Unsuccessful nomination candidates risk losing a $1,000 “Good Conduct Bond” they were required to post with the Conservative Party when they applied to seek a nomination if they do anything the party decides doesn’t meet its criteria for good conduct. If, however, they meet the party’s test they get their $1,000 back at the end of this election campaign.
One former nomination contestant describes the bond as “a gag order.”
“In my case, if I say anything negative, I forfeit the thousand bucks,” said the contestant, who spoke with iPolitics on condition they not be identified.
“In the case of the gag order money, that thousand dollars, if I am deemed to have (shown) bad behaviour, that money goes back to the riding association, not to me,” they added.
The nomination candidate said they were deeply troubled by the existence of the bond.
“It is anti-democratic and highly controlling: entirely inconsistent with how a Parliamentary democracy is supposed to work,” they told iPolitics. “An MP is expected to represent a constituency and should be free to express their views as well as his or her own. The system was never meant to function by squelching free speech by the edict of one man.”
“How is anyone supposed to bring up new ideas? And how can you test ideas if debate is forbidden.”
The Conservatives are the only major party that requires prospective candidates to post a Good Conduct Bond. The NDP does not require candidates to post a bond. The Liberals began requiring a $1,000 bond from nomination contestants in this election. It is non-refundable and there are no strings attached.
A review by iPolitics of a sampling of financial reports filed by Conservative nomination contestants with Elections Canada suggests a number of successful nomination candidates may also be waiting for their cheques. Of the 20 nomination candidates surveyed, only eight successful candidates indicated the Conservative Party had returned their $1,000 by the time they filed their financial statements. Five successful candidates did not report having received their $1,000 from the party. Neither did five unsuccessful candidates.
Financial statements for two of the 20 Conservative nomination candidates did not include any bond payment to the party or any reimbursement.
Former CPC MP Brent Rathgeber, who is currently running for reelection as an independent, says that in 2008 he only got his $1,000 back at the end of the election campaign, while in 2011 it was returned much faster.
Rathgeber said his understanding is that the bond is intended to stop unsuccessful candidates from speaking out against the party.
“I think it is to prevent against sour grapes, unsuccessful candidates joining other camps or badmouthing the successful nomination candidate or doing anything that is seen as not being a good team player.”
A review of the Conservative nomination contests for this election by iPolitics reveals that there are an estimated 122 unsuccessful nomination contestants.
While the Conservative Party’s Good Conduct Bond is coming to light now, the clause appears to date back to at least October 2006. At the time, the party also had a “Non-Frivolous bond” requiring contestants to get at least 10 per cent of the vote on the nomination contest’s first ballot or risk losing their $1,000.
The “Non-Frivolous bond” no longer appears in the party’s rules for candidates.
While the Conservative Party’s rules for nomination candidates do not define what constitutes good conduct, the declaration nomination candidates are required to sign when they apply gives some indication of what the party expects of its nomination candidates. It includes a requirement to keep the party’s review of their application confidential, not to use membership information for any purpose other than campaigning, not to use the party logo during the nomination campaign and not to publicly oppose the candidate who wins the nomination.
“I will not seek the nomination of another political party, or run as an independent candidate, and will not endorse, campaign for or publicly support any opposing candidate or political party, in the next federal election,” reads a copy of the declaration obtained by iPolitics.
“I further confirm that following the nomination process, when the nominated candidate resulting from the process contests the election, I will take no steps, and make no comments whether public or amongst Party personnel or members which could be interpreted or understood to oppose the nominated candidate in any way.”
The party’s 51-page application form for nomination candidates also asks candidates extensive questions about their past and requires them to sign waivers to allow the Conservative Party to view their files with the Canada Revenue Agency, the Canada Border Services Agency, Department of National Defence and Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Conservative Party spokesman Cory Hann was tight-lipped about the party’s Good Conduct Bond, saying “it is an internal party matter.” Nor would he say whether any nomination candidates have ever forfeited the bond because of their conduct.
Veteran Conservatives say the Good Conduct Bond appears to have been introduced sometime after Stephen Harper became leader of the party.
Keith Beardsley, who came from the Progressive Conservative Party and served several years in Harper’s PMO, said the Progressive Conservatives did not have a good conduct bond.
Beardsley said this is the first he had heard of one, speculating it could have been brought in after the merger to “stop people from shooting their mouths off if they lost.”
“It sounds like it’s just a guarantee that they don’t go around badmouthing everyone in the press and the party and the nominated candidate.”
Beardsley admits it reduces the freedom of speech of unsuccessful candidates but points out they agree to the terms when they seek the nomination.
“It does cut down on your freedom of speech – there is no doubt about it but then you entered into a process willingly, supposedly having read all the fine print.”
If the rules call for the Conservative party to hold on to the $1,000 bonds for unsuccessful candidates but not successful ones, it could be because once someone becomes a candidate, the party watches them carefully, Beardsley explained.
“I can tell you once you’re in, they are down your throats if you say anything. They monitor every conceivable thing that you would ever say. Within minutes of you saying something, someone from headquarters or from the war room will be giving you a dressing down. It doesn’t take them very long.”
“I know some candidates in the last election where that happened. Very simple little things and the war room was on top of them within minutes.”
Inky Mark, a former Reform Party and Canadian Alliance MP who is running as an independent in this election, said the Good Conduct Bond did not exist in either of those two parties.
“I would say Harper probably put that in himself,” said Mark who served as an MP from 1997 to 2010.
Mark said the Good Conduct Bond may be the result of Harper’s experience with the Reform Party, where nomination contests sometimes resulted in fights and unsuccessful candidates lashing out publicly or crossing to other parties.
“He doesn’t want any backlash, any criticism of the process, nothing. He just doesn’t want any negative commentary. It’s just his idea of controlling everything, everything around him.”
Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca/
Author: Elizabeth Thompson
No comments:
Post a Comment