
Total $4,100

of 39
Rob Taylor Naheed Nenshi $3,333
Total $6,433
Robyn and Gordon Ritchie Barbara Joan Higgins $2,000
Total $3,000
Ron Kurczaba Craig Burrows $400
Total $1,200
Ronmor Holdings Inc. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Craig Burrows $400
Total $12,100
Royop Development Corporation Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000
Craig Burrows $400
Melvin Wayne Stewart $500
Naheed Nenshi $500
Total $4,750
Sam Kolias Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $20,500

of 39
Scott Thon Barbara Joan Higgins $300
Total $600
Shane Homes Ltd. Craig Burrows $3,800
Total $16,550
Shepard Development Corp Barbara Joan Higgins $2,500
Total $5,000
Sirocco Golf Club Ltd. Barbara Joan Higgins $2,000
Total $5,000
Sri Chandran Craig Burrows $200
Total $500
Susan Paton Melvin Wayne Stewart $500
Total $650
Swan Homes Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $6,000

of 39
Tonko Realty Advisors Ltd. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $5,300
Trico Development Corporation Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $25,500
Tristar Communities Inc. Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000
Total $5,300
Truman Development Corporation Barbara Joan Higgins $4,000
Total $11,450
United Communities L. P. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $29,500
Urban Systems Ltd. Barbara Joan Higgins $3,500
Total $6,250

of 39
Van Kolias Craig Burrows $5,000
Total $10,000
W Brett Wilson Naheed Nenshi $500
Total $800
Walton Development & Management Inc. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000
Total $14,250
WAM Development Corporation Barbara Joan Higgins $2,500
Total $5,750
WRD Borger Construction Ltd. Barbara Joan Higgins $2,000
Total $11,100

of 39
Conclusion
The 2010 Calgary electoral finance results show a disparity in electoral finance amounts between
the mayoral candidates. For example, three mayoral candidates had 67 percent of the total
electoral finance revenue of all mayoral candidates. The FDA acknowledges that electoral
finances cannot guarantee an election win, and yet there is no evidence that a candidate with
minimal electoral finances can win a competitive election. In addition, the high incidence of
individuals and organizations contributing to more than one candidate (99 recorded incidents
totaling $595,333 and 23.2 percent of total contributions to mayoral candidates) may suggest the
possibility of special interest influence. Further, based on Alberta mean total income of $35,250
(Statistics Canada, 2011), the cap on contributions of $5,000 per year favours wealthy Calgarians
and corporations and unions over Calgarians with middle and low incomes. Interestingly, 95.9
percent of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were over $100, while 4.1 percent of
gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were under $100.
The FDA acknowledges that the root of the Calgary electoral finance issues stem from the
Alberta’s Local Authorities Election Act, which the Alberta provincial government has
jurisdiction over. However, as discussed in the recommendations to follow, there are some things
that the City of Calgary can do to improve electoral finance in Calgary municipal elections, and
thereby strengthen the democratic voice of Calgarians.
For more information on Alberta election laws, see the FDA Canadian Provinces Electoral
Finance Report

of 39
Recommendations
The Foundation for Democratic Advancement recommends that the City of Calgary adopt a
donation transaction database model as a method of publicly reporting all candidates’ finances.
Such a system already exists in the City of Toronto. Members of the public can freely search
online for any donation transaction, under the following fields:
 Candidate name
 Office
 Contributor Type
 Contributor name
 Postal Code
 Contribution Amount
Below is an image of a print-screen of the actual online search form, found at the City of
Toronto’s Election Services website:

of 39

of 39
Below is a sample of the results of a mayoral finance search, for all candidates. Total records
returned numbered 8,974.

of 39
Advantages and Disadvantages of a Donation Transaction Database
Advantages
 Reduced data redundancy
 Reduced updating errors and increased consistency
 Greater data integrity and independence from applications programs
 Improved data access to users
 Improved data security
 Reduced data entry, storage, and retrieval costs
 Facilitated development of new applications program
Disadvantages
 Database systems are complex, difficult, and time-consuming to design
 Substantial hardware and software start-up costs
 Damage to database affects virtually all applications programs
 Extensive conversion costs in moving form a file-based system to a database system
 Initial training required for all programmers and users
Practical Concerns and Recommendations
According to the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) for the City of Calgary, there have not been
many calls from the public for such a searchable database. And since the implementation of a
searchable database would be at the city’s cost, it is not likely that one will be implemented until
such demand is perceived from the public. However, in the interests of transparency, the FDA
asserts that financial information should always be as readily accessible to the public as possible,
with minimal technical barriers.
The FDA contacted the Elections and Registry Services office for the City of Toronto to learn
more about the costs associated with the development of an electronic disclosure system. Total
costs of $315,000 were reported as approved in the city clerk’s 2006 capital budget for this
system. At the time, staff were anticipating completion within budget. Toronto’s Deputy City
Manager and Chief Financial Officer reviewed this report and concurred with the financial
implications. As a result, the FDA asserts that costs of a searchable online database would be a
low risk, manageable investment in public transparency for the City of Calgary.
Another issue that the CRO raised is that Calgary does not have the same number of candidates
as the City of Toronto, making comparisons between candidates easier. However, as part of the

of 39
FDA’s research, it was first necessary to download and convert all of the website’s PDF files
into Excel format, and then identify thousands of contribution records as either individual,
business, or union. Furthermore, it became apparent that many of the reported totals on the
supporting schedules did not agree with the amounts reported on the disclosure form. Nor were
these schedules in a standardized format, across candidates. This slowed down the analysis
considerably. The implementation of a searchable database would help to alleviate the lack of
clarity of which donations came from which sources, and how much.
The CRO also raises the issue of the provincial Freedom of Information and the Protection of
Privacy (FOIP) legislation. Service Alberta was contacted for guidance on this issue. Below is a
direct quote of Service Alberta’s response:
“Section 147.4(1) of the Local Authorities Election Act (LAEA) deals with campaign
disclosure statements. The campaign disclosure statements, which are filed with the
municipality, must include (a) the total amount of all campaign contributions received
during the campaign period that did not exceed $100.00 in the aggregate from any single
contributor, and (b) the total amount contributed, together with the contributor's name and
address, for each contributor whose contributions during the campaign period exceeded
$100.00 in the aggregate. Section 147.4(3) states that the municipality must ensure that
all documents filed under this section are available to the public during regular business
hours. Although candidates may advise contributors of the public disclosure
requirements, they are not specifically required to do so under the LAEA.”
The FDA recommends that campaign contributors are informed that their contributions will be
disclosed publicly.
The FDA also recommends that the province implement stringent audit requirements for all
candidates whose finances exceed a determined threshold. Otherwise, the public cannot have
strong confidence in the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the financial reporting.
Bill 203 was introduced in 2009 in an attempt to implement more stringent controls over
campaign finance. Bill 203 was a private member’s bill introduced by MLA Jeff Johnson
(Athabasca-Redwater), and was an amendment to the Local Authorities Election Act.
The FDA contacted Municipal Affairs for more clarity on the practical implications of this
legislation on financial reporting:
“Financing of mayoralty or councillor candidates’ election expenses are governed by the
provisions of the Local Authorities Election Act (LAEA). S. 118 sets out the kinds of
election expenses that can be claimed. Such expenses would offset campaign finances
raised for the election. To ensure accountability, municipalities (particularly larger
municipalities) where the campaign costs can be significant, may, by the adoption of a
bylaw before April 15th of the year of a general election, require that candidates prepare
and disclose a public statement showing all campaign contributions received, as well as

of 39
their campaign expenses. Additionally, the bylaw will require that a candidate show how
excess contributions are to be used. (For example, excess contributions could be donated
to a charity, or retained in an account for a future election).”
The bylaw requiring candidates to prepare and disclose a public statement may also require that
the statement be audited in accordance with generally accepted audit standards.
If campaign finance rules have been broken, and a candidate has contravened the bylaw, the
candidate is guilty of an offence and subject to a penalty of not more than $1,000 under section
118.(4) of the LAEA. In addition, subject to the Municipal Government Act (section 174), a
councillor that fails to disclose a statement within the prescribed time, and has not been relieved
of the obligation to file a disclosure statement by a court order under section 147.8 of the LAEA
is disqualified from council and must resign immediately. If the Councillor does not resign
immediately, the council or an elector may apply to the Court of Queen’s Bench for an order
declaring the candidate to be disqualified.”
It would appear then, that cities do not necessarily have to impose an audit requirement on
candidates, although it is within their power to do so if they desire.
The fact that audits are not conducted on campaign disclosures presents a risk of material
misstatement to the public. This risk may lead the public as well as individuals donating to make
decisions that are not based upon the true information of the campaign finances that have been
disclosed. This is true for the following reasons:
 The amounts of the contributions may be greater than has been disclosed;
 The sources of contributions may not be accurately reflected; and
 Contribution limits may have not been adhered to.
A risk of corruption obviously exists; however, there is no reliable way to detect every instance
of corruption. This does not reduce the efficacy of performing a reasonable audit on campaign
disclosures, as can be seen by the fact that one candidate, Naheed Nenshi, did have an audit
performed upon his campaign finances. Therefore, it is reasonable to state that each candidate
should have an audit performed upon their campaign finances for those receiving or spending
more than $100,000. In addition, legal disclosures of finances by candidates should include the
date of the contribution transaction, in order to ascertain that annual contribution limits are being
adhered to.
These steps would significantly reduce the risk of material misstatement to the public as well as
reduce the amount of corruption occurring during elections.
In the interests of the integrity of financial reporting, the FDA asserts that candidates should be
required to submit all supporting schedules in an electronic spreadsheet format, which can then
be imported into the database. The candidates records should not be accepted until the city’s

of 39
chief electoral officer verifies that the supporting schedule and the reported amounts on the
disclosure form are in balance. If discrepancies exist, they should be noted as such.
In addition, all line items on the disclosure form should be backed up with documentation. At the
present time, the only backup documentation that is required is a schedule listing all
contributions over $100, and the originating contributor.

of 39
References
2010 Disclosure of Campaign Finances. (2010). City of Calgary. Retrieved from
http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Pages/Election-and-information-services/2010-
General-election/Disclosure-of-Campaign-Finances.aspx
Electronic Filing By-law – 2006 Municipal Election Financial Statements. (2006). City of
Toronto. Retrieved from
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/agendas/committees/adm/adm060606/it029.pdf
FDA Canadian Provinces Electoral Finance Report. (2012). Foundation for Democratic
Advancement. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/FDAdvancement/2013revised-
fda-canadian-provinces-electoral-finance-report
Local Authorities Election Act. (2000). Province of Alberta. Current as of December 10, 2012.
Retrieved from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/l21.pdf
Staff Report on the Toronto Election Finance Review Task Force Recommendations. (2004). City
of Toronto. Retrieved from
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2004/agendas/committees/pof/pof040915/it001.pdf
Statistics Canada. (2011). Individuals by total income level, by province and territory. Retrieved
March 26, 2011 from http://www40.statcan.ca

of 39
FDA Electoral Finance Study Team
FDA Researcher
Mr. Michael Fabris, Bachelor of Accounting, Brock University
Report Writers
Mr. Michael Fabris, Bachelor of Accounting, Brock University
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 Reviewers
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. Dale Monette, Bachelor of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan
Design
Ms. Dianne Keats, Master of Architecture, University of Calgary.

FDA Report on 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election Finances

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (19)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à FDA Report on 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election Finances

Similaire à FDA Report on 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election Finances (20)

Plus de Foundation for Democratic Advancement

Plus de Foundation for Democratic Advancement (15)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

FDA Report on 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election Finances