An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (demographic information)

Summary#

S-213, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (demographic information), would amend the Canada Elections Act. Its stated goal is to make diversity-related information about party candidate selection public and improve demographic information about candidates and contestants. The party disclosure duties would start on the second anniversary of royal assent; the supplied text does not specify a start date for the other changes.

• Parties meeting an election-results threshold would have to post information about their candidate-selection rules, diversity programs or policies, how they are put into practice and assessed, and progress toward their objectives.
• Those parties would also have to publish specified information about targets and rules relating to women candidates. If a party has no relevant program, plan or rules, it must explain why and give a proposed adoption timeline, if any.
• The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) would have to offer voluntary self-identification questionnaires to candidates, nomination contestants and registered leadership contestants, and collect demographic information for analysis.
• The CEO would have to publish anonymized demographic reports. A general-election report would be due within 90 days after the writ is returned; the CEO would choose the timing and form for reports on by-elections and leadership contests.
• The bill would extend an existing notice process for failures to meet certain party obligations to cover these new duties. It does not say that a failure automatically deregisters a party.

What it means for you#

• Political parties: The website duties would apply if, at the most recent general election, a party’s candidates received at least 2% of all valid votes, or at least 5% of valid votes in the districts where it endorsed candidates. The information would need annual updates. A party must also post a contact person for concerns about these duties.
• Candidates and contestants: The CEO would have to provide questionnaires, but responding would be voluntary. The collected information would be confidential and could be used only for the reports.
• Voters and the public: You could access the required party information online and read anonymized demographic reports. The bill would not require parties to adopt diversity programs, targets or rules.
• Government: The CEO would take on questionnaire and reporting duties. The Speaker of the House of Commons would have to submit the specified reports to the House without delay.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill requires the CEO to collect information and prepare reports, but gives no estimate of the staff or other resources needed.
• Covered parties would have to publish and update information; any costs to them are not estimated.
• The supplied text does not set a fee, fine, tax or new spending amount.

What is unclear#

• The bill defines “designated groups” by reference to the Employment Equity Act, but that Act’s definition is not included in the supplied material. The bill also leaves the demographic variables to the CEO’s judgment.
• The text does not set rules for questionnaire design, response handling, minimum numbers needed to protect anonymity, or how the CEO would assess data quality.
• It does not explain how the CEO would apply the existing notice process beyond adding these obligations to it.
• The supplied material gives no start date for provisions other than the party-disclosure section, and no details on how the new reporting duties would fit with existing reports.
• The Canada Elections Act was not supplied in full, so the bill’s provisions could not be checked against all current rules.

Case for#

• The bill would make parties’ candidate-selection rules and diversity efforts visible to the public, including when a party has chosen not to adopt a program, plan or rule.
• Voluntary questionnaires could provide information about who becomes a candidate or contestant without making individuals disclose demographic details.
• Anonymized reports could support analysis across demographic categories, including intersecting variables, as the bill requires the data format to support that analysis.

Case against#

• The bill requires disclosure and reporting but does not require parties to take steps to change candidate selection or meet targets.
• The CEO has discretion over which demographic information is appropriate, while the bill leaves important details of collection and privacy safeguards unstated.
• The duties could create administrative work for parties and the CEO, but the materials provide no cost estimate.
• The bill’s added notice process may have consequences for parties that fail to comply, but the supplied text does not set out how that process would work in these cases.