Thank you very much.
It's most appreciated. I apologize for underestimating the amount of time I had, or underestimating how long this would take.
I'll perhaps just pick it up where I left off, if you like, for the record, but I did give English and French versions of this to the clerk. I did not bring enough copies. It's not the clerk's fault. She gave it to the translators, and either we will supply them or she can retrieve them and get them to you.
We talked about the riding of Trinity—Spadina, in downtown Toronto. In that riding, deputy returning officers who tried to see what was going on with regard to the registration procedure realized that it was pointless since they had no right to do so.
Sections 143 and 144 of the act state that a deputy returning officer at a polling station has a right to ask an elector for his or her name and to require the person to show satisfactory proof of identity and residence. However, the legal department at Elections Canada has taken the liberty of stating firmly, once again, that these rights were non-existent at another registration desk, since, under subsection 161(3), deputy returning officers may be present on the premises; they have no right to say or require anything.
In fact, they were not even given the opportunity to see the pieces of identification of a potential elector who wanted to register or to ask questions concerning documents which clearly were inadequate and that they nevertheless perceived. And yet that was the case, even when it violated directives published by Elections Canada.
In essence, if someone registered to vote on the basis of a photocopy of a cable bill or with a magazine label, they were powerless to bring their disquiet to the attention of officials. Those who did were told they would be removed from the polling station.
At the University of Toronto, the university administration provided lists of the names of resident students to Elections Canada in advance of election day. A student on such a list only needed to provide proof of identity, not of residence, in order to register, yet our scrutineers were never, either before or on election day, permitted to see these lists--not to contact the potential voter, not to question whether the person still lived there, not to look into whether they might be citizens, and certainly not to investigate whether they had voted at an advance poll at their parents' residence.
We strongly recommend that the act be amended to provide for effective representation of candidates at all stages of the process, and in particular in all aspects of election day.
Next is targeted revision. Given the statistics Elections Canada likes to present as to how registration accuracy and comprehensiveness exceed goals, we continue to be surprised at the extent to which there are pockets throughout the country in which the registry is a poor reflection of reality. Whether this is due to high mobility rates or low interest is immaterial. The system is predicated upon the notion that we have adequate lists of voters in all areas. Not only do spending limits depend on this, but if you don't know who the voters are, it makes it rather awkward for political parties to locate them to communicate or to keep track of their voting intentions.
A detailed list is a thing of the past. In far too many places, not enough people open their doors, but a serious and precise review is essential; otherwise, there is too great a risk that the registration system in the country will be determined by political motivation to register voters, with parties trying to register voters in the proper manner provided they vote for their party. In the Canadian system, we need an approach that is both neutral, oriented toward the government and dynamic in order to make specific changes to the procedure for registering voters. An amendment to the present act could prove necessary in order to reinforce the idea that this need is part of Elections Canada's mandate.
Therefore we recommend targeted revision be increased.
In what little time I have left, I would like to touch briefly on some election finance issues. We could discuss many such issues at greater length with significant benefits, so we would welcome an opportunity for a further visit with you in the future, but here are three key concerns.
When an election is called, your supporters naturally want to start giving, but if they give to your campaign right at the beginning, they can't get a tax receipt. Those are not available for any donations received prior to the day Elections Canada accepts your nomination. In each election, some candidates and donors run into trouble over this.
The solution is exceptionally simple, as my colleagues have indicated. In Ontario, under the Election Finances Act, a candidate may pre-register for campaign purposes. In the absence of an election writ, this pre-registration has no legal meaning, but on the day the election is called, the candidate is registered for financial purposes and may start accepting receivable contributions. Amendments to both the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act would be required to streamline the rather less rational federal status quo.
Second, as all of you know, your financial returns for the last election were due on May 23. What you may not know is what happens not only if you are late but if your return is missing even one single yet essential document, such as the auditor's checklist. Prior to May 23, if there was a problem that made it difficult for you to meet the deadline, you could simply request and routinely receive an extension from the Chief Electoral Officer, but after May 23 he lost that power.
There is now a two-week window following May 23 to get dispensation from a judge on a formal court application to permit a late filing. The legal costs of such applications run into the thousands of dollars. What's worse, though, is that the political costs are higher. The sitting member who is in default is legally prohibited from sitting or voting in the House of Commons. See subsection 463(2).
In one case after the 2004 election, a filing was late because a candidate's official agent had been diagnosed with cancer the day prior to the deadline. In another case, the auditor's report had been obtained and was inadvertently left out of the envelope.
We need strict deadlines, but clearly, reasonable extensions should be possible.
The last point I'd like to make, and I will conclude on it, is related to the point my friend from the Conservative Party made about the overall compliance burden on volunteers in local ridings. We think it is crazy. We think Bill C-24 did not contemplate the kind of work involved in complying with the act at the local level. As we all know, complying at the national level is hard enough.
We recommend that Elections Canada conduct a thorough review of the process with a view to cutting the red tape and lessening the burden on all of the volunteers, who could put their energies to better use in supporting our candidates in our respective parties.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the time granted to me by the member.
