Modernizing Ontario’s
Electoral Process:
Recommendations for
Legislative Change
Chief Electoral Officer’s Submission to the
Select Committee on Elections
February 4th, 2009
Elections Ontario
51 Rolark Drive
Toronto, Ontario
M1R 3B1
1.888.668.8683 TTY: 1.888.292.2312
[email protected]
www.elections.on.ca
Office of the
Chief Electoral Officer
of Ontario
Bureau du directeur
général des élections
de l’Ontario
Mr. Greg Sorbara
Chair of the Select Committee on Elections
Queen’s Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A2
Dear Mr. Chair:
It is with great pleasure that I provide the Select Committee on Elections
with my formal submission on recommended changes to the Election Act,
Election Finances Act and the Representation Act, 2005.
This report provides further information on the recommendations that I suggested
when I appeared before the Committee on December 4th, 2008.
I believe that the proposed amendments will help to modernize Ontario’s electoral
process and will allow Elections Ontario to prepare, administer, and deliver
elections in ways that are responsive to the needs of citizens and their local
communities.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg Essensa
Chief Electoral Officer
Table of Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..1
Section One………………………………………………………………………….…4
Modernizing and Enhancing the
Accessibility of the Electoral Process
Section Two………………………………………………………………………….…11
Professionalizing the Election Workforce
Section Three…………………………………………………………………………..15
Protecting the Integrity of Elections
Section Four…………..………………………………………………………………..18
Improving the Quality of the Voters’ List
Section Five…………………………………………………………………………….21
Operating Improvements
Section Six……………………………………………………………………………...25
Reforming Election Finance
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...…30
Summary of Recommendations…………………………………………………...…31
Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………..33
Special Ballot Process
Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………..35
Modern Service Delivery Model
Appendix C……………………………………………………………………………..38
Returning Officer Selection Process
Appendix D……………………………………………………………………………..40
Proposed Administrative Powers
Introduction
The following report expands on the presentation delivered by the Chief Electoral Officer to the
Select Committee on Elections on December 4th, 2008. The Select Committee on Elections has a
mandate to consider the current effectiveness of the Election Act, the Election Finances Act and
the Representation Act, 2005 in the preparation, administration and delivery of elections in Ontario.
The report provides further explanation of the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendations, an
overview of practices in other jurisdictions, a comment on some of the other submissions made to
the Select Committee and greater detail as to how Elections Ontario would implement its
recommendations.
The recommendations in this report are grouped into six categories:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Modernizing and Enhancing the Accessibility of the Electoral Process,
Professionalizing the Election Workforce,
Protecting the Integrity of Elections,
Improving the Quality of the Voters’ List,
Operating Improvements, and
Reforming Election Finances.
The last time that the fundamental aspects of Ontario’s election law underwent a comprehensive
review was in 1968, more than forty years ago.
The Ontario of 2009 is not the same as the Ontario of 1968. Ontario’s social and cultural
environment has evolved and the electoral process needs to reflect this complex change. The
characteristics of the typical Ontario elector and the ways that Ontarians engage with the political
process are also changing and our election laws need to adapt to reflect this new reality.
Since Ontario’s current election laws were first enacted, they have changed to respond to specific
issues. Amendments have ranged from political finance reforms in the late 1970’s, changes to the
redistribution process in the 1990’s, and, most recently, the introduction of fixed election dates. The
current laws have been amended incrementally over time and, as a result, gaps and
inconsistencies have arisen. Many of these issues have been raised in the reports made by
previous chief electoral officers and, in some instances, by the former Commission on Election
Finances. A comprehensive review, which is the mandate of the Select Committee, continues the
process of modernizing Ontario’s provincial elections.
The fundamental recommendation of this report is that Elections Ontario needs to have the ability
and flexibility -- in conjunction with Returning Officers -- to prepare, administer, and deliver
elections in ways that are responsive to the needs of citizens and their local communities.
In many instances, our laws do not afford the flexibility that is enjoyed federally, municipally, and in
other provinces. Such rigid requirements waste resources and frustrate the public and election
officials alike – particularly when such flexibility exists in the administration of Ontario’s municipal
elections.
Introduction
1
The fact that our current election laws have been amended on so many occasions over the years
teaches us that our election laws need to be responsive to changing circumstances. Our election
laws need to move away from a narrow “one size fits all” approach to electoral administration.
All of the recommendations in this report are based on three fundamental democratic principles.
Ontario’s election laws need to ensure that:
1) Electors and participants in the electoral process are fully able to exercise their democratic
electoral rights;
2) Electors and participants in the electoral process are served in a modern, responsive, and
efficient manner; and,
3) Election officials are accountable and the process we administer is transparent and
impartial.
It is important to strike an appropriate balance between these three principles. For example, while
every elector who wishes to vote should have a way of doing so, the integrity and scrutiny of the
voting process must not be compromised, and the process should not be prohibitively expensive to
administer.
In addition to the fundamental principles, the recommendations in this submission are also guided
by five key goals for reform. It is the hope of the Chief Electoral Officer that the Committee will
consider the following guidelines when making their recommendations.
1. Combine the Election Act and Election Finances Act into one statute
The Election Act and the Election Finances Act should be combined into one statute so that the
Chief Electoral Officer is better able to coordinate the reporting and budgeting process. Since
Elections Ontario is currently governed by two statutes, it has to follow two separate statutory
reporting and budgeting frameworks. Combining the two pieces of legislation into one will reduce
inefficiencies as well as inconsistencies and confusion.
2. Use clear language
Ontario’s election laws are used by a number of different groups ranging from election
professionals to candidates and political parties to campaign volunteers. The laws should be
written as clearly and as simply as possible so that they can be easily understood by all
stakeholders.
3. Permissive rather than prescriptive legislation
The legislation should be as permissive as possible so that the Chief Electoral Officer and
Returning Officers have the flexibility to respond to the needs of local communities and adapt to
changing circumstances.
Introduction
2
4. Modernize the electoral process
It is essential that the election laws recognize the needs of a modern Ontario electorate and that
they place the elector at the centre of the democratic process. The adoption of advances in
technology and modern customer service models should be allowed by the legislation so that
voting is as easy and convenient as possible.
5. Ensure cost-effectiveness
Any changes to the election laws should strive to make the electoral process as cost-effective as
possible. Ontarians deserve to have election legislation that uses taxpayer money as efficiently
and effectively as possible.
Now is the time to think about how Ontario’s election laws can be changed to ensure they meet the
needs of all Ontarians. The Committee’s comprehensive review will continue to help modernize
the election laws in Ontario and ensure that our democratic process remains among the best in the
world.
Introduction
3
Section One:
Modernizing and Enhancing the
Accessibility of the Electoral Process
When considering amendments to Ontario’s election laws, voters and their needs should be put at
the centre of the electoral process.
The electoral process should be as accessible as possible, so that all electors have an opportunity
to cast their ballots. Barriers that may prevent people from voting should be removed and voting
should be as easy and convenient as possible. At the same time, any recommendations for
changes to improve the accessibility of the democratic process must also ensure that the integrity
of the system is protected.
This section of the report provides recommendations to modernize the Election Act and improve
the accessibility of the voting process. It describes ways that the electoral process could be
modernized; through the use of customer service based voting procedures that will reduce line-ups
and staffing costs as well as through the use of technology that will allow electors with disabilities
to cast their ballots independently.
Flexibility in establishing advance voting days, hours and locations is also recommended. The
Chief Electoral Officer should have the discretion to determine, in conjunction with the local
Returning Officer, the advance vote strategy that best meets the needs of the local electorate.
What works well in downtown Toronto may not be the best strategy for the people of Kapuskasing.
In addition, this section recommends a move towards consistency of practice between federal,
provincial and municipal election rules. Federal, provincial and municipal electoral agencies all
serve the same electors – and as such, the rules should be as consistent as possible to remove
the potential for confusion. In the submissions that the Committee received from Returning
Officers, ten identified the need for greater collaboration between the practices of the various
electoral agencies.
One way to help increase the consistency of practice is to move towards special ballots and mobile
polls which are already used federally and in many other provinces. Special ballots and mobile
polls would increase the accessibility of Ontario’s voting process by making it easier for individuals
who are away from their homes or in hospitals and nursing homes to cast their ballots.
The recommendations in this section will help to ensure that all eligible electors are able to easily
participate in the democratic process.
Modernizing the Electoral Process
4
Special Ballots and Mobile Polls
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the Election Act be amended to allow electors to vote
by special ballot.
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the Election Act be amended to allow for mobile polls.
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that Section 17 of the Election Act be amended to
eliminate proxy voting.
The electoral process should be as accessible as possible so that all electors have the opportunity
to cast their ballot. It is currently very difficult for some people to vote (for example, students,
electors with disabilities, individuals in nursing homes and hospitals, as well as military and
personnel on assignment). In Ontario, the only alternative currently available to people who cannot
vote during the advance vote or on election day is the proxy process. Proxy voting is a complex,
cumbersome process that is rarely used.
Proxy voting forces electors to give up the secrecy of their vote since they are required to select
another eligible elector to vote on their behalf. Electors have no guarantee that the person they
entrusted with their vote has actually cast the ballot in accordance with their wishes.
Ontario electors are familiar with other alternative voting processes, such as the mail-in ballot that
is used in many municipal elections and the special ballot that is used during federal elections.
Ontario is the only jurisdiction in Canada that does not offer other methods of voting. Considering
Ontario’s increasingly mobile population, it would seem that a form of special ballot would respond
more effectively to the needs of electors than the proxy process and better uphold the fundamental
democratic principle of the secrecy of the ballot. Appendix A provides a description of how
Elections Ontario would implement a special ballot process.
In the submissions that the Committee received from the Returning Officers, twenty-five Returning
Officers recommended that special ballots be used in provincial elections.
Thirty-three Returning Officers also suggested another way to improve the accessibility of the
electoral process – through the use of mobile polls. A mobile poll is a process that allows a poll to
move between various locations, such as special care facilities, for a specified time period.
Voters in eleven provinces and territories, as well as in federal elections, are able to vote using
some form of mobile poll if they are unable to get to a voting location on election day. Only Ontario
and Yukon do not offer this method of voting.
The law should provide the flexibility for the Chief Electoral Officer, with input from Returning
Officers, to establish a process for mobile polls. In some electoral districts, particularly those that
have a large number of institutions and special care facilities, it may make sense for mobile polls to
operate during the advance vote so that all locations are properly served. In other electoral
Modernizing the Electoral Process
5
districts where there are only a handful of facilities, it may be reasonable to operate the mobile
polls on election day.
Sections 90 and 91 of Saskatchewan’s Election Act provide an example of broad, permissive
powers that allow the Chief Electoral Officer and Returning Officers to establish mobile polls to
meet community needs.
The following principles would apply to mobile polling places:
• They would be available to institutions, hospitals, nursing homes and special care facilities
with between 20 and 99 beds
o Places with more than 100 beds would have an all day voting location on election
day
o Places with 19 or fewer beds would be served by special ballot
• The time that each mobile poll would spend at a facility would be determined by the
Returning Officer
• Posters and other communications materials would be widely distributed to the mobile
polling locations so that all residents were aware of the initiative
• Mobile polling places would remain at the location for an adequate period of time so that all
electors had an opportunity to cast their ballot
A flexible approach to mobile polls will allow the Chief Electoral Officer and Returning Officers to
respond appropriately to the needs of local communities.
If the Legislature decides not to provide for mobile polls, then Returning Officers should be given
discretion by the Election Act to close the voting locations in hospitals and other institutions earlier
in the day and to bring the ballot box, ballots and supplies back to the Returning Officer for
counting after the close of the general polls. This would respond to the concerns of administrators
who have indicated that keeping the poll open for a prolonged period of time causes too much
disruption to the normal routine of the facility, upsetting the residents.
Vouching
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that Section 51 of the Election Act be amended so that
electors in all electoral districts can vote if someone vouches as to their identity.
The Election Act allows an elector in a rural polling division whose name is not on the voters’ list to
take an oath of eligibility and receive a ballot if another elector, who lives in the same polling
division and is on the voters’ list and has identification, vouches for him or her. Vouching was not
used in the last provincial election since no polling divisions received the “rural” designation.
If vouching is allowed, then it should be offered to all of Ontario’s electors – not just those living in a
rural area. One of the fundamental principles of democracy is that all electors are treated fairly and
consistently, therefore, the rules for receiving a ballot should apply to everyone.
Modernizing the Electoral Process
6
As stricter identification rules have been introduced, a return to vouching should be considered. An
eligible elector, who has identification, should be able to vouch for no more than two voters in order
to establish their identification. The vouched voter would be required to sign a declaration that he
or she is eligible to vote and would not be able to vouch for anyone.
Many Returning Officers reported that contentious situations between election officials and electors
could have been avoided had this type of vouching provision been available during the last
election.
If the recommended changes are not acceptable to the Committee, then consideration should be
given to eliminating vouching entirely.
Vouching is permitted in federal elections, as well as in provincial elections in British Columbia,
Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick.
Voting and Vote-counting Processes and Technologies
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the Election Act be amended to allow for the use of
alternative voting equipment, vote-counting equipment and voting methods during both general
elections and by-elections.
Many different types of technology exist that allow for electors with disabilities to cast their ballot
independently. Currently, the Chief Electoral Officer only has the authority to employ these types
of accessibility technologies in by-elections. At the end of January 2009, the Chief Electoral Officer
announced his intention to pilot accessible voting technologies in all advance voting locations for
the upcoming by-election in Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock.
Electors should have access to accessibility technologies in general elections as well. All electors
should have the chance to cast their ballots in secret, without assistance.
Vote-counting and voting technologies could also help to simplify and modernize the way the voting
process is administered.
Modern Service Delivery Model
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the Election Act be amended to allow the Chief
Electoral Officer to establish appropriate staffing models and processes to be followed in the voting
locations.
The current, prescriptive election laws do not allow Elections Ontario to deliver the best customer
service possible to electors. Elections Ontario receives numerous complaints about how, on
election day, voters have to wait to be served at a table with many people in line in front of them
while other tables in the same location had no line-ups.
Modernizing the Electoral Process
7
Under the current process, while several polling places may be established in one voting location,
the law requires that an elector can only be checked and issued a ballot by the two election
workers assigned to that elector’s polling division. This prescribed division of labour is impractical
for many locations and contributes to the bottlenecks which are of equal frustration for electors,
candidates, and election officials.
Change is needed to allow greater flexibility to use different staffing models and more modern
service delivery methods. This flexibility would provide more convenient, efficient service to
electors and would reduce wait times and line-ups. It would also be more cost effective since the
voting locations would be able to operate with fewer election workers. The Municipal Elections Act,
1996 currently provides Ontario’s municipal clerks with this type of flexibility.
Appendix B provides a detailed explanation of how Elections Ontario would implement a modern
service delivery model.
Residency Definition
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the residency definition in Section 1.1 of the Election
Act be amended to make it easier for students to determine where to vote.
Now that Ontario has moved to fixed date general election in October, a time when many postsecondary students are living away from their family’s home, an amendment is required to clarify
the place of residence for students. Some students may wish to vote where their family resides,
however, just as many may desire to vote in the electoral district where they live to go to college or
university.
A definition related to students would greatly assist them and election officials to determine where
they can be considered a resident for electoral purposes.
Advance Vote
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that Section 44 of the Election Act be amended to allow
the location, days and hours of the advance vote to be set at the discretion of the Chief Electoral
Officer and the Returning Officer for each electoral district.
In 2007, the Election Act was amended to provide for thirteen days of advance voting in fixed date
general elections. Returning offices had to be open for advance voting for all thirteen days and
additional locations were required to be open for ten days.
Although the dramatic increase in the number of advance voting days and locations increased the
accessibility of the process, the number of electors who took advantage of these additional
opportunities was relatively low in some areas. For example, in Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-
Modernizing the Electoral Process
8
Westdale, 1,611 people voted at one advance poll while only 150 people voted at another location
in the district. In Parry Sound-Muskoka, two of the advance voting locations had 1,604 and 1,485
voters, while another two locations only serviced 204 and 76 electors.
It was very difficult for the Returning Officers to find people who were willing to work ten hours a
day for thirteen days straight. Finding locations was just as challenging for the Returning Officers.
Many landlords were unwilling to rent their space to Elections Ontario for such a long period.
School boards, municipalities and community groups did not want their space used for advance
voting since September is a key period for them when many of their activities start up again after
the summer months.
Almost all of the submissions that the Committee received from Returning Officers discussed the
difficulty they had in administering the advance vote.
The 2007 advance vote experience highlights the need for flexibility in determining the advance
vote hours, dates and locations. What works well in one electoral district may not be the best
option for another.
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends introducing flexibility to the advance voting process.
While it makes sense to keep the advance polls open in areas that have a high population, it also
makes sense to move advance polls from communities with a lower population after two or three
days and place them in another community. Allowing the poll to move would provide the
opportunity for many more electors to have access to a conveniently located advance poll.
Elections Ontario recognizes that new and different advertising and notification methods would
have to be used to ensure that the voters in a particular community know about their ability to vote
at a convenient advance poll.
Providing the Chief Electoral Officer with the flexibility to work with the Returning Officers to
establish the locations, days and hours of the advance polls will greatly assist electors and provide
them with enhanced access to this voting opportunity.
Ways to Improve the Accessibility of the Electoral Process
The Select Committee on Elections received a number of submissions from individuals suggesting
things that Elections Ontario could do to improve the accessibility of the electoral process.
Many of the suggestions can be implemented without legislative amendments, but the Chief
Electoral Officer wanted to mention them in this report to highlight some of the initiatives that
Elections Ontario undertakes to ensure that all electors have a chance to participate in the
democratic process.
Training Programs
All election workers receive training on how to perform their duties. The training will be revised to
increase the amount of training that all election workers receive so that they are more aware of the
Modernizing the Electoral Process
9
barriers some electors may face as a result of a disability and the processes that are in place to
ensure that all eligible electors are able to cast their ballots.
Partnerships
Elections Ontario was recently restructured and now has a specialized Communications and
Outreach division. This division will be responsible for forming partnerships with stakeholders and
increasing the degree of consultation that Elections Ontario undertakes with a variety of
stakeholders including organizations representing electors with disabilities, community associations
and other levels of government. These partnerships will help Elections Ontario to develop
outreach initiatives that will fulfill the organization’s expanded legislated mandate to provide
programs to assist those who may face barriers to voting.
Improved Public Education Campaign
Elections Ontario now has the legislated responsibility to conduct public education campaigns in
both election and non-election years. The Chief Electoral Officer strongly believes that Elections
Ontario should conduct public education on a continual basis – not just in election years. As a
result, staff are developing new on-going education programs that will ensure all electors are aware
of their democratic voting rights and responsibilities.
Access to Information
The Elections Ontario website was redesigned for the 2007 general election to ensure that it was in
compliance with the Priority 1 checkpoints of the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario’s W3C Web
Accessibility Initiative Guidelines.
Elections Ontario provides information in a variety of formats including translation to thirty-five
languages, plain language, large print, Braille and audio versions on CD or cassette.
Accessible Offices
Elections Ontario’s main office and all returning offices have level access and comply with the
current accessibility standards. As new accessibility standards are introduced, Elections Ontario
will make any necessary changes to ensure the main office remains compliant with the changing
standards.
Modernizing the Electoral Process
10
Section Two:
Professionalizing the Election Workforce
A successful election relies on the knowledge and ability of the individuals running the returning
offices, working in the voting places and those behind the scenes supporting the front line workers.
As mentioned in the 39th General Election Report, it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract
qualified, experienced people to work on election day.
This section of the report describes the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendations for
professionalizing the election workforce.
A professional workforce, one that is hired based on ability and merit, will help protect the integrity
and increase public confidence in the electoral process. Electors need reassurance that the
election officials responsible for administering the election are independent and impartial.
While the Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for delivering Ontario’s provincial election, he does
not have the power to hire one of the most important members of the election team – the Returning
Officers.
In addition to the hiring ability, the Chief Electoral Officer should also have the power to establish
the fees that are paid to election officials to ensure they are within Management Board of Cabinet
guidelines.
A professionalized election workforce will ensure that qualified people, who have the necessary
knowledge, experience, problem-solving and customer service skills, are responsible for delivering
Ontario’s elections and meeting the needs of our diverse stakeholders.
Professionalizing the Election Workforce
11
Returning Officer Selection
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that Sections 7 and 8 of the Election Act be amended so
that the Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for selecting Returning Officers and Election Clerks
through a transparent, non-partisan process where individuals are chosen on merit, based on their
qualifications and experience.
Returning Officers are integral to the delivery of an election. They are responsible for
administering the election within their electoral district. Returning Officers require a diverse skill set
since their duties include:
•
•
•
•
•
using complex computer and data systems to manage their business, including the
voters’ list,
recruiting, training and managing approximately 1,000 election workers,
coordinating with landlords for the use of voting locations,
building relationships with diverse community groups, and
managing a large office budget.
Returning Officers are held to a specific event calendar and they must have all of the various
components of the election in place in time for voting day. It is an extremely stressful and
demanding role.
Yet, despite the important role that Returning Officers play in the delivery of the election, the
Election Act does not provide a clear set of qualifications for a Returning Officer. The law only
specifies that the individual must be of voting age, a Canadian citizen and a resident of Ontario.
There are also no clear criteria which allow for the removal of Returning Officers who the Chief
Electoral Officer feels have not adequately performed their duties.
The Election Act currently provides that the Lieutenant Governor in Council appoints the Returning
Officer for each electoral district.
For many years, the Chief Electoral Officer was only advised of the appointment of the Returning
Officer when he received a copy of the order in council. In the mid-1980’s, this process changed
when the Chief Electoral Officer was asked to meet with each candidate for the position of
Returning Officer. This process continued for the 1999 and 2003 General Elections when the
Deputy Chief Electoral Officer met with each of the candidates to ensure that they understood the
responsibilities of the position and to make the candidates aware of the time commitment required.
Meeting the potential Returning Officers prior to their appointment reduced the number of
withdrawals that occurred when new Returning Officers attended training for the first time and were
overwhelmed by the level of responsibility that was assigned to them under the Election Act.
Before the 2007 election, the Chief Electoral Officer was permitted to confirm the abilities of the
proposed Returning Officers. Elections Ontario sent each candidate a package containing
information on the provincial electoral process and the legislation. Each candidate was asked to
study the material and then take an on-line test that asked them questions on different areas of
Professionalizing the Election Workforce
12
expertise. If the candidate passed the test, then they could be appointed. In a number of cases,
once the candidates read the material and became aware of what was expected of them, they
withdrew and there were delays in finding another candidate.
Given the responsibilities and skill sets that Returning Officers require, the Chief Electoral Officer
would like to be able to mount an open and competitive process for selecting Returning Officers.
The Chief Electoral Officers of Canada, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec,
Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories and Nunavut are all responsible for appointing
Returning Officers.
In their submissions to the Select Committee, fifteen of the Returning Officers agreed that the
process for selecting Returning Officers should be examined and that it should be a merit-based
competition with the Chief Electoral Officer being responsible for the final selection. Only three
submissions believed that the process should remain the same.
Appendix C provides a detailed description of how the Chief Electoral Officer would implement an
open and competitive selection process.
Election Official Selection
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that Section 39 of the Election Act be amended so that the
Returning Officer in each electoral district is permitted to appoint the election officials who will
report to him or her.
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends removing the requirement for election officials to live in the
electoral district where they are working.
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that all references to Deputy Returning Officers and Poll
Clerks be removed and replaced with Election Officials.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit qualified individuals who are able to handle long hours
and who have the problem-solving skills required to function in a fast-paced, high-pressure election
environment.
In their submissions to the Select Committee on Elections, twenty-one Returning Officers
highlighted the need for Returning Officers to be able to select and appoint election workers
without waiting for a list from the candidates.
On average, Returning Officers are responsible for hiring and training approximately 1,000 election
workers. Having to wait until ten days before election day, in some instances, to receive names
from candidates places an unnecessary risk on the electoral process. Properly staffing the voting
locations is one of the Returning Officer’s main responsibilities. They should not have to be under
such pressure in the days before election day to find and train sufficient numbers of staff.
Professionalizing the Election Workforce
13
The hiring process for election officials should be a non-partisan process that Returning Officers
are able to begin at the start of the 28-day election period. Recruiting throughout the election
period will mean that Returning Officers are able to more effectively use their time during the
crucial final days before election day.
The Chief Electoral Officer also recommends removing the requirement for election officials to live
in the electoral district where they are working. Many Returning Officers experience difficulty in
trying to appoint election officials from only their own electoral district. The difficulty could arise
from the number of people available to work or because of geographic issues within the district.
During the last two general elections, the former Chief Electoral Officer used his emergency
powers under Section 4 of the Act to permit over half of the Returning Officers to appoint election
officials from outside their respective electoral district.
Many other Canadian jurisdictions (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Newfoundland, and Yukon) hire their election officials using a non-partisan process.
To allow for the implementation of the modern service delivery model, all references to Deputy
Returning Officers and Poll Clerks should be removed and replaced with Election Officials.
Payment of Election Officials
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that Section 112 of the Election Act be amended to allow
the Chief Electoral Officer to set the fees for election officials.
In their submissions to the Select Committee, fifteen Returning Officers recommended that the
wages paid to the various election workers be reviewed. A number of Returning Officers
commented on how inequitable wages negatively affected office morale.
Pay rates and expenses are prescribed in a regulation made by the government under the Election
Act. Until the fees and expenses regulation was revised in 2007, the Chief Electoral Officer had
been required to operate on a regulation that was seventeen years old. Between 2003 and 2007,
ten by-elections had to be administered using fees that had been established in 1990.
In order to avoid this situation in future, the Chief Electoral Officer should be given the authority to
establish the fees and expenses, using a system of benchmarks, job descriptions and rates paid
within the larger Ontario government framework, as established by Management Board of Cabinet
guidelines. The amounts paid to election officials would therefore be consistent with other people
who serve the public.
Allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to set fees and expenses, along with the ability to design new
staffing models, would ensure that elections are delivered in a modern, efficient and cost-effective
way.
Professionalizing the Election Workforce
14
Section Three:
Protecting the Integrity of Elections
In order to have confidence in the electoral process, the public needs to be assured of the integrity
of the electoral system.
In many ways, election administrators are always seeking a balance between ensuring the
accessibility of the vote and the integrity of the process. An example of this balance between
integrity and accessibility is deciding whether or not electors should have to show identification
through various aspects of the election process. In 2007, Ontario moved towards requesting
electors to provide identification to establish their residence and identity.
Another way in which the integrity of the process can be protected is by establishing a clear and
transparent process for examining the redistribution of electoral districts. Electoral district
boundaries need to be periodically updated to avoid population inequities across districts.
This section of the report describes two ways in which the integrity of the electoral process might
be protected.
The first is through inclusive identification requirements and allowing the health card to be used as
identification for voting purposes.
The second way is through a formalized boundary redistribution process that will ensure that all
electors have adequate representation within the Legislative Assembly.
Protecting the Integrity of Elections
15
Identification Requirements
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends keeping Ontario’s current identification requirements and
amending Section 4.2(1) of the Election Act to permit individuals to use their health cards as
identification for voting purposes.
Identification requirements are one way that Elections Ontario helps to protect the integrity of the
electoral process.
In 2007, the Election Act was amended and new identification measures were introduced requiring
each elector to show proof of identity in order to obtain a ballot. Electors who did not have
documentary proof had to make a statutory declaration in order to receive a ballot and to vote.
The Election Act currently allows the Chief Electoral Officer to determine what specific documents,
or class of documents, may serve as acceptable proof of identity and place of residence. This
aspect of the legislation worked well in the 2007 election as it allowed the Chief Electoral Officer to
establish provisions for individuals that may have difficulty obtaining identification. For example, in
hospitals and institutions with bedside voting, the Chief Electoral Officer permitted hospital
identification bracelets as acceptable proof. In addition, a special Certification of Identity and
Residence form was created to serve as documentary proof for homeless persons, residents of
women’s shelters and members of Aboriginal reserve communities who may not have the specified
identification. The form had to be signed by the elector and by the administrator of a shelter, dropin centre or by a representative of a Band Council.
When the Chief Electoral Officer appeared before the Select Committee, the Committee members
asked him to comment on aspects of the Canada Elections Act that he would not want to see
implemented in Ontario. Identification requirements are one area where the Chief Electoral Officer
would like to keep the provincial rules and he does not recommend adopting the federal model.
The federal model is more restrictive in the types of identification it allows and the Chief Electoral
Officer advises that Ontario’s more inclusive identification requirements better serve electors.
To make Ontario’s identification requirements even more inclusive, the Chief Electoral Officer
requests the law be amended to allow election officials to ask electors to show provincially-issued
identification cards, including health cards, notwithstanding subsection 34(4) of the Personal Health
Information Protection Act, 2004. The law would need to be clear that electors are not forced to
show their health cards if they do not want to. Clarifying the law to allow heath cards to be used as
identification for voting purposes will make it easier for electors who do not have a driver’s licence
to provide proof of identity.
Protecting the Integrity of Elections
16
Electoral District Redistribution
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the Representation Act, 2005 be amended to provide
a regular, scheduled process for reviewing electoral district boundaries.
For the democratic process to be truly representative, a system for maintaining the fair and
balanced distribution of electoral district boundaries is essential.
The Representation Act, 2005 provides that Ontario’s electoral map has 107 electoral districts, but
it does not explain how the map will be adjusted in the future. The process and timetable for the
future redistribution of provincial electoral districts needs to be established. Every other jurisdiction
in Canada has a regular schedule and process for future redistribution.
Redistribution is a major undertaking that affects not only election planning and staffing, but also
requires extensive efforts from the parties to manage their constituency associations and their
finances before an election.
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that Ontario establishes a process and a set schedule for
electoral boundary readjustment.
Protecting the Integrity of Elections
17
Section Four:
Improving the Quality of the Voters’ List
One of the key elements providing legitimacy to an election is an accurate, current and reliable
voters’ list.
Traditionally in Canada, the government has assumed responsibility for the collection of electoral
data for the preparation of the voters’ lists. This is in contrast with the practice in other parts of the
world, such as the United States, which places the onus on the elector to take the necessary action
to ensure their name is included in the voters’ list.
This section of the report discusses two ways to improve the quality of the voters’ list. The first is
through the creation of a single address authority for Ontario. The second is enhancing Elections
Ontario’s access to information sources.
If implemented, these recommendations would greatly improve the accuracy of the Permanent
Register of Electors for Ontario from which the voters’ list is compiled.
Improving the Quality of the Voters’ List
18
Address Authority
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that a single address authority be established for Ontario.
In Ontario, municipalities are responsible for creating the addressing conventions for the land
parcels in their regions. The result is 444 different naming conventions across the province – since
each municipality establishes its own practice.
The lack of a central address authority in Ontario creates significant challenges for an electoral
registration process. Without accurate addressing information, it becomes almost impossible in
certain parts of the province to adequately ensure that an elector has been placed at the
appropriate location for them to exercise their democratic franchise.
Part of the addressing difficulty arises because people provide different versions of their address to
different service providers. For example, an elector may use the 9-1-1 version of their address
when completing their taxes, but use the rural route version of the address on their driver’s licence
and use their Canada Post mailing address on their health card. That one elector could appear in
the voters’ list three different times, in three different ways and this makes it very difficult for
Elections Ontario to determine where they actually reside and to assign them to the most
convenient voting location for their address.
By establishing a single address authority in Ontario, inconsistent naming conventions of land
parcels would be reduced and more accurate register information could be maintained. This would
reduce voter confusion and frustration as electors could be assigned to the correct polling division.
A single address authority would also improve the accuracy of the information provided to parties
and candidates. The single address authority would not only benefit Elections Ontario, but also
other parts of the government that require up-to-date addressing information such as the Ministry
of Transportation and the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.
Access to Data
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that Section 17.1(4) of the Election Act be amended to
permit Elections Ontario to collect information about ‘soon to be’ electors and that the Ministry of
Education be required to provide Elections Ontario with the name, address and birth date of grade
12 students.
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that Section 17.1(4) of the Election Act be amended to
make it easier for the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care to share their information with
Elections Ontario for the purpose of maintaining the Permanent Register of Electors for Ontario.
The Permanent Register of Electors for Ontario (PREO) is only as accurate as its source data. In
order to ensure that PREO is as up-to-date and complete as possible, Elections Ontario requires
information from a variety of different sources.
Improving the Quality of the Voters’ List
19
Historically, it has been difficult for Elections Ontario to obtain information on ‘new’ electors – those
individuals who have just turned eighteen. Recent research has shown that, for some, voting is a
habit and that individuals who vote when they are first eligible are more likely to vote in the future.
As such, the Chief Electoral Officer would like to recommend that the Ministry of Education be
required to provide Elections Ontario with information on grade 12 students on an annual basis.
The student information would allow Elections Ontario to conduct a comprehensive outreach
initiative and provide ‘soon-to-be’ electors with information on the voter registration process and the
voting process. This program would provide students with the opportunity to register as voters and
would help them to understand how to exercise their right to vote.
Elections Quebec has one of the most accurate voters’ lists in the country and the main source of
information for its list is health card data. Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer would like to make it as
easy as possible to obtain names, addresses and birth date information from the Ministry of Health
and Long Term Care for the purpose of maintaining PREO.
Improving the Quality of the Voters’ List
20
Section Five:
Operating Improvements
There are a number of archaic practices mentioned in the Election Act, such as having Returning
Officers read the entire writ aloud, that can be removed when the new statute is created.
In addition, a new plain language statute can clarify and correct a number of inconsistencies that
have arisen from the incremental legislative changes that have occurred over the years. For
example, in some places in the Election Act, the counting of days in the election counts forwards
from the day a writ is issued. Section 9.1(5) prescribes that “Polling day shall be the fifth Thursday
after the date of the writ”. Advance poll days, in contrast, are calculated by counting backwards
from election day. For example, in a fixed date general election, area advance polls are described
in clause 44(2)(b) as being required “on the 15th, 14th, 13th, 12th, 11th, 10th, ninth, eighth,
seventh and sixth days before polling day”. If the current advance vote dates remain the same, it
would be far simpler to say area advance polls “shall be held for ten days starting on the 14th day
after the date of the writ”.
Also, there are housekeeping items that need to be addressed. Some provisions of the Election
Act need to be repealed because either the courts have struck them down or they are spent. For
example, subsections 27(5) and (6) were struck down by the Superior Court of Justice in October
2007 (see De Jong v. Ontario (Attorney General) [2007] O.J. No. 4041). The Election Act is also a
patchwork quilt of numbering given that so many provisions have been added and repealed since
the last consolidation of the law in 1990.
These inconsistencies make the law unnecessarily complex and confusing for the public, parties,
and administrators alike. The Chief Electoral Officer would be happy to work with the Select
Committee to identify these types of improvements in the drafting process for any new legislation.
This section of the report provides an overview of a number of different recommendations that will
improve the administration of elections in Ontario including:
• changing voting day,
• allowing a more permissive framework for the design and storage of ballots,
• providing the Chief Electoral Officer with expanded recommendation powers, and
• establishing a delay for election-related legislative amendments that are introduced six
months before a general election.
The recommended operational improvements will help to ensure that Ontario’s election is
administered successfully.
Operating Improvements
21
Change Voting Day
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends amending Subsection 9.1(5) of the Election Act to change
voting day to a time when schools are not in session (e.g. weekend or school holiday).
In the 2007 general election, approximately thirty percent of the population voted in a school
gymnasium or cafeteria. Schools best fit the criteria set out by the Election Act for the
establishment of voting locations: they are conveniently located, they usually provide a large space
such as a gymnasium, electors are familiar with their location and they usually provide access for
persons with disabilities.
However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Returning Officers to use schools as voting
locations. In the 2007 general election, Returning Officers faced unprecedented levels of
resistance from school boards, concerned with the issue of the safety of their students as the polls
are open during school hours. Elections Ontario understands and shares the school boards’
concerns and, where necessary, undertook an additional expense to hire security to ensure that
students would be safe on election day. In their submissions to the Select Committee, twenty-five
Returning Officers highlighted the need for a school holiday on election day.
If voting day was moved to a weekend, or a province-wide school holiday was established on
election day, then Elections Ontario would be better able to use schools, which are ideal voting
locations, and there would be no concern for student safety since classes would not coincide with
voting.
Many democracies around the world hold their elections on the weekend. As voter turnout
declines, it may be worth noting that other democracies hold their elections on the weekend and
have a much higher voter turnout rate than Canada. For example, New Zealand holds its general
elections on a Saturday and France holds its general elections on a Sunday. Holding elections on
the weekend would be much more convenient for many electors and could potentially have a
positive impact on Ontario’s voter turnout rate.
Holding the election at a time when school is not in session would also allow for teachers to be
recruited as election officials. Given the difficulty that Returning Officers are having finding
qualified staff, having access to teachers would be very beneficial.
Ballots
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that Sections 33 and 34 of the Election Act be amended to
allow the Chief Electoral Officer to design the ballot.
The only form that is described in detail in the Election Act is the ballot. As a result, the Chief
Electoral Officer is restricted from designing a ballot that meets the needs of the diverse electorate,
encompassing those with disabilities, who are elderly or who have difficulty reading.
Operating Improvements
22
Municipally, clerks in Ontario have far more flexibility to design the ballots for municipal elections
then is available provincially. The Chief Electoral Officer should have a similar level of flexibility to
design an appropriate ballot that meets the needs of all electors.
Another example of where a more permissive approach is required is in the provisions governing
how ballot paper is to be stored. Subsection 3 of Section 33 of the Election Act states that ballot
paper must be stored under “lock and key”. This level of detail is not necessary. It would be far
more effective to say that ballot paper must be store in “secure conditions” and provide some
discretion to the Chief Electoral Officer. This flexibility would allow the Chief Electoral Officer make
appropriate arrangements with Returning Officers so that modern security methods (such as
electronic cards) could be used to ensure the security of the ballot paper.
Expanded Recommendation Powers
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that Section 4.4 of the Election Act be amended to provide
the Chief Electoral Officer with the statutory authority to study and report on all matters related to
the field of election administration, election finance and voter registration.
Currently, the Chief Electoral Officer has the authority, when he reports annually to the Legislative
Assembly, to make recommendations he considers advisable to the Election Act and the Election
Finances Act. Under the Election Act, the Chief Electoral Officer also has a specific responsibility to
publicly report to the Speaker on suggested amendments after pilots held during by-elections.
However, the Chief Electoral Officer does not currently have broad statutory authority to study and
report on all matters related to the field of election administration, election finance and voter
registration that he believes or agrees is important to review (e.g. how the administration of
federal/provincial/municipal elections could be rationalized). A legislative change would be needed
to provide him with this mandate.
Consideration should be given to providing the Chief Electoral Officer with the authority to study
and report on any policy issues that affect the general administration of federal, provincial and
municipal elections in Ontario. He should also have the power to hold meetings and symposia on
election related topics.
Election Year Legislative Amendments Delay
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that election-related legislative amendments that are
introduced within six months of a general election should not come into effect until the next
election.
Conducting Ontario’s provincial elections requires years of advance planning and logistical support.
Last minute election-related legislative amendments increase the risk to the electoral process since
they require Elections Ontario to change direction and administer the election in a manner that had
Operating Improvements
23
not been anticipated. Election-related legislative amendments often require additional expenses
and resources and cause a great deal of stress for both Elections Ontario and the Returning
Officers.
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends the creation of a provision in the legislation that would
delay the application of election-related legislative amendments introduced six months before a
general election unless the Chief Electoral Officer places a notice in the Ontario Gazette that it is
possible for the changes to be implemented. The delay will help protect the integrity of the process
and ensure that Ontario’s elections are administered successfully. Elections Canada and Elections
Quebec each have a similar provision in their legislation.
Operating Improvements
24
Section Six:
Reforming Election Finances
Combining the Election Act and the Election Finances Act will correct the inconsistencies that
currently exist in the provisions between the two Acts that govern the nomination, registration and
endorsement of candidates. Currently, nominations close far in advance of election day, but
registration is technically permitted up to the day before election day. The discrepancies between
the two Acts confuse candidates and make the administration of an election unduly complicated.
Combining the two statutes will eliminate problems arising from the inconsistencies in having two
pieces of legislation.
This section of the report describes the amendments that are required to the Election Finances Act.
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the Election Finances Act be updated to reflect
modern banking and accounting practices.
In keeping with the goal of having election laws that are written in as clear language as possible,
some definitions in the Election Finances Act (e.g. campaign expenses) should be clarified so that
they are easily understood by all of the stakeholders who use the legislation.
The recommendations also suggest ways that the election year financial filing process might be
streamlined to simplify and reduce the amount of work required from volunteer chief financial
officers.
The Chief Electoral Officer is also proposing that spending limits be released earlier in the
campaign process so that all candidates and political parties are aware of the spending limits
before the campaign begins.
In addition, this section addresses the need for the Chief Electoral Officer to have a wide variety of
compliance measures, such as administrative penalties, available to him in order to ensure
compliance with the financial filing rules and deadlines.
Finally, the Chief Electoral Officer is recommending that he be granted the authority to assemble a
body of experts to study and consult on contribution, expense, spending and advertising rules.
Reforming Election Finances
25
Nomination and Registration Processes
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the Election Act and the Election Finances Act be
combined to facilitate the adoption of a more efficient nomination and registration process as used
in British Columbia.
To run as a candidate in Ontario, a person must currently file two sets of papers: a nomination
paper under the Election Act and a registration application under the Election Finances Act. The
former document can only be filed with a Returning Officer within a specified timeframe in the writ
period. The latter document can only be filed with the Chief Electoral Officer but they can be filed
before a writ is issued and up to the day before election day. These disparate requirements cause
confusion and pose challenges for candidates and election officials alike.
A more practical and candidate-friendly approach is adopted in British Columbia. In that province,
candidates can, in effect, pre-file their nomination/election finance papers with the Chief Electoral
Officer at any time before writs are issued; they are called “Standing Nominations” and only
become activated once an election is called. Their legislation builds in an alternative process as
well. After the writs are issued for an election, nomination/election finance papers can only be filed
with the District Electoral Officer (the equivalent of a Returning Officer).
Modern Banking Practices
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that Section 16.2 of the Election Finances Act be
amended to allow for modern banking practices such as debit cards and electronic transfers of
monies.
Subsection 16(2) The Election Finances Act specifically limits the manner in which contributions
over $25 may be paid. The law states that such contributions may only be accepted by cheque,
money order, or credit card. It does not allow for the receipt of the electronic transfer of funds by
debit cards, on-line banking, or electronic transfers.
The current restrictions are outdated. Technology has come a long way since the Election
Finances Act was introduced. People are now accustomed to shopping and paying their bills
electronically from anywhere in the world. Ontario’s election finances legislation has not kept pace
with these changes in technology.
If the underlying purpose of the law is to provide transparency to the political contribution process
by requiring a verifiable source of funds, then that purpose could be satisfied through modern
banking methods such as the use of a debit card and other forms of electronic transfer.
The law should be amended to allow parties, candidates and constituency associations to accept
contributions using modern banking practices. The use of debit cards and online donations (e.g.
through PayPal) would modernize Ontario’s election finance processes which in turn could lead to
greater transparencies and efficiencies.
Reforming Election Finances
26
Streamlined Financial Reporting Process
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the Election Finances Act be amended to reduce the
number of statements that candidates, parties and constituency associations are required to file in
an election year.
The reporting requirements of the Election Finances Act should be reviewed. Currently, the law
requires separate filings for annual filings and campaign filings.
With the adoption of fixed date elections, and the consequent change in spending patterns, central
party income and spending for campaign and campaign years should be reported together – not at
different times and in separate statements as the law currently requires.
Similarly, the multiple filings required at the local level for candidates and for constituency
association income and spending for campaign and campaign years should be revisited.
Currently, these reports can be filled out by different chief financial officers and can be filed at
different times. In practical terms, many of these filings are filled out by the same person, who is
usually a volunteer, and filed with Elections Ontario at the same time. From the perspective of
Elections Ontario, it does not assist the review process to review three separate filings.
Having the same chief financial officer report on annual, campaign, and candidate income and
expenses would reduce the work that may be performed by as many as three separate people. It
could also reduce the need and expense of having three separate auditors review a return before it
is filed.
Calculation of Spending Limits
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the Election Finances Act be amended so that the
campaign spending limits are released before the writ.
At present, spending limits are linked to the final elector count that is released after an election. In
effect, that means that candidates and parties do not know how much they can spend on their
election campaigns, until after the election.
Spending limits should be set before an election or right at the outset of the election period.
Establishing spending limits earlier in the process would benefit chief financial officers, auditors
and Elections Ontario by eliminating the risk that campaigns may unknowingly go over their
spending limits.
Federally, the base amount of a candidate’s election expenses is the higher of either the
preliminary list of electors or the revised list of electors. Elections Ontario could establish a similar
practice so that candidates and parties know the minimum election expense in advance.
Reforming Election Finances
27
The Chief Electoral Officer suggests that spending limits be set at the same time as the annual
Permanent Register for Electors in Ontario (PREO) release.
Compliance Measures
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the Election Finances Act be amended so that the
Chief Electoral Officer has the power to levy administrative penalties.
The law needs to include a greater range of administrative measures to encourage and obtain
compliance through means other than just prosecution.
The failure to file financial statements on a timely basis is the most common compliance problem
faced by Elections Ontario. The delays in filing seen in the past year are problematic because this
hinders the review of returns and the refunding of campaign expenses. The delays in the last year,
which are consistent with previous years, were as follows:
1) Campaign Returns for Parties, Candidates, and Associations were supposed to be filed by
April 10, 2008. As of that date only:
•
•
•
10 of 12 party returns were filed
435 of 605 candidate returns (72%) were filed
228 of 409 association returns (56%) were filed
2) Annual Returns for parties and associations were supposed to be filed by May 31, 2008
(effectively June 2, 2008). As of that date only:
•
•
11 of 12 party annual returns were filed
296 of 409 association annual returns (72%) were filed
Failures to file happen with every party and these failures are reported regularly to the registered
party concerned.
Candidates who are elected, but fail to file their campaign financial statements, are reported to the
Speaker and the Legislative Assembly may vote on whether the person is required to forfeit his or
her seat. A candidate who fails to file is also barred from running again for office in the next general
election. These are severe penalties, seldom if ever used, and are not effective in ensuring
compliance. As a result of the filing delays in the last year, 14 associations were deregistered
several weeks after the filing deadline for failing to file campaign and/or annual returns within the
required timeframe and 15 candidates, who were not elected, are barred from running in the next
general election.
At the federal level, Elections Canada, has extensive means of enhancing compliance without
having to prosecute minor or technical infractions. People and entities that breach some reporting
Reforming Election Finances
28
and other requirements may be asked, for instance, to enter into formal public agreements with the
Commissioner of Canada Elections to meet certain deadlines.
The Election Finances Act could be amended to allow Elections Ontario to levy small
administrative fines or penalties for delays in filing, impose temporary suspensions on election
finance activities, or issue public reprimands to discourage negligent behaviour. At present, no
such tools are provided to Elections Ontario. Formally, Elections Ontario is only able to report
those who appear to have wilfully violated the law to the Attorney General for prosecution. Apart
from deregistration, penalties can now only be imposed upon conviction. Broader powers could be
put to good use to encourage compliance and to instil public confidence in the election finance
system.
Appendix D provides a detailed explanation of the administrative powers that the Chief Electoral
Officer is proposing.
Contribution, Expense, Spending and Advertising Rules
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that if the Chief Electoral Officer is empowered with the
ability to commission expert reports on particular matters, then he could be mandated to assemble
a body of experts to study and consult on contribution, expense, spending and advertising rules.
The foundations of the current contribution, expense, and spending rules were established over
thirty years ago and have been amended over time. As other jurisdictions have done (federally and
in Manitoba) it would be desirable to have independent experts review and consult on the
fundamental principles of the contribution system to determine if the current provisions serve the
public and the participants in a fashion consistent with its intended purposes and underlying
principles.
An independent body of experts, established by the Chief Electoral Officer, could review these
matters and report back independent recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on
contribution, expense, spending and advertising rules.
Spending on political advertising constitutes a very significant portion of party, constituency
association, and candidate spending. Political advertising, which ranges from traditional forms of
advertising to those emerging in the electronic/digital age, is one of the primary means by which
parties and candidates communicate with the electorate. The current advertising rules and
restrictions rules (ranging from blackout periods to authorization requirements) were established
over thirty years ago and, while they have been amended over time, they have not kept pace with
the advances in communications.
This gap in the legislation leads to confusion and conflict between candidates, political parties and
administrators who have differing perspectives about how the legislation applies to technological
communication methods such as websites, blogs and social networking tools. Clarification and
clear definitions would help alleviate these types of problems.
Reforming Election Finances
29
Conclusion
The Select Committee’s comprehensive review of Ontario’s election laws is an essential step in
modernizing our electoral process.
The Chief Electoral Officer appreciates having the opportunity to be a part of this important
initiative and hopes that the Committee members find the recommendations contained in this
report to be informative and helpful in their deliberations.
The Chief Electoral Officer would also like to thank the Returning Officers who took the time to
provide the Select Committee with their recommendations and comments. The Returning Officers
offer a vital perspective and their experience and insights should be recognized.
The Select Committee members should be congratulated for their dedication and efforts to ensure
that Ontario’s election laws meet the needs of all the stakeholders – the electors, political parties,
candidates and administrators.
The Chief Electoral Officer thanks the Select Committee for its willingness to hear from both the
former and current administrators and to consider all perspectives in its work.
While Ontario’s electoral processes are among the best in the world, there is always room for
improvement. A new statute, one that combines the Election Act and the Election Finances Act
and is written in plain language, will help to simplify and clarify Ontario’s electoral legislative
framework. Permissive language will also allow Elections Ontario to prepare, administer, and
deliver elections in ways that are responsive to the needs of citizens and their local communities.
Now is the time to re-examine how Ontario’s elections are delivered to ensure that they continue to
uphold the democratic principles and ideals on which they were founded.
Conclusion
30
Summary of Recommendations
The fundamental recommendation of this report is that Elections Ontario needs to have the ability
and flexibility -- in conjunction with Returning Officers -- to prepare, administer, and deliver
elections in ways that are responsive to the needs of citizens and their local communities.
The Election Act and Election Finances Act should be combined into one statute to reduce
inefficiencies as well as inconsistencies and confusion.
A brief summary of the Chief Electoral Officer’s specific recommendations are provided below.
Modernizing and Enhancing the Accessibility of the Electoral Process
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the Election Act be amended:
• to allow electors to vote by special ballot
• to allow for mobile polls
• to eliminate the proxy process
• so that all electors without identification can vote if someone vouches as to their identity
• to allow for the use of alternative voting equipment, vote-counting equipment and voting
methods during both general elections and by-elections
• to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to establish appropriate staffing models and processes
to be followed in the voting locations
• to clarify the residency definition in Section 1.1 to make it easier for students to determine
where to vote
• to allow the location, days and hours of the advance vote to be set at the discretion of the
Chief Electoral Officer and the Returning Officer for each electoral district
Professionalizing the Election Workforce
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the Election Act be amended:
• so that the Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for selecting Returning Officers and
Election Clerks through a transparent, non-partisan process where individuals are chosen
on merit, based on their qualifications and experience
• so that the Returning Officer in each electoral district is permitted to appoint all the election
officials who are responsible and accountable to him or her
• to remove the requirement for election officials to live in the electoral district where they
are appointed to work
• so that all references to Deputy Returning Officers and Poll Clerks be removed and
replaced with Election Officials
• so that Section 112 of the Election Act is amended to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to
set the fees for election officials
Summary of Recommendations
31
Protecting the Integrity of the Election
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends:
• keeping Ontario’s current identification requirements and amending the Election Act to
permit individuals to use their health cards as identification for voting purposes
• that the Representation Act, 2005 be amended to provide a regular, scheduled process for
reviewing electoral district boundaries
Improving the Quality of the Voters’ List
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that:
• a single address authority be established for Ontario
• the Election Act be amended to permit Elections Ontario to collect information about ‘soon
to be’ electors and that the Ministry of Education be required to provide Elections Ontario
with the name, address and birth date of grade 12 students
• the Election Act be amended to make it easier for the Ministry of Health and Long Term
Care to share its information with Elections Ontario for the purpose of maintaining the
Permanent Register of Electors for Ontario
Operating Improvements
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends amending the Election Act:
• to change voting day to a time when schools are not in session (e.g. weekend or school
holiday)
• to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to design the ballot
• to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the statutory authority to study and report on all
matters related to the field of election administration, election finance and voter registration
• so that election-related legislative amendments that are introduced within six months of a
general election not come into effect until the next election
Reforming Election Finances
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the Election Finances Act be amended:
• to combine it with the Election Act so that the nomination and registration processes can
be streamlined
• to allow for modern banking practices such as debit cards and electronic transfers of
monies
• to reduce the number of statements that candidates, parties and constituency associations
are required to file in an election year
• so that the campaign spending limits are released before the writ
• so that the Chief Electoral Officer has the power to levy administrative penalties
• so that the Chief Electoral Officer has the authority to assemble a body of experts to study
and consult on contribution, expense, spending and advertising rules
Summary of Recommendations
32
Appendix A:
Special Ballot Process
This appendix describes how the Chief Electoral Officer would implement a special ballot process if
he was granted the broad authority to establish such an initiative.
The legislation would not prescribe this process, rather, it would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to
develop the policies and procedures that he deems necessary to implement a special ballot
initiative. The Chief Electoral Officer would release the details of the special ballot process by
January 1st each year.
Suggested Special Ballot Process
Any elector who cannot or does not wish to vote at a voting location during an election may vote
using a special ballot. With a special ballot, an elector can vote by mail or in person at a returning
office.
Voting by special ballot would be a three step process:
Step One: Application
• The elector would be required to complete an application to vote by special ballot
• Applications would be available:
o on the Elections Ontario website
o through the Elections Ontario call centre (mailed by request)
o in returning offices
o in areas where there may be a high concentration of electors who would likely vote
by special ballot, for example:
Canadian embassies, consulates and high commissions
Military and special forces bases and assignment locations
Penal and correctional facilities
University and college registrar offices
• A copy of the elector’s identification documents showing proof of identity and proof of
residence would be required with the application
• The completed application could be sent to Elections Ontario by mail, email, fax or handdelivery
Step Two: Voting
• Once Elections Ontario has approved the application, the elector would be sent a voting
package that contains:
o easy to understand, pictograph instructions on how to complete the special ballot
o the special ballot
o a qualification declaration
o a secrecy envelope for the special ballot
o a postage paid, pre-addressed return envelope
• For electors who pick up and complete their applications in a returning office, they would
be offered the chance to vote immediately using the special ballot or to take a voting
package away so they could vote at a later time
Appendix A – Special Ballot Process
33
•
Special ballots would not be accepted if sent by fax or email
Step Three: Counting
• The Chief Electoral Officer should be given the authority to determine an appropriate
deadline that all special ballots need to be received by in order for them to be counted
• Special ballots would be securely stored
• Special ballots would be counted on election day and would be reported as a special
category for each electoral district
Appendix A – Special Ballot Process
34
Appendix B:
Modern Service Delivery Model
Appendix B provides a detailed description of the modern service delivery model proposed by the
Chief Electoral Officer.
Elections Ontario has piloted a modern service delivery model with great success at a by-election.
With a modern service delivery model, electors are processed in a similar manner to how
customers are served in banks. There would be one line-up and any of the election officials in the
voting location would be able to assist any elector.
The purpose of the modern service delivery model is to:
• Improve service to electors
• Simplify the tasks performed by each election official
• Provide effective delivery of the voting process
There are a number of procedural benefits to a modern service delivery model, including:
• It allows election officials to specialize which better protects the integrity of the system
since there is
o Greater accuracy in the completion of forms because it becomes the responsibility
of one specially trained person
o Greater focus on handling ballots and ensuring the secrecy of the vote since that
becomes a position’s sole responsibility
• Electors are processed more effectively and line-ups are reduced
• More cost effective – requires fewer election officials per voting location
• Paves the way for the future use of technology
The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that he be granted broad authority to establish voting
policies and procedures, just like municipal clerks in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. The
following process describes how Elections Ontario proposes implementing the modern service
delivery model, but this detailed process would not appear in the legislation. The Chief Electoral
Officer would make the details available January 1st each year.
Modern Service Delivery Model
When electors from three or more polling divisions are assigned to one voting location, the voting
location will be staffed to provide efficient and effective service to the electors. Electors will be
served based on their needs. Election officials will be assigned specialized responsibilities such as
the provision of information, recording the voter’s information, assisting voters with special needs,
issuing ballots, and counting ballots.
Appendix B – Modern Service Delivery Model
35
Serving Electors on the Voters’ List with Proof of Identity
• Elector is greeted by an election official at the door
• Election official asks if the elector has their Notice of Registration Card and proof of identity
with them
• If yes, the election official directs them to an election official who is responsible for the
voters’ list
• The elector provides the election official with their name and address
• The election official finds the elector in the voters’ list and verifies their proof of identity
• The election official strikes the elector’s name from the voters’ list
• The elector is directed to an election official who is responsible for issuing ballots
• The elector receives an initialed ballot from the election official
• The elector goes to a voting screen and secretly marks their ballot
• The elector returns the ballot to the appropriate election official
• The election official verifies the initials on the back of the ballot and returns the ballot to the
elector
• The elector inserts the ballot into the ballot box
Serving Electors who Require Assistance
• Elector is greeted by an election official at the door
• Election official asks if the elector has their Notice of Registration card and proof of identity
with them
• If no, the election official directs them to another election official who will determine the
assistance they require
• The elector provides the election official with their name and address
• The election official tries to find the elector in the voters’ list
• If the elector’s name appears in the voters’ list, the elector is asked for proof of identity
o If yes, the election official verifies the proof of identity and strikes the elector’s
name from the voters’ list
o The elector is directed to the election official who is responsible for issuing ballots
and follows the process described above
o If no, the elector is asked to make the prescribed statutory declaration before the
election official, and once they have done so they will be directed to the election
official issuing ballots and follow the process described above
• If the elector’s name does not appear in the voters’ list, the elector is asked if they wish to
apply to have their name added to the voters’ list
o If yes, the elector is asked for proof of identity and proof of residence and
completes an application to be added to the voters’ list.
o Once the application is completed the elector is directed to the election official
issuing ballots and follows the process described above
Special Circumstances
• Electors in possession of a certificate to vote will be directed to the election official
providing assistance, and will follow the process described above
Appendix B – Modern Service Delivery Model
36
•
•
Electors with disabilities will be directed to an election official who can provide them with
assistance. Once their qualifications and eligibility are verified they will be able to vote
independently or with assistance, as they wish
Electors requiring an interpreter will be directed to an election official who can provide
them with assistance, and, once their qualifications and eligibility are verified they will be
able to vote
Counting the Ballots
• The Returning Officer will designate an election official who is responsible for managing
the counting of the ballots and the completion of the Ballot Statement of the Poll
• The other election officials will assist in the counting of the ballots and the closing of the
poll
• In the presence of the candidates or their scrutineers, the designated election official will
open the ballot box and with the assistance of the other election officials count the number
of valid ballots cast for each candidate and all other ballots giving full opportunity to those
present to see each ballot and observe the proceedings
• The counting of the ballots and the reporting of the results will follow the procedures as set
out in Section 57 to Section 62 of the Election Act
Appendix B – Modern Service Delivery Model
37
Appendix C:
Returning Officer Selection Process
In keeping with the goal of having election laws that are written in plain language, the Chief
Electoral Officer recommends that the term Returning Officer be replaced with District Electoral
Officer and the term Election Clerk be replaced with Deputy District Electoral Officer. The terms
District Electoral Officer and Deputy District Electoral Officer are used in British Columbia.
The Canada Elections Act (Section 24) and Quebec Election Act (Sections 502 – 509) provide
good examples of clear, broad powers allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to appoint Returning
Officers. The revised statute should include a similar provision providing clear, broad powers to
the Chief Electoral Officer. Below is an example of a potential selection process that the Chief
Electoral Officer could implement to hire Returning Officers, the process would not appear in the
legislation.
Suggested Selection Process
• Following the standards set by the Office of the Legislative Assembly, create a detailed
Returning Officer position description that clearly explains the roles and responsibilities for
the position
•
Advertise the vacant position:
o On the Elections Ontario website
o In daily newspapers covering the geographic area where the vacancy exists
o With MPP Queen’s Park offices and constituency offices
•
Elections Ontario reviews applications
•
Candidates who are deemed to have the necessary qualifications and experience
complete an on-line test in order to evaluate their computer skills and problem-solving
abilities
•
Elections Ontario short-lists and interviews candidates (either in own geographical area or
at the Elections Ontario office in Toronto)
•
Top three candidates subject to a thorough security check
•
Subject to the successful completion of the security check, the first place candidate is
offered the Returning Officer position and the second place candidate is offered the
position of Election Clerk
•
Returning Officer and Elections Ontario sign a service level agreement that outlines:
o Chief Electoral Officer’s expectations of the Returning Officer
o Chief Electoral Officer’s expectations of the staff at Elections Ontario
Appendix C – Returning Officer Selection Process
38
Suggested Evaluation Process
• Each Returning Officer’s appointment lasts for six months following the election, subject to
re-appointment by the Chief Electoral Officer
•
After a general election, the Chief Electoral Officer evaluates the performance of each
Returning Officer
•
Returning Officers who meet the expected standard are asked if they are interested in
being reappointed
o If yes, the Returning Officer is reappointed
o If no, the position is declared vacant and the selection process begins
•
Returning Officers who do not meet the expected standard are removed from their position
and the selection process begins
Appendix C – Returning Officer Selection Process
39
Appendix D:
Proposed Administrative Powers under the
Election Finances Act
Description of New
Power
When it would apply
Regulators with
this power
Ability to issue a
reprimand to a person or
entity where the Chief
Electoral Officer is of the
view that prosecution is
not required because an
offence was inadvertent
or of a technical nature.
Such reprimands would
be made public.
Used for
inadvertent/technical
errors on the part of
regulated entities which,
if they had been
intentional, may warrant
prosecution
A similar sanction
is available under
the Manitoba
Elections
Finances Act (s.
91(2)).
Ability to suspend the
registration of a party or
constituency
association. This would
be public and, in effect,
serve as an order to
cease activity on a
temporary basis (which
would proactively try to
prevent abuse of the
election finances
system).
Used where a party or
constituency association
is demonstrating that it is
operating improperly
(e.g.If in the course of a
compliance review it is
discovered that a CFO
forgot to report certain
expenses – as an
honest mistake rather
than a deliberate attempt
to file a false return)
(e.g. failing to reply to
Election Finances in
connection with a
compliance review after
several inquiries)
Appendix D – Proposed Administrative Powers
Comments
Such powers are
also exercised by
regulators of
professions in
Ontario.
Such powers are
exercised by
securities
commissions and
regulators of
professions in
Ontario.
While the CEO has
the power to
deregister a parties
and constituency
associations, it is a
severe and final
penalty that is slow to
be used.
Suspensions would
not replace the
deregistration power
but could be instituted
as a lesser/interim
measure much more
quickly.
40
New Enforcement
Power
When it would apply
Regulators with this
power
Ability to conclude a
compliance agreement
in lieu of being reported
for prosecution. The
agreements would be
made public.
In lieu of being reported for
prosecution, the Chief Electoral Officer
could enter into a compliance
agreement with anyone he believes on
reasonable grounds has committed, is
about to commit or is likely to commit
an act or omission that could
constitute an offence. The
agreements would be voluntary and
be between the Chief Electoral Officer
and the person (the contracting party)
in which they agree to terms and
conditions that the Chief Electoral
Officer considers necessary to ensure
compliance with the Act.
Such powers have been
used very successfully
under section 517 of the
Canada Elections Act
since 2000 and are
reported on the
Elections Canada
website
When campaign returns are filed late,
a tariff would be applied that would
reduce the subsidy proportionate to
the lateness of the filing.
While Elections Ontario
staff can find no
regulator with a similar
power, this is due to the
fact that few regulators
(outside the electoral
context) pay public
subsidies to the entities
they oversee.
This would be a
strong incentive for
entities who qualify
for subsidies to file
on time -- but there
are many entities
who do not meet
the threshold
needed to qualify
for a subsidy.
This power to levy a fee
for late filing is similar in
principle to the late filing
penalty that the CRA
charges taxpayers, who
do not qualify for a
refund, but fail to file
their income taxes on
time.
This would be a
strong incentive for
entities who do not
qualify for
subsidies to file on
time.
Ability to reduce the
campaign expense
subsidy for a party or
candidate eligible to
receive a subsidy
(e.g. 10% reduction of subsidy for
missing filing deadline and an
additional 5% for every week
thereafter. No subsidy would be paid
for a return filed over 18 weeks late.)
Ability to levy an
administrative charge
for late filing by a
party/candidate/
constituency
association/leadership
contestant/third party
(which is not eligible to
receive a campaign
subsidy)
When financial returns are filed late, a
late fee would be levied (where the
entity did not qualify for a campaign
expense subsidy)
(e.g. the late fee could be $200 plus
1% of the gross income reported on
the return for each full week that a
return is late, to a maximum of 18
weeks)
Appendix D – Proposed Administrative Powers
Comments
Such powers are also
exercised by regulators
of professions in
Ontario.
41