Visit our sponsor: PACSCanada.com    Visit our sponsor: Your Ad Here    Visit our sponsor: Beaus.ca
Visit our sponsor: Your Ad Here

Hill Times Article: Time to Modernize Election Process

Following the tabling of the Chief Electoral Officer’s Report to Parliament on the 40th General Election last week, I filed a story for the Hill Times, which was published in this morning’s edition.  It is reprinted here with kind permission.

Time to modernize election process, urges Canada’s chief electoral officer

Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand tells Parliament the Elections Act needs an overhaul.

By ALICE FUNKE

The wave of legislative reforms to federal political financing and reporting rules in recent years has resulted in an increasingly complex system that needs more coherence, advises Chief Electoral Office Marc Mayrand in his comprehensive post-2008 general election report released last week.

Saying “we need to modernize the electoral process and make it more efficient,” Mr. Mayrand is recommending that Parliament enact a series of changes to make the rules more consistent between the five main political entities he regulates—parties, candidates, nomination contestants, riding associations, and leadership candidates—to strengthen his ability to ensure compliance, but also to reduce some of the unnecessary burden on largely volunteer bodies.

Topping his list is a request for authority to ask for supporting documentation from political parties for the expenses reported on their national campaign returns, both to determine that the expenses were properly incurred before paying out their rebates, and to ensure that the national spending limit was adhered to.

Currently national parties file a one-page audited report summarizing their campaign expenditures under a set of nine categories, but unlike the case with candidates or riding associations [actually, it's only the case for candidates], the law does not allow Elections Canada to request receipts or other supporting documents in order to certify those expenses. Given that some $29-million in public funds were paid out as election expense rebates in the 2008 election, Mr. Mayrand said he believes that his power of oversight for parties should be at least equivalent to that for candidates, riding associations and leadership contestants in this regard, and be consistent with similar powers already granted to every one of his provincial counterparts under their governing statutes.

A second key area needing consistent rules is the area of contribution limits for leadership contestants, versus political parties, candidates and riding associations. Contributions to a leadership contestant are currently capped for the entire contest, while contributions to a candidate, riding or political party are capped on an annual basis, something Mr. Mayrand said he believes should be the case for leadership contestants as well.

The legislative regime for leadership contestants was put into place before later rule changes prohibiting corporate and union donations and further capping contributions came into effect, and should be reviewed to ensure that all the pieces work together, Mr. Mayrand explained.

“Often you’ll see the recommendations reflect issues that happen as a result of successive legislative changes, and no-one’s taking a step back and asking, ‘Are we still making sense,’ ” he said.

Mr. Mayrand is also suggesting the introduction of some administrative penalties when parties or candidates overspend their limits, as is the case in Ontario and Manitoba. Currently the commissioner of elections can send a warning letter or enter into compliance agreements with candidates, or prosecute them. Setting an administrative penalty, such as a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their election expense rebate, would offer a middle ground, and provide more timely consequences and better compliance, Mr. Mayrand said.

A total of 50 recommended changes to the Elections Act, covering the electoral process, political financing, governance and a variety of technical issues, will now be studied by the Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee.

Another key area needing attention is that both citizens and political parties want to do more business electronically with Elections Canada, Mr. Mayrand said. But in order to permit both e-registration on the voters’ list and the electronic filing of many party and candidate reports, an amendment to the Elections Act is required to authorize a secure non-signature means of authentication for electronic transactions.

E-registration is set to commence in the fall of 2011, but Mr. Mayrand said the act needs to be “modernized” in order to provide a “fuller range of e-services,” and to obtain Parliamentary authorization to commence pilot projects of i-voting for certain groups of voters during a by-election.

Alice Funke is the publisher of the Pundits’ Guide to Canadian Federal Elections (punditsguide.ca)

Tags: ,

4 Responses to “Hill Times Article: Time to Modernize Election Process”

  1. RCO says:

    I don’t disagree that some changes are needed to our electoral system which seems to be outdated . i haven’t read all the recomendations yet but i’m sure that there is some good ideas in there . only thing i don’t like is idea of online voting which i’m not sure if its been suggested but its not something i think would work even though it sounds good to some .

  2. RCO, I tend to agree with you about internet voting in general … at least for the forseeable future.

    But the CEO says that they need to get some experience with it, and I think they ought to. The obvious place to me would be with military and overseas voters, as it would likely be as secure as anything they’re doing now (and probably faster), and they’d have the benefit of the secure military and Foreign Affairs networks to work through. The political parties don’t really scrutineer those voting processes now (except for the counting).

    There’s also a case to be made for finding technological solutions to helping disabled voters have a private ballot, which the blind or quadraplegics don’t have at all at the moment.

    There was pretty universally negative feedback on this when I asked readers about it before. The thing is, if the parties can’t scrutineer the results properly … especially in some of the very very close 3- and 4-party races we’ve been having … some of the narrow margin outcomes would be litigated until the cows came home, instead of being accepted (albeit reluctantly) after a several day judicial recount.

  3. jamesmo01 says:

    There is one change that Mr. Mayrand recommends that I find reprehensible: “Setting an administrative penalty, such as a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their election expense rebate, would offer a middle ground, and provide more timely consequences and better compliance.” Wouldn’t this just allow campaigns to overspend if they have the means to pay for it?

  4. Hi James,

    I believe the administrative penalty is proposed to be in addition to any other sanctions that would be applied to those found *deliberately* overspending.

    The CEO was explaining that even where they would bring charges against those folks (which is hard), the overspenders still gain a financial advantage relative to their competitors if no administrative penalties are provided for in the Act.

    Sometimes, as with many voluntary organizations, overspending can be slight and inadvertent. A penalty would just bring that campaign into line with the others, even though the financial agent might also be issued a warning letter, or have to sign a compliance order.

    The other point the CEO made is that the candidates should bear equal responsibility with their financial agents. Right now it’s only the latter who are legally responsible.

    Thanks for reading, and for taking the time to comment, James.

Leave a Reply