From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown Factum for May 10 $250 Elections Expenses Cap   
      
   JCT: I'm suing the Chief Election Officer to strike down the   
   $250 cap on auditor's fees for null returns like mine. When   
   the auditor charged $750 and I have to pay the excess about   
   a form with zero numbers they force me to file with an   
   auditor's report. 40 years ago, sure, $250 could pay for   
   several hours of accountant time but no longer.   
      
                                           File No: T-561-15   
                     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA   
   Between:   
                           JOHN TURMEL   
                                                Plaintiff   
                               AND   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                Defendant   
      
                         CANADA'S FACTUM   
                       STATEMENT OF DEFENCE   
      
   CR: 1... John Turmel alleges that the minimum that the   
   subsidy provides is "unconscionably miserly" and breaches   
   his rights under the Charter S. 3 to fun as a candidate in   
   federal elections.   
      
   2... the electoral financing regime gives them access to   
   different tools of public support to help subsidize their   
   campaigns. A linchpin of this regime is the requirement to   
   have an auditor...   
      
   JCT: Guess how! Just raise funds! And I'd need even more   
   fundraising just for increase cost of more for accounting   
   for contributions.   
      
   CR: 3... Requirement for auditor helps to meet the important   
   public policy purposes of helping candidates finance their   
   engagement   
      
   JCT: Forcing me to pay for an auditor for a null return   
   helps me finance me.   
      
   CR: 4. Issue is subsidy, minimum $250 up to 3%.   
      
   JCT: We're not discussing where it's a $250 minimum, we're   
   discussing where it's a $250 maximum.   
      
   CR: The regime provides candidates with access to other   
   measures to help pay for any potential difference, as long   
   as the candidate participates.. by raising and spending   
   money.   
      
   5. John Turmel has a history of running and not raising and   
   spending money. His auditor receives $250 for his null   
   return. Mr. Turmel has failed to meet the burden of proof   
   that lies on him to demonstrate how this minimum subsidy   
   breaches his right to run in a federal election. Regardless,   
   the provision is justifiable under S.1. It helps to serve a   
   pressing and substantial objective and is proportional in   
   light of the other tools to pay for any outstanding amounts   
   as long as the candidate engages in raising and spending   
   funds.   
      
   JCT: Raising money solely to pay for my auditor?   
      
   CR: B. JOHN TURMEL'S ADJUDICATIVE FACTS   
      
   6. John Turmel brought an action seeking a declaration that   
   S.477.75(b) of the Canada Elections Act (CEA) is of no force   
   and effect.   
      
   JCT: Now we've seen that government lawyers usually   
   misrepresent what's going on. Exaggerate the claim and then   
   attack the exaggeration. Here's what I actually claimed:   
       A) a Declaration pursuant to s.52 (1) of the Canadian   
       Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) that the 35-   
       year-old reimbursement cap of $250 set in S.477.75 of   
       the Canada Elections Act unconstitutionally limits the   
       right to participate in the electoral process;   
      
   JCT: So I didn't bring an action that S.477.75(b) is   
   invalid, I asked that "the 35-year-old reimbursement cap of   
   $250 set in S.477.75" is invalid. Guess they're hoping the   
   judge won't notice it's not what I asked for.   
      
   CR: 8. Mr. Turmel ran in Toronto-Centre and his auditor   
   charged him $678 for auditing a nil campaign.   
      
   JCT: Around the same they're paid for nil return in Ontario   
   elections.   
      
   CR: The auditor received the minimum amount of subsidy and   
   Mr. Turmel was responsible for paying the remaining $428.   
   Mr. Turmel stated he was able to and would pay this   
   remaining amount.   
      
   JCT: I actually said:   
       1. As a pauper who receives no income that I don't have   
       to beg, borrow or win at the poker tables, contesting   
       elections without contributions has always been possible   
       as long as there were no other expenses. While any   
       auditor expenses were covered, there were no obstacles.   
       2. Upon the retirement of my 35-year auditor whose   
       familiarity with filing elections return made the $250   
       acceptable over the years, I chose a Brantford   
       accounting firm that did my Ontario provincial returns   
       and was then stunned by the overage in the auditor's   
       bill which happened to be commensurate with what they   
       charged the Ontario Government for auditing my nil   
       returns. Though full of zeroes, there are several forms   
       that are transacted.   
       3. The cap established in 1974 is an obstacle to my   
       exercising my political rights.   
      
   JCT: And the Crown got that I said I was able and would pay.   
   1. As a pauper who receives no income and I'm able to pay?   
   It's because I'm pauper that I'm in court and they conclude   
   I offered to pay? I don't want to stiff my auditor.   
      
   CR: C. DESCRIPTION OF SUBSIDY - HOW IT WORKS.   
      
   9.-14.   
      
   D. ELECTORAL FINANCING REGIME IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS   
      
   15.-18.   
      
   19. The current electoral financing regime is multifaceted   
   public measures of financial support accessible to   
   candidates, apart from the subsidy, include:   
   (a) the political contribution tax credit to encourage   
   supporters to make contributions..   
   (b) return of full amount of $1,000 deposit.   
      
   JCT: I should use my money I deposited to get into the game   
   to pay my auditor once they send it back?   
      
   CR: (c) reimbursement of 60% of elections expenses with 10%   
   of the vote.   
      
   JCT: And if I have no expenses? But for the auditor?   
      
   CR: E. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE AUDITOR'S SUBSIDY   
   1) The Amount of the Auditor's Subsidy   
      
   20.-24. How it changed over the years.   
      
   2) Consideration by Chief Elections Officer and House of   
   Commons Standing Committee   
      
   25. CEO recommends amendments   
      
   26. the CEO has considered the auditor's subsidy in his   
   reports on four different occasions:   
   (a) 1996 CEO suggested imposing additional audit   
   requirements and a corresponding review of the subsidy...   
   (b) 2001 CEO suggested the subsidy should be based on the   
   total expenses the auditor has to review.   
      
   JCT: In my case, zero expenses.   
      
   CR: (c) 2005 suggested revisions to correct ambiguities.   
      
   JCT: So what revisions and what ambiguities that relate?   
      
   CR: (d) 2010 CEO suggested that those candidates who do not   
   conduct financial transactions should not be required to   
   prepare an auditor's report..   
      
   JCT: That's the way it used to work in Ontario, you swore a   
   Declaration of No Contributions or Expenses. But they have   
   since made the requirement zero campaigns have auditors the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)