2006-06-28T13:31:00.000-07:00

THE GREEN PARTY OF CANADA LE PARTI VERT DU CANADA

Roger Benham, Secretary
Tel : 250-847-9041 Fax: 250 847-9007 skeenagreenparty2004@yahoo.ca
Website: http://skeenagreenparty.150m.com/

Preliminary 2006-06-11 Minutes of GPC Face-to-Face Council Meeting on Sunday June 11th 2006 in Ottawa
1.1 Roll Call of who Present
OFFICERS
Steve Kisby (Interim Chair) (Membership Chair)
Jim Harris (Leader),
Roger Benham (Secretary)
Melanie Ransom (Administration Chair)
Kevin Colton (Organising Chair)
Sharolyn Vettese (Francophone Secretary)
Angela Reid (Interim Fundraising Chair)
Bill Hulet (Communications Chair)

NON-VOTING OFFICERS
Lynette Tremblay (Deputy Leader)
Sharon Labchuk (Shadow Cabinet)

PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATIVES
Margaret Marean (Alberta Representative)
Amber Jones (Interim Saskatchewan Representative)
Catharine Johannson (Manitoba Representative)
Mike Nickerson (Ontario Representative)
Marc-Andre Gardoury (Quebec Representative)
Erik Millett (New Brunswick Representative)
Fiona Roe (Interim NFLD & Labrador Representative)
Marc-Andre Gardoury (Quebec Representative)

STAFF or Non-Councillors
Jean Langlois, Matthew Clarke

Officers, Representatives and Staff not present:
David Chernushenko (Deputy Leader)
Andrew Lewis (Deputy Leader)
Raphaël Thierrin (International Secretary) absent with stated reason
Doug Warkentin (BC Representative) (Absent with stated reason)
John Anderson (Chief Agent)
Sheila Richardson (Nova Scotia Representative)
Nedd Kenney (Nunuvut Representative)
Jeremy Stiles (PEI Representative )

Unappointed Councillors (Vacant): NWT Representative, Yukon Representative, Treasurer OBSERVERS and GUESTS None

Reminder to Council Members: Council members failing to attend two or more meetings without explanation are liable for censure.
Reminder from the Chair that under the telephone act, all people recording the meeting must state that they are so doing.
Green Spirit (Mike Nickerson)
Mike Nickerson repeated the following from "Life, Money & Illusion":
Allies and Spies
At a conference I attended last year, the organizers had every participant draw a slip of paper from a hat. We were told that, according to the note we had each drawn, we were to play the role of either an Ally or a Spy.
We were then divided into groups, and given a topic related to the conference theme. We were asked to seek consensus on the topic. If during the discussion, anyone suspected another participant of being a spy, a vote was initiated. If the majority in that group believed the person to be guilty, he or she was barred from speaking.
After the designated time, eight of the ten groups had censured people. The facilitator then explained that all of the slips of paper from the draw said "Ally." There were no "Spies."
Following the game, we were asked how we felt. Some of the people who had made the accusations were embarrassed to find that they had jumped to a false conclusion, based only on the suspicion that there were spies among them. Those fearing accusation and rejection found the exercise intimidating; afraid they would be taken for "spies," they had censured themselves from expressing dissenting views. Some of these mentioned feelings of shame at not having had the courage to speak up. Many of those deemed as "spies," even though they were "allies," expressed feelings of betrayal and rejection. Because distrust had run rampant in both directions, many good ideas were lost to the discussion. As a result of the exercise, participants better understood that differing opinions do not necessarily mean people should be distrusted.
1.2 Appoint Meeting Positions Facilitator SK., Cofacilitator LT, Recorder(s) SV and RB Timekeeper: MN.
Motion: To adopt this meeting's facilitator SK., co-facilitator LT, recorders SV and RB, and timekeeper: MN. Consensus.
Motion: To adopt the agenda for this Sunday's meeting as presented at http://lp.greenparty.ca/tiki-index.php?page=Federal+Council+Meeting+2006-06-11 .Consensus.

Motion: That all non-meeting process decisions of the Saturday's workshop be formal motions put forward to Sunday's (June 11, 2006) meeting of Federal Council. Consensus
6. Receive Translations, Resignations, Reports (5 minutes)6.1 Report from the Ontario Representative6.2 Two sets of minutes and report receive from Internal Elections Fairness Committee (IEFC)6.3 Motion: To receive the above items 6.1 through 6.2
Consensed.
1. Item 4.1 Co-Chairing Council would like to formalize the practice of gender equity. This being ex-officio is non-voting and is there to help perform the workload of the Chair.
Motion (J. Harris): To Appoint Sheila Richardson as Co-Chair of Council for the remainder of this Council’s term. Consensed

2. Item 5.2 Visioning
Jim Harris presented a vision to Council, "Winning 1,000,000 votes in '07", on how we can increase votes and donations based upon the findings of the 2006 election. JH is working on this with the FCC (Election Readiness).

Motion: That the federal Council appreciates the visioning for the GPC that Jim Harris has put forward, and requests that he works with the federal campaign committee, and the Executive Director, for its consideration. Consensed

3. Item 6 In Camera
That no. 4 of the Council Code of Conduct clearly deals with any type of written word, and that there is no need to amend it (Non-violence – No verbal or written aggression. Insults, threats, or other negative behaviours are not tolerated.)

Motion: That Lynette Tremblay, Marc-Andre Gadoury, and Fiona Roe be appointed as additional COC mediators.
Consensed4. Sunday's Item 7.2 Contested Membership Sub-Committee (Bill Hulet)
There should be a procedure regarding their contested GPC membership. The committee does not have authority to discipline. It may only investigate and make recommendations to Federal Council.The minimum age for membership in the GPC is 14 years. SV stressed that this motion defines process for problem cases. BH believes it takes a burden off staff. SK felt we need a criteria for refusing membership.JL said we had one in that for financial reasons, for refusing to sign and/or for not being a member of another political party. SK wondered what staff would do about say Tom Manley who left the GPC to become a Liberal Party Candidate. JL said once he’d left the Liberals there was no basis to refuse him. BH felt this very important as he should be able to return to the GPC. SV agreed. MR stressed that as long as they sign that they are not a member of another party … RB adamantly opposed to TM being allowed back in to the GPC. He cited the case of Emerson, an elected Liberal who recently crossed the floor to become a Conservative. JH said he’d only have to revoke his Liberal membership and he JH would welcome him back. FR felt one must separate what people do from what they are. RB repeated how serious he was in his views about TM.
Motion: That a 3-person sub-committee composed of Councillors be appointed for the purpose of investigating any member, whose eligibility for membership has been contested, and/or any member whose action may require a disciplinary measure. In accordance with the Constitution, that member will be advised that this process is underway, and has the opportunity to defend him or herself. The committee will make a recommendation to Federal Council, if it deems it necessary. If the member is dissatisfied with Council's decision, he or she can appeal to the Ombuds Committee.
Consensed.

Motion: That the committee be composed of Steve Kisby, Angela Reid, Bill Hulet, with Erik Millett as an alternate.
Consensed

It was agreed that the committee should investigate any members who are currently flagged. Action: SK
5. Item 10.2 Rules for Provincial/territorial associations put forward by Steve Kisby (See Addendum #1)

Motion: that Council adopt the motion “Rules for Provincial/Territorial Associations” stated in item 10.5 of Saturday's agenda, and that Council ask the ED to determine if there is any compliance or legal issues, and that they be brought back to Council.Saturday's agenda reference. See http://lp.greenparty.ca/tiki-index.php?page=Federal+Council+Meeting+2006-06-10 and http://lp.greenparty.ca/tiki-index.php?page=Federal+Council+Meeting+2006-06-11 See also: http://www.alternatives.com/gpc-admin/drafts/pa_ta_rules_draft.htm for "Rules for Provincial/Territorial Associations"

Consensed

6. Motion: That council amends section 2.2.7.c of the Revenue Sharing Implementation Plan to read: "Any borrowing/spending to provide EDAs with campaigning material (e.g. generic signs, broadsheets etc) will be an advance against the provincial/territorial division share." This is effective today [June 11, 2006], and does not apply to the January 23, 2006 general election.'

Consensed

7. Item 10.4 Transfers to Provincial Parties (Jim Harris)
The synergy between the federal and provincial parties benefits both parties.

Motion (C. Johannson): Be it resolved that Council transfers $150/month to the Green Party of Manitoba for the sharing of an office in Winnipeg, and that it will be repaid by the Manitoba Provincial Association if and when it is established. Consensed

8. Motion (LT, MAG, and SV): That an EDA registered before the adoption on March 5, 2006 of the "Minimum Requirements to Register and Operate a Green Party of Canada EDA" have one year subsequent to this date to meet these requirements.
Motion amended: That EDAs in existence prior to the new EDA requirements being adopted by council have until the end of Dec 31, 2006, to comply with the new EDA requirements.Consensed

9. Funds To Be Held In Trust MotionsSV left the meeting
Motion: That where an EDA, Provincial/Territorial Division, or Provincial/Territorial Association of the party cease to exit, the funds transferred to the party as a result of the cessation shall be held in trust by the party for the use of any new EDA, Provincial/Territorial Division, or Provincial/Territorial Association within that electoral district, province, or territory.That in an electoral districts where there is no EDA, an ad-hoc committee of members may raise funds directed to the party that are ear marked for use in that electoral district. Such funds will be held in trust by the party for that electoral district and, while there is no EDA in that electoral district, the ad-hoc committee may advise the party on where that many may be spent and, where an EDA forms in that electoral district, that money is transferred to that EDA.
Motions Tabled.

Note: There followed a meeting of the GPC Fund. JL took the minutes of that meeting. Essentially some members (RB included) felt that directors of the GPC Fund should be Chartered Accountants or similar. Some felt they should be able to offer many skills (JH). JL stressed that these directors review financial statements, advise the Executive Director on financial management and otherwise decide matters as if they were the Chief Agent of the Party. Any two of them can sign on behalf of the C.A. Present directors are SK, Chris Bradshaw, Pam Monroe, John Anderson and Jim Harris. GPC Council sets the budget. BH felt that it was not easy to find people with the skills, time and interest. JL reiterated that we need to select candidates with appropriate skills. MAG pointed out that a call had never been put out through the party seeking people with such skills. RB reinforced MAG. CJ stressed that the GPC Fund is simply an administrative function of the party. LT felt that it was good to have directors with vision and business skills. JL said that we need at least one director in Ottawa for signing purposes. MAG stressed that he knew Quebec people who had the skills and desire to be a director. It was agreed to circulate the minutes through Council.. It is desired that someone write a job description and circulate this with a request for applicants through the GPC. SK requested a legal review of quorum requirements and to report back to Council.

Motion: To appoint Chris Bradshaw as a director
FR, CJ, JH standing aside
Consensed

Motion: To appoint LT as a director
Abstain: JH RB, MM,
Opposed: MR, BH, AJ, CJ, MAG
In Favour: KC, AR, MN, EM, FR
Chair cast vote in Opposition.
Motion Fails.

There was a discussion on co-ordinated fund-raising. MN expressed the concern that EDA’s feel in giving their contact list to the hub resulting in the hub collecting and keeping all the money with none left for the EDA. JH pointed out that the EDA’s can opt out of 3 of the 4 mailings. JL felt it would be helpful to propose a form of splitting the revenues by setting up rules as to how fundraising is done. He noted that it would open the Revenue Sharing Agreement ‘can of worms’. MN reiterated that there is distrust of the hub by the EDA’s. SK felt a fundraising protocol being established is desirable.

10. Adopt English Minutes 5.1 April 9, 2006, Meeting Minutes circulated by Roger Benham to Councillors off-list April 19 and again June 6, 2006.5.2 May 28, 2006, Meeting Minutes available on the Wiki page at http://lp.greenparty.ca/tiki-index.php?page=GPC+Federal+Council+Meeting+2006-05-28+MinutesCouncil discussed what should be minutes as recently what is described a summary of motions as well as a written transcript is being done for Federal Council meetings. It was noted that the direction to general meeting from the membership is that minutes be motions with a brief unbiased and impersonalized statement of context (the context mainly for the benefit of those who read the minutes who where not present at the meeting). There was no opposition to written transcripts be done. JL felt that the minutes are inaccurate. RB is steadfast in his belief that his minutes are unbiased and give the members who care to read them a clear picture of the character of each Council member in as much as what they say and how they vote at Council Meetings is clearly recorded. He feels that members often vote for Councillors without having any understanding about what those Councillors feel. He believes his minutes give members the opportunity to properly assess Councillors along with giving some form of detail as to the discussion which went into reaching the conclusions attained.Motion: To adopt the minutes as made available above.
Motion amended to (paraphrased from memory): RB and SK to proposed to council what should constitute minutes and other recordings to the meeting, that are acceptable to all, and submit the April 9 and May 28 minutes using that format.

Agreement
11. Council Position Job DescriptionsMotion: A committee of three council members will identify and compile current decisions of council and put forward changes needed to the web site that lists Federal Council job descriptions.

CONSENSED
Motion: Members of that committee are SK, AR, AJ, who will report to gpc-council in a week.

CONSENSUS with RB standing aside RB objecting that these people are mostly inexperienced Councillors and feeling that they should be experienced.

12. Liability Insurance Cost-sharing Formula (Jean Langlois) (See Addendum #2)
RB sought to table this item because Council had been given no time to review this. He believed these motion proposals to be out of order. The information was in fact sent out to Council on the 8th June when RB had already left his home in BC for this Council Meeting. JL presented this to Council for immediate action (not the first time he has done this). Council over-ruled RB.
JL noted that staff have at last found a company willing to give the GPC liability insurance (in case someone for instance hurts themselves whilst at a GPC event. The GPC has never had the ability to prove that it has insurance which would allow it to rent places etc. For a coverage of $5,000,000.00 we are being offered our cost would be $21,000.00 annually. As the GPC gets bigger, so this sum will increase.A staff report including three options was circulated by email to Federal Councillors on Thursday, 08 Jun 2006.
Options were
(1) that the Hub (Office) pay $7000.00, the prov. Divs or Assocs pay $1750 each and the EDA’s pay $58.00 each
(2) Each pays 1/3 rd (thus EDA’s pay $168.00 each)
(3) Do a hybrid meaning that the Hub/Central Party pays 1/3rd and 2/3rds is split amongst all other units of the party (the EDA’s thus paying $113.00)
Strong support from BH. Weak support from MN who stated that his EDA operates on 3 days a year whilst the hub office is open all year. JL stated that this insurance covers all GPC functions anywhere in Canada. Firm opposition from RB who said this would kill sapling EDA’s. He thought it totally unfair on small EDA’s not even having offices and not putting on frequent (if ever) events. JH felt this to be cheap in giving the GPC peace of mind in covering liability insurance. MR asked if it covered director’s insurance for the GPC Fund. JL said no. The premium will likely increase each year however the splitting of the costs will likely decrease as there become more units. EM expressed his great support for this insurance as another group he was in in NB had been sued over a remark made though they’d had to sue their insurance company to recover the money; he felt it bordered on negligence for an EDA not to have insurance. JL noted that this insurance will cover all 308 campaigns whether there are EDA’s or not. FR felt it had been an oversight that the GPC has been operating without insurance. BH felt that JL has earned his pay doing this work. He said Guelph EDA could pay a higher share. AJ felt that each EDA should pay in accordance with their number of members. RB agreed saying that proportionally the payment increases the smaller the number of members. The rest of Council felt it fair that every unit of the party should pay an equal share. The share paid by each EDA and each provincial division/association shall be deducted from the total revenue sharing pools prior to the calculation and then distributed according to the RSA. Likewise for the provincial divisions/associations. JH told RB that a further motion could be put after the one below but as it turned out the Chair (SK) would not let RB speak further on this. JH felt this to be a profound advancement for the party and thanked JL who in turn said that the staff had done all the work.

Motion: To instruct staff to proceed with the originally proposed Option 2 unless and until Federal Council directs staff to use a different formula.

(This puts the onus on the GPC Federal Council to change this formula if needed. Council will set up a sub-committee to receive comments and suggestions as to how to handle this cost sharing. The sub-committee will report back to Council with their recommendations).
In Favour: MR, BH, KC, AR, MM, AJ, MN, EM, FR
Opposed: RB, MAG
Abstaining: SK, JH
Motion passed.
Motion (SK): There be formed a committee to improve this plan and to present Council with recommendations after GPC EDA list consultations. The committee to comprise AJ, AR and that they report back to Council via the GPC Council list before the next Council Meeting.
CONSENSED

RB as secretary notes: I was not allowed to make my proposal as SK did not want me to speak. I had left the meeting breaking quorum but JH came out and informed me I’d achieve nothing that way as Council could get quorum by posting the motion on line. I told him my proposal which he agreed should be acceptable. My proposal is that since this insurance issue is a Party issue, it should be paid for by the party out of the funding (whatever the source) received by the party before any of that money is otherwise spent. Thereby nothing is deducted from the EDA’s in an unfair manner.

13. Committee Governance Documents (Steve Kisby)This item is the carried over from May 28 meeting of Shadow Cabinet Governance (tabled from March 19 meeting)
Motion: That Council receive, but not adopt, committee governance documents. In receiving those documents they be made accessible to party members for reference.

CONSENSED

14. (12.2) Council Governance Team (tabled from April 9 and May 28 meetings)Motion: That Council establish a governance committee consisting of 5 federal councillors who will consider governance procedures for the Federal Council, and when a procedure has been determined as appropriate, it will be brought forth to Council for consideration. Until the governance committee has put forth a recommendation, the status quo will be the modus operandus.The ED to the May 28 meeting advised "Council already adopted a more detailed motion in this regard in the annual plan (Program 2, Governance). Council needs to implement this rather than debate motions that reinvent the wheel."
Motion to withdraw (because of ED notes).

Consensed

15. (12.3,4,5) Organization Chart (carried over from May 28 meeting)SK noted that any document put on the GPC website should show a date of adoption and that it should be clear when it is just an opinion or an interpretation.

Action item for minutes:1) That the chart at http://kevinsgreenpartyblog.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/4/9/1874717.html be posted on a public area of the website so members and non-members can learn about and understand this organizational structure. The document will be clearly described as an interpretation and open for discussion.10.3.4 Sunday's Item 12.5 Document ReleaseStrategic documents should be kept to FC and only to others on a need to know basis. Others documents, may be made available in the members area of the party's web site. All documents should be published with an adoption status, and if the document has been adopted (i.e. is a draft/proposal), should have a strategic status (i.e. confidential to FC only, etc.) assigned by it's author.Motion: That the following documents be published on the members' website, with a caveat that they are working documents and do not necessarily represent the actual direction, priorities or actions taken by council or the party:a) Council Planning - 2006 03 04.ppt - This is a presentation given to council at our March 2006 in-person meeting.b) July 2005 Meeting Summary.xls - This is a summary of the priorities council started defining at our July 2005 in-person meeting.c) Party Infrastructure - 2006 02 25.doc - This is a draft version of a summary of work that needs to be done to the party. It was sent to council prior to our March 2006 in-person meeting.d) Green and Growing.doc - This is a document prepared by David Scrymgeour after our October 2004 in-person council meeting. The council elected in August 2004 had reviewed an earlier draft of that document as we started trying to identify the priorities and direction for the party during our term.
Consensed with one standing aside (MR)

MR is worried about putting stuff on our website as useful to other parties. She feels that KC’s documents are too recent and should remain confidential. SK felt that strategic documents should be kept private to Federal Council (not open to members). KC supported the idea of noting a level of secrecy on each document and he feels that we n3eed much m0ore tim4e to review these. JH suggested that the document author should assess/suggest a level of confidentiality to Council (Council can reclassify). RB agreed with KC that these documents in question are not confidential. SK felt that after a time documents should cease to be confidential.
16. (12.6) Council Web Page (Kevin Colton, carried over from May 28 meeting)
Motion: That staff be directed to work with Council to create a Council web page in the members' area of the GPC website.Motion to withdraw because this is in the works.

Consensed

17. (13.1) Proposal for 2 day Council meeting that immediately follows National Convention (General Meeting) to be a join meeting of outgoing and incoming Federal Councillors.Motion: Staff are asked to plan a two day retreat of the incoming Federal Council immediately following the National Convention (General Meeting) where outgoing Federal Councillors are invited to attend. It is suggested that 1/2 day of that meeting be Governance/Orientation training for councillors. The party will not cover travel cost for this meeting but will cover meal and will strive for billeting accommodations.
RB opposed because only the wealthier GPC members will be able to attend this meeting; he thinks the whole idea unfair to poorer members. KC opposed as many people working in employment will be unable to take the time off work. He feels there has been insufficient preparation. Were he to be elected Chair, he should chair the first meeting. Mr felt that anyone should be able to attend.
In Favour: AR, AJ, MN, MAG, FR
Opposed: RB, BH, KC, EM
Abstain: SK, JH, MR

Motion Carried17. Motion: Staff do background checks on contestants in this internal election including credit and criminal reference check.Opposed are RB, MR, EM, KC. RB and MR left the meeting breaking quorum.
No vote taken.
RB questioned staff’s desire to doubt member’s honesty and integrity. He felt this to be an invasion of privacy. He dislikes staff doing this. MR doubted these being prerequisites for candidacy. EM expressed strong concerns regarding credit checking. He disliked changing the rules mid-stream. He finds it most offensive. KC opposed because of changing the rules mid-stream. MN opposed.

18. Meeting Adjourned about 5.30 p.m.
ADDENDUM # 1
Provincial Divisions vs Provincial Associations Staff ReportThe views expressed below are not law. They have just been provided to assist you with the interpretation of the Canada Elections Act.Steve Kisby's Interpretation:"Staff and Council have been calling a provincial organization of members that meets the definition of Article 7 of the party's constitution but does not apply to be a 'Provincial Division' as per new sections of the Elections Canada Act a 'Provincial Association' or PA. (A TA is the territorial equivalent of a PA.)Provincial organizations of members that complete the 'Provincial Division' registration process in the Act we've been calling 'Provincial Divisions' or PDs.PAs and PDs are both internal structures of the central party, both are units of the party, both are protected by part 4 of Article 15 of the party's constitution, and there can be only one of PD or PA in any given province. The differences are the registration process is more vigorous and cumbersome for PDs, PDs have to report directly to Elections Canada and put the entire party in jeopardy if they don't. PAs, on the other hand, only need their financial officer registered under the Act, and the central party can report on their behalf.As far as I've been able to determine, the only meaningful benefit of a PD over PA according to the Act is the privilege of receiving a portion of the government transfer funds directly. We don't do that in the Green Party of Canada because the transfer portion is not a fixed amount and is a calculation and distributed under the party's Revenue Sharing program.There is no other advantage and only disadvantages (unless I've missed something in the Act or accompanying Act Regulations) in having PDs over PAs. As such, Federal Council is reviewing the matter at its June 10/11, 2006, in person Meeting."Compliance Officer's opinion:Like Steve, the only benefits I could find were under Part 18 division 3 of the Act: "Financial Administration of Registered Parties" - Quarterly Allowances
Quarterly Allowances
Quarterly allowance435.01 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall determine, for each quarter of a calendar year, an allowance payable to a registered party whose candidates for the most recent general election preceding that quarter received at that election at least(a) 2% of the number of valid votes cast; or(b) 5% of the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the registered party endorsed a candidate.435.02(3) :Payment(3) The Receiver General shall, on receipt of a certificate, pay to the registered party out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund the amount set out in the certificate. The payment may also be made in whole or in part to any provincial division of the party, as authorized in writing by the leader of the party.The only other benefit I could find is for the taxpayer under provisions 73. (1) Subsections 127(3) to (4.1) of the Income Tax Act :
INCOME TAX ACT
73. (1) Subsections 127(3) to (4.1) of the Income Tax Act are replaced by the following:Monetary contributions - Canada Elections Act(3) There may be deducted from the tax otherwise payable by a taxpayer under this Part for a taxation year in respect of the total of all amounts each of which is a monetary contribution referred to in the Canada Elections Act made by the taxpayer in the year to a registered party, a provincial division of a registered party, a registered association or a candidate, as those terms are defined in that Act,(a) when that total does not exceed $400, 75% of that total,(b) when that total exceeds $400 and does not exceed $750, $300 plus 50% of the amount by which that total exceeds $400, and(c) when that total exceeds $750, the lesser of(i) $650, and(ii) $475 plus 33 1/3% of the amount by which the total exceeds $750,if payment of each monetary contribution that is included in that total is evidenced by filing with the Minister a receipt, signed by the agent authorized under that Act to accept that monetary contribution, that contains prescribed information.Apart from these benefits, it is my understanding that there are obligations under the Canada Elections Act requiring the leader of the party to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the following information:Definition of "provincial division"(4) In this Act, "provincial division" means a division of a registered party for a province or territory in relation to which the leader of the party has provided the following to the Chief Electoral Officer:(a) the name of the division and of the province or territory;(b) the name of the party;(c) the address of the office at which records of that division are maintained and to which communications may be addressed;(d) the names and addresses of the chief executive officer and other officers of the division;(e) the name and address of any registered agent appointed by the division; and(f) a declaration signed by the leader of the party certifying that the division is a division of the party.This Act applies to information provided under this subsection as if it were information referred to in paragraphs 366(2)(a) to (h).There is also an obligation to report any changes in information:Report of changes in information(5) Within 15 days after a change in the information referred to in subsection (4), the chief executive officer of the provincial division shall report the change in writing to the chief agent of the registered party.Failure to do so constitutes an offence:
Offences under Part 18 (Finance)
Strict liability offences - summary conviction497. (1) Every person is guilty of an offence who(q.011) being the chief executive officer of a provincial division, contravenes subsection 435.02(5) (failure to report provincial division changes);
Additional Information: Cited legislation
PART 18DIVISION 3FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF REGISTERED PARTIESGeneralQuarterly AllowancesCertificate435.02 (1) As soon as practicable after the end of each quarter, the Chief Electoral Officer shall provide the Receiver General with a certificate that sets out the amount of the allowance payable to a registered party for that quarter.Delay for non-compliance(2) If a registered party has not provided all the documents that it is required to provide under sections 424, 424.1 and 429, the Chief Electoral Officer shall postpone providing the certificate for any quarter until the party has provided those documents.Payment(3) The Receiver General shall, on receipt of a certificate, pay to the registered party out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund the amount set out in the certificate. The payment may also be made in whole or in part to any provincial division of the party, as authorized in writing by the leader of the party.Definition of "provincial division"(4) In this Act, "provincial division" means a division of a registered party for a province or territory in relation to which the leader of the party has provided the following to the Chief Electoral Officer:(a) the name of the division and of the province or territory;(b) the name of the party;(c) the address of the office at which records of that division are maintained and to which communications may be addressed;(d) the names and addresses of the chief executive officer and other officers of the division;(e) the name and address of any registered agent appointed by the division; and(f) a declaration signed by the leader of the party certifying that the division is a division of the party.This Act applies to information provided under this subsection as if it were information referred to in paragraphs 366(2)(a) to (h).Report of changes in information(5) Within 15 days after a change in the information referred to in subsection (4), the chief executive officer of the provincial division shall report the change in writing to the chief agent of the registered party.S.C. 2003, c. 19, s. 40.PART 19ENFORCEMENTPeace and Good Order at ElectionsOffences under Part 18 (Finance)(q.011) being the chief executive officer of a provincial division, contravenes subsection 435.02(5) (failure to report provincial division changes);INCOME TAX ACT73. (1) Subsections 127(3) to (4.1) of the Income Tax Act are replaced by the following:Monetary contributions - Canada Elections Act(3) There may be deducted from the tax otherwise payable by a taxpayer under this Part for a taxation year in respect of the total of all amounts each of which is a monetary contribution referred to in the Canada Elections Act made by the taxpayer in the year to a registered party, a provincial division of a registered party, a registered association or a candidate, as those terms are defined in that Act,(a) when that total does not exceed $400, 75% of that total,(b) when that total exceeds $400 and does not exceed $750, $300 plus 50% of the amount by which that total exceeds $400, and(c) when that total exceeds $750, the lesser of(i) $650, and(ii) $475 plus 33 1/3% of the amount by which the total exceeds $750,if payment of each monetary contribution that is included in that total is evidenced by filing with the Minister a receipt, signed by the agent authorized under that Act to accept that monetary contribution, that contains prescribed information.
ADDENDUM # 2
Options for cost-sharing for liability insurance

Background
For some time, various units of the party have been requesting that the national office facilitate the purchasing by units of liability insurance. National office has succeeded in finding an insurer to provide general commercial liability insurance. We can not pick and choose which units are covered and which are not. This insurance covers all units of the party for a total general liability of $5,000,000. The annual premium is $21,000.

The Revenue Sharing Implementation Plan establishes a basis for cost-sharing which mimics the same split as government revenue. However the specific context of liability insurance suggests that a different cost-sharing formula would be more equitable.

In the eyes of the insurer, liability increases with the number of independent decision-making bodies in the insured organization. The existence of independent units contributes to increasing the premium, regardless of size or activity of any given unit. The fact that we have EDA’s adds to the cost. The fact that we have PDs adds to the cost. In other words, the cost of insuring a decentralized organization is high.

Option 1: Mimicking revenue sharing
1/3 national office (1/3 of premium paid by national office)
1/3 PDs (1/3 of premium split equally among existing PDs)
1/3 EDAs (1/3 of premium split equally among exiting EDAs)

The effective date for the above calculation is the date of purchase of the insurance policy. (i.e. splits are among the registered units that exist on that day)

Estimates
Central: $7,000 Each PD: $1,750 Each EDA: $58

(For the purpose of estimates we assume 4 PDs and 120 EDAs)

Option 2: Equitable by actual contribution to cost
Every registered unit of the party pays an equal share of the premium. (as of date of purchase)

Estimate = $21,000/125 units = $168.

Estimates
Central: $168 Each PD: $168 Each EDA: $168

Option 3: Hybrid of 1 and 2 above
1/3 central party
2/3 split equally among all other units

Estimates
Central: $7,000 Each PD: $113 Each EDA: $113

GPC Council Meeting Minutes