Site MenuI. Detailed findings – Survey of Official Agents following the 44th General Election
A. Information about Official Agents
1. Experience serving as an OA
Six in ten OAs in the survey were first time agents.
Six in ten (59%) Official Agents for the 44th General Election were acting in that capacity for the first time, fewer than in the 43rd GE (68%).
| Q2 Was it your first time acting as an official agent for a candidate campaign? | Total 44th GE | Total 43rd GE |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 59% | 68% |
| No | 41% | 32% |
Across the country, being a first-time agent ranges from a low of 40 percent in Manitoba/Saskatchewan up to 65 percent in Ontario and the Atlantic region. As in the previous election there is variation by age, with those under age 35 being the most likely to be first time agents (88%), and those age 55 and over being the least likely (52%).
Those who were OAs for one candidate (61%, vs. 27% who acted for more than one) are more likely to be first time agents.
2. Number of candidates supported
The vast majority of OAs supported a single candidate.
Over nine in ten OAs acted on behalf of one candidate for the 44th GE, similar to the 43rd GE (93%).
| Q3 For how many candidates did you act as official agent in the September 2021 election? | Total 44th GE | Total 43rd GE |
|---|---|---|
| One | 94% | 93% |
| Two | 2% | 5% |
| Three | 1% | <1% |
| More than three | 3% | 2% |
Across the country, the proportions of OA who supported single candidate range from 87 percent in Quebec to 97 percent in Ontario. The percentage is higher among first time OAs (97% vs. 89% who had served as an agent before).
For the purposes of completing the survey, the few OAs who acted for more than one candidate were asked to consider their experiences representing the candidate with the most complex reporting requirements.
B. Getting the campaign underway
1. If requirement to open a campaign bank account was clear
Eight in ten OAs say the obligation to open a campaign account was very clear.
Over nine in ten (94%) OAs say the obligation to open a candidate campaign-specific bank account was at least somewhat clear, including eight in ten (80%) who say it was very clear, both higher than for the 43rd GE.
| Q6 How clear was the obligation to open a bank account specifically for the candidate campaign? | Total 44th GE | Total 43rd GE |
|---|---|---|
| Net: Clear | 94% | 90% |
| Very clear | 80% | 73% |
| Somewhat clear | 14% | 18% |
| Net: Unclear | 5% | 8% |
| Not very clear | 3% | 4% |
| Not at all clear | 2% | 4% |
| Not sure | 1% | 1% |
High proportions across all subgroups say this requirement was at least somewhat clear. Saying it was very clear is notably higher among the following:
- Those who acted as an OA before (88%).
- Those who acted for more than one candidate (91%, vs. 80% who acted for only one).
2. Difficult aspects of opening a campaign bank account
The most difficult aspects of opening a campaign account continue to be dealing with the bank and sorting out the required documentation.
As was the case for OAs in the 43rd GE, over half describe some kind of difficulty with opening the campaign account. The most common problems include the bank being difficult to deal with (30%), that it was unclear what documentation was required (22%), or that obtaining the needed documentation was challenging (13%). Fewer than one in ten mention other issues, such as the bank staff not being prepared, or OAs themselves having a lack of information on how to proceed. Over four in ten (44%) say there were no difficult aspects to opening the campaign account. These results are very consistent with those from the previous survey.
| Q7 What, if any, aspects of opening a bank account specifically for the candidate campaign were difficult? | Total 44th GE | Total 43rd GE |
|---|---|---|
| The bank was difficult to deal with | 30% | 27% |
| Unclear what documentation was required | 22% | 19% |
| Obtaining the correct documentation was challenging | 13% | 12% |
| Bank/staff not prepared/needed more info on process/paperwork | 5% | 6% |
| Process/completing paperwork was difficult/challenging/took time | 4% | 1% |
| Lacked info on how to proceed (when to open/type of account etc.) | 3% | 4% |
| Issues with naming the account | 2% | 2% |
| Unable to schedule appointments with the bank | 1% | 0% |
| We didn't open an account/ran $0 campaign | <1% | 1% |
| Unable to open/access account electronically | <1% | 1% |
| Other | 1% | 2% |
| No aspects were difficult | 44% | 44% |
| Not sure | 1% | 3% |
In general, the types of difficulties mentioned are similar across the OA population, but there are a few differences:
- There were fewer mentions of the bank being difficult to deal with in Manitoba/Saskatchewan (19%) and the Atlantic region (15%) than in other parts of Canada (29% to 39%), and, by age, the most mentions were among those under age 35 (44%), and decreasing to lowest among those aged 55 and over (25%).
- There were more mentions that it was unclear what documentation was required to open the account among those under age 35 (34%) and among first-time OAs (26%).
C. Completing and submitting the electoral campaign return
1. If OA was official agent at time the electoral campaign return was prepared and submitted
Almost all were the official agent at the time the campaign return was prepared and submitted.
Virtually all responding OAs were in the position at the time the campaign return was prepared and submitted. This is the case across all subgroups of the population.
| Q8 Were you the official agent at the time the electoral campaign return was prepared and submitted? | Total 44th GE | Total 43rd GE |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 99% | 97% |
| No | <1% | 2% |
| Not sure | 1% | 1% |
2. How electoral campaign return was submitted
Close to three-quarters submitted the electoral campaign return via the Political Entities Service Centre (PESC).
Out of five possible methods for delivering the electoral campaign return for the 44th GE, almost three-quarters (73%)) used the Political Entity Service Centre (PESC), up from 62% for the 43rd GE. One-quarter (27%) used email (comparable to 43rd GE). Fewer report having used regular mail/courier for at least some portion of the delivery (13%, down from 27%). As in the previous survey, only very small minorities used in-person delivery or a fax.
| Q9 Which method(s) did you use to submit the electoral campaign return? | 44th GE (n=542) |
43rd GE (n=589) |
|---|---|---|
| Political Entity Service Centre (PESC) | 73% | 62% |
| 27% | 27% | |
| Regular mail or courier services | 13% | 27% |
| Delivered in person by the official agent or candidate | 2% | 3% |
| Fax | <1% | <1% |
| Not sure | 4% | 5% |
PESC is the most-used submission method across the country and all subgroups. Use of PESC is somewhat higher among those who attended training regarding the return (82%, vs. 66% who did not attend).
3. If OA attended training on how to complete and submit the electoral return
Just over four in ten attended training regarding the electoral return. Reasons for not attending come down to not knowing the training was available or the timing of the training being inconvenient.
Those who were OAs when the campaign return was filed were asked if they attended training on how to complete and submit the form. Just over four in ten did (44%), but a majority did not (52%). These results are similar to those of the survey following the 43rd GE.
| Q10 Did you attend training on how to complete and submit the return? | 44th GE (n=542) |
43rd GE (n=589) |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 44% | 43% |
| No | 52% | 54% |
| Not sure | 4% | 3% |
Attendance of this training among respondents ranges from a low of 33 percent in B.C. to a high of 54 percent in Quebec and Alberta. Attendance is notably higher among first-time OAs (51% vs 35% who were an OA in a previous election).
In a new question in this survey, those who did not attend training on the campaign return were asked why they did not. Five potential reasons were provided as a randomized list. The top reason, selected by three in ten (29%), was not being aware of the training available, followed by the timing not being convenient (20%). One in ten (11%) were not sure how to access training, and fewer indicate other reasons. Subgroup sizes are too small for deeper analysis.
| Q10B Why did you not attend or access the training on how to complete and submit the return? | 44th GE (n=280) |
|---|---|
| I was not aware of what was available | 29% |
| The timing of the sessions was not convenient | 20% |
| I did not know how to access it | 11% |
| Did not find the information useful | 7% |
| Do not like the online format for training | 6% |
| Other (not specified) | 38% |
| Not sure | 6% |
4. Ease of process of completing or submitting the electoral campaign return
Over half of OAs felt it was at least somewhat easy to complete the return, and six in ten say it was at least somewhat easy to submit it.
Official agents were asked to indicate how easy or difficult they found the process of completing the return and of submitting the return. Over half (55%) feel completing the return was at least somewhat easy, higher than it was for the 43rd GE (47%), although still fewer than one in ten (7%) thought it was very easy. Conversely, over four in ten (44%) say it was at least somewhat difficult, including more than one in ten who thought it was very easy (12%).
Six in ten (61%) found the process of submitting the return to be at least somewhat easy, and just under four in ten found (38%) it difficult to some extent. These results are slightly improved compared with the survey following the previous election.
| Overall, would you say that the process of … was…? | Q11 Completing (filling out) the electoral campaign return |
Q12 Submitting the electoral campaign return |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44th GE (n=542) |
43rd GE (n=589) |
44th GE (n=542) |
43rd GE (n=589) |
|
| Net: easy | 55% | 47% | 61% | 56% |
| Very easy | 7% | 6% | 17% | 14% |
| Somewhat easy | 48% | 41% | 44% | 41% |
| Net: difficult | 44% | 51% | 38% | 42% |
| Somewhat difficult | 32% | 36% | 29% | 27% |
| Very difficult | 12% | 15% | 9% | 15% |
| Not sure | 1% | 2% | 1% | 2% |
The proportions who say the process of completing the return was at least somewhat easy were similar across the country and most subgroups of the OA population. The following groups more often said it was easy:
- Experienced OAs (67%, vs. 46% of first-time OAs).
- Those acting for more than one candidate (73%, vs. 54% working with just one).
The proportions who say the process of submitting the return was easy were also generally similar across the country (55% to 66%), although highest in Alberta (72%). The following groups more often said it was easy:
- Experienced OAs (71%, vs. 53% of first-time OAs).
- Those acting for more than one candidate (76%, vs. 60% working with just one).
- Those who filed using PESC (64%, vs. 54% who submitted by email and 46% by postal mail or courier).
5. Difficult aspects of completing and submitting the electoral campaign return
The most difficult aspects of dealing with the campaign return continue to be the complexity of the form itself, and lack of clarity in the instructions on how to complete and submit it.
OAs were asked to indicate what aspects of completing and submitting the campaign return were difficult, if any. Five potential options were provided (shown with asterisks in the table below), and respondents could write in additional issues. One in four (24%) indicate no aspects were difficult.
Among the aspects identified, OAs most often said the form was too complex (29%), or that the instructions for completing (26%) or submitting (21%) the return were unclear. Two in ten (19%) indicate the training on how to complete the return needs improvement. Under one in ten mention other issues, with the highest unprompted difficulty being software-related issues, including the EFR being outdated or the website not being user friendly (8%).
| Q13 What, if any, aspects of completing and submitting the electoral campaign return were difficult? | 44th GE (n=542) |
43rd GE (n=589) |
|---|---|---|
| Form used to complete the return was too complex* | 29% | 29% |
| Instructions on how to complete the return were unclear* | 26% | 31% |
| Instructions on how to submit the return were unclear* | 21% | 31% |
| Training provided on how to complete submit return needs improvement* | 19% | 25% |
| Software issues/EFR outdated/website not user friendly | 8% | 10% |
| Date by which to submit the return was unclear* | 5% | 6% |
| Difficulties in uploading/submitting forms/ended up mailing them | 5% | 4% |
| Incompatible with Mac | 4% | 3% |
| Process difficult to manage/cumbersome/requirements hard to meet | 4% | 4% |
| Too time consuming/tedious to complete/too much work | 3% | 3% |
| Too many confusing categories to charge an expense to | 3% | - |
| The auditor did it for me/helped | 3% | - |
| Other mentions (1% or less each) | 8% | 9% |
| No aspects were difficult | 24% | 19% |
| Not sure | 3% | 5% |
*These options were shown to respondents
Results are generally consistent with the previous survey.
While the difficulties mentioned are quite similar by location and across most subgroups, the following are some notable differences:
- The form used to complete the electoral campaign return was too complex : mentioned more often by first time OAs (34% vs. 22% of others), those with only one candidate (30% vs. 15% with two or more) and those who attended training on the return (33%, vs. 25% who did not).
- The instructions on how to complete the electoral campaign return were unclear: mentioned more often by first time OAs (31% vs. 18% of others).
- The training provided on how to complete and submit the electoral campaign return needs improvement: mentioned more often by first time OAs (25% vs. 11% of others), those with only one candidate (20% vs 9% with two or more) and those who attended training on the return (26%, vs. 13%).
D. Electronic Financial Return (EFR)
1. Using the EFR software to prepare the return
About nine in ten OAs used the EFR software to prepare the campaign return.
Just under nine in ten (88%) OAs used the Electronic Financial Return (EFR) software to complete their campaign return, one in ten (9%) did not and four percent could not recall.
| Q14 Did you use the Electronic Financial Return (EFR) software to prepare the return? | 44th GE (n=542) |
43rd GE (n=589) |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 88% | 89% |
| No | 9% | 8% |
| Not sure | 4% | 3% |
Using the EFR to complete the return is the most frequent response across the country and across all population subgroups. It is more frequent among the following groups:
- Experienced OAs (94%, vs. 84% of first-time OAs).
- OAs who attended training about the return (92%, vs. 84% who did not attend).
- Those who filed using the PESC (94%).
- Those who found completing the return easy (92%, vs 84% who found it difficult).
2. Agreement with statements about using the EFR software
Official agents are most likely to agree to some extent the EFR software is accessible, that the instructions on how to find the EFR software were clear, and that it was easier to file the return using EFR than the manual process.
OAs who used EFR for campaign return were asked the indicate their level of agreement with six statements about working with the EFR. Two-thirds or more agree with the four positive statements presented: that the EFR software is accessible (77% net agree), that the instructions on how to locate the software were clear (77%), that it was easier to file the financial return this way as opposed to the manual process (72%), and that the software was easy to navigate (66%).
The remaining two statements were negative, meaning OAs who agreed were offering a negative assessment. However, three-quarters (73%) of OAs disagreed to some extent with the statement that the software was not easy to install (28% strongly disagreed) and just over half (52%) disagreed that the instructions on how to use the software and provide the submission file were not clear (12% strongly).
| Q15-19x To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about using the Electronic Financial Return (EFR) software to prepare the return? | Net agree (very + some-what) | Strongly agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly disagree | 43rd GE Net agree (very + some-what) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The EFR software is accessible | 77% | 23% | 54% | 10% | 7% | n/a |
| Instructions provided by EC on how to find this software were clear | 77% | 19% | 58% | 14% | 5% | 76% |
| It was easier to file the financial return using the EFR software than with the manual process | 72% | 34% | 39% | 6% | 4% | 60% |
| EFR software was easy to navigate | 66% | 15% | 50% | 19% | 13% | 65% |
| Instructions on how to use EFR software and provide the submission file were not clear | 43% | 11% | 33% | 40% | 12% | 49% |
| EFR software was not easy to install | 24% | 8% | 16% | 45% | 28% | 29% |
As in the previous survey for OAs in the 43rd GE, overall agreement with these statements is generally similar across the country and most subgroups, with some exceptions. As before, those who say they found either completing or submitting the return easy are more likely to agree with positive statements, while those finding these activities difficult are more likely to agree with the negative statements. Below are the other groups more likely to agree with each statement:
- The EFR software is accessible: Experienced OAs (81%, vs. 73% of first time OAs).
- The instructions provided by Elections Canada on how to find this software were clear: Age 55 and over (81%).
- The EFR software was easy to navigate: Experienced OAs (72%, vs. 61% of first time OAs); age 55 and over (70%).
- It was easier to file the financial return using the EFR software than with the manual process: OAs in Atlantic Canada (86%), experienced OAs (81%, vs. 65% of first time OAs).
- The instructions on how to use the EFR software and provide the submission file were not clear: First-time OAs (48%, vs. 37% with more experience), Quebec OAs (54%, vs. 27% to 46% of others), OAs who completed the survey in French (55%, vs. 41% of English respondents).
3. Why EFR was not used to prepare the return
OAs who did not use the EFR software mostly indicate the software could not be installed on their computer or that they preferred to prepare it manually.
The small number of OAs who did not use the EFR to file the campaign return (n=47) were asked why not. They were given six potential reasons (marked with an asterisk in the table below) and allowed to specify others as needed.
The main reasons for not using EFR are technical issues preventing installation of the software (30%), or preferring to prepare the return manually (30%). Two in ten (21%) volunteered that an accounting firm or auditor helped with the return as the reason for not using the EFR, more mentions than in the previous survey. Fewer cite the other reasons presented in the survey. Subgroup sizes are too small to permit deeper analysis.
| Q20 Why did you not use the Electronic Financial Return (EFR) software to prepare the return? | 44th GE (n=47**) |
43rd GE (n=47**) |
|---|---|---|
| EFR software could not be installed on my computer* | 30% | 28% |
| Prefer to prepare the financial return manually* | 30% | 38% |
| Accounting firm/auditor helped with it | 21% | <1% |
| Instructions to install the EFR software were not clear* | 15% | 19% |
| User Guide for the EFR software was difficult to find* | 13% | 13% |
| There was an error when I attempted to submit the final financial return file electronically* | 6% | 6% |
| Other | 11% | 30% |
* These options were shown to respondents
**Note: small base (n=<50); interpret with caution
A small number of OAs made other comments: some mention having no expenses/donations or not being aware of it; one person felt proprietary software was unethical to use for this purpose.
E. Political Entities Service Centre (PESC)
1. Use of Political Entities Service Centre (PESC)
Three-quarter of OAs used the PESC portal to upload and submit the candidate campaign return; those who did not most often preferred other methods or were not able to figure out how to use the portal.
In a new section in this version of the survey, OAs were given the following preamble:
The Political Entities Service Centre (PESC) is a tool that allows you to access electoral products and services and to upload and submit financial returns.
They were then asked if they used the PESC portal to upload and submit the candidate campaign return. Three-quarters used it.
| PE01 The Political Entities Service Centre (PESC) is a tool that allows you to access electoral products and services and to upload and submit financial returns. Did you use the Political Entities Service Centre (PESC portal) to upload and submit the candidate campaign return? |
Total 44th GE (n=548) |
|---|---|
| Yes | 75% |
| No | 18% |
| Not sure | 6% |
Use of the PESC portal is similar across the country (ranging from 69% of OAs in Quebec to 83% in the Atlantic) and majorities of all subgroups used it. Use is higher among those who attended training about the campaign return (82%, vs. 70% who did not attend).
The OAs who did not use the PESC to submit campaign documents (n=100) were asked why not. They were given four potential reasons (marked with an asterisk in the table below) and allowed to specify others as needed. The top reasons for not using the PESC are a preference for other ways of submitting the forms (34%) and not being able to figure how to use it to submit the return (22%). Around one in six were not able to figure out how to log in (18%), or were not aware for what purpose the portal could be used.
Subgroups sizes are too small for further analysis.
| PE02 Why did you not use the Political Entities Service Centre (PESC portal) to submit the campaign return or any other document? | Those not using the PESC (n=100) |
|---|---|
| Preferred to submit it another way* | 34% |
| Was not able to figure out how to submit* | 22% |
| Was not able to figure out how to log in* | 18% |
| Was not aware of what to use the PESC portal for* | 16% |
| Auditor did it for me | 10% |
| Completed forms by hand | 6% |
| Problem with uploading forms | 3% |
| I use a MacBook | 2% |
| Other | 2% |
| Not sure | 5% |
* These options were shown to respondents
3. Ease of using the Political Entities Service Centre
Seven in ten OAs who used the PESC portal felt it was at least somewhat easy to use
Those who used the PESC portal were asked how easy or difficult it was to use to submit the campaign return and other documents: Seven in ten (70%) report it being at least somewhat easy, with under one in five (17%) saying it was very easy. Three in ten (29%) say it was difficult to some extent.
| PE03 How easy or difficult was it to use the PESC portal to submit the campaign return and other documents | Those using the PESC (n=413) |
|---|---|
| Net: easy | 70% |
| Very easy | 17% |
| Somewhat easy | 53% |
| Net: difficult | 29% |
| Somewhat difficult | 23% |
| Very difficult | 7% |
| Not sure | 1% |
Across the country, at least majorities of OAs who used the PESC portal thought it was at least somewhat easy to use, ranging from 50 percent in Manitoba/Saskatchewan up to 85 percent in Alberta. This response was more frequent among the following:
- OAs with a university degree (73%).
- Experienced OAs (76%, vs. 66% of first time OAs).
4. Needing support to file the campaign return using PESC
Just over four in ten required support to use the PESC portal to file the campaign return
Users of the PESC were asked if they required support to use it to file the return. Just over half (55%) did not need support, while about four in ten did (42%).
| PE04 Did you require support to upload and submit your campaign return? | Those using the PESC (n=413) |
|---|---|
| Yes | 42% |
| No | 55% |
| Not sure | 3% |
Requiring support to file the return via the PESC portal is more frequent among the following:
- First-time OAs (50%, vs. 31% who have been an OA before).
- Those who attended training about the campaign return (47%, vs. 38% who did not).
- Those who had difficulties with the report in terms of completion (59%, vs. 28%) or submission (61%, vs. 31%).
The OAs who required support with the PESC (n=173) were asked what errors or difficulties they encountered. They were shown six potential issues. The top issues leading to a request for PESC support are requiring help to upload documents (53%) and needing help to apply digital consent (28%). Around one in ten each indicate their account link did not work (12%), not being able to remember or reset a passphrase (11%), or not knowing how to switch entities (10%).
| PE05 What errors or difficulties did you encounter with PESC that required support? | Those requiring PESC support (n=173) |
|---|---|
| I needed help to upload my documents | 53% |
| I needed help applying digital consent | 28% |
| The link I got to set up my account did not work | 12% |
| I could not remember my passphrase or reset it online | 11% |
| I did not know how to switch entities | 10% |
| I could not find the candidate I wanted to upload and submit for | 5% |
| Other (not specified) | 27% |
| Not sure | 13% |
6. Ease of getting support for using the Political Entities Service Centre
A seven in ten majority say it was at least somewhat easy to get PESC support
Seven in ten (70%) OAs who used PESC support say it was at least somewhat easy to obtain, around one-quarter (27%) say it was at least somewhat difficult. Across all subgroups, at least a majority said it was at least somewhat easy to obtain the support they needed with the PESC portal.
| PE06 How easy or difficult was it to obtain support to upload and submit your return? | Those requiring PESC support (n=173) |
|---|---|
| Net: easy | 70% |
| Very easy | 26% |
| Somewhat easy | 44% |
| Net: difficult | 27% |
| Somewhat difficult | 21% |
| Very difficult | 5% |
| Not sure | 3% |
F. Elections Canada products and services
1. Awareness and use of EC products and services
Of eight products and services, OAs are most likely to report having used the Political Financing Handbook or the 1-800 number, or to have corresponded with EC.
OAs were shown a list of EC products and services and asked to indicate which they had heard of or used. Almost all candidates are either aware of or used at least one. Only four percent of OAs did not use at least one of the products or services; this includes two percent of OAs who simply were not aware of any of EC's products or services. As was the case for OAs in the 43rd GE, the products and services with the highest overall awareness (either used or familiar with) are the Political Financing Handbook (94%), correspondence with EC (91%), the Political Entities Support Network toll-free number (78%) and the EFR videos (72%). Around two-thirds used or are aware of the PESC video (64%) and the self-paced training module (64%), and six in ten are familiar with the political financing cartoons (62%) and the live Q&A sessions (62%). Results are generally similar to the 43rd GE survey, except that more report awareness of the cartoons.
Use of EC's products and services follows a similar pattern to overall awareness. Close to nine in ten (87%) used the Political Financing Handbook, over seven in ten (73%) say they corresponded with EC, and half (51%) used the PESN 1-800 number. Four in ten or fewer OAs report using any of the other resources.
| Q23-31 . Did you use, or were you aware of, the following Elections Canada products and services? | Net aware (used + aware) | Yes, used it | Aware of but not used | Not aware | Not sure | Total 43rd GE Net aware (used + aware) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Political Financing Handbook for Candidates and Official Agents | 94% | 87% | 8% | 4% | 1% | 91% |
| Correspondence with EC | 91% | 73% | 18% | 6% | 3% | 88% |
| Political Entities Support Network 1-800# | 78% | 51% | 28% | 17% | 4% | 77% |
| Electronic Financial Return (EFR) videos | 72% | 39% | 33% | 23% | 5% | 52% |
| The Political Entities Service Centre (PESC) video | 64% | 32% | 33% | 28% | 7% | n/a |
| The self-paced training modules available in Elections Canada's Virtual Training Centre | 64% | 30% | 34% | 28% | 9% | n/a |
| Political Financing videos ("cartoons") | 62% | 28% | 35% | 32% | 5% | 43% |
| The live questions and answers sessions with Elections Canada subject-matter experts | 62% | 24% | 39% | 32% | 6% | n/a |
Similar proportions of OAs across the country and across most subgroups report having used or having been aware of the various products and services. Notable exceptions include more frequent usage among those who attended campaign return training of all products and services except for the Political Financing Handbook and EC correspondence, where use is the same. As well, first-time OAs are more likely than those who have served before to indicate using most of these, except for the Political Financing Handbook, EC correspondence and the 1-800 number.
Some specific products were used more often by certain groups:
- Correspondence with EC: file returned by e-mail (81%, vs. 75% filing by PESC or 68% by mail or courier).
- The Political Entities Support Network 1-800 #: Quebec (60%) and Atlantic region (61%, vs. 43% to 52% of others), did survey in French (62%, vs. 49% in English).
- EFR videos: Return filed via PESC (44%, vs. 28% by mail/courier or 37% by email).
- PESC videos: Return filed via PESC (38%, vs.25% by mail/courier or 30% by email).
- Self-paced training modules: Alberta (44%, vs. 17% to 33% of others).
2. If EC products and services used were helpful
The Political Financing Handbook, 1-800# and correspondence are the resources most thought to be helpful by their users..
OAs who used any products were shown a list of the ones they used and asked to indicate which they found helpful. Nine in ten (89%) who used the Political Financing Handbook indicate it was helpful, as do eight in ten (79%) users of the Political Entities Support Network 1-800 number. Three-quarters (76%) of those who corresponded with EC found this helpful. Majorities say the live questions and answers sessions (62%) and the self-paced training modules (54%) were helpful, while half say this of the cartoons (50%) or the PESC videos (49%).
| Q32 Which, if any, of these products did you find helpful?* | % saying resource was helpful | |
|---|---|---|
| 44th GE | 43rd GE | |
| Political Financing Handbook for Candidates and Official Agents (n=475) | 89% | 91% |
| Political Entities Support Network 1-800 # (n=278) | 79% | 78% |
| Correspondence with EC (n=399) | 76% | 81% |
| The live questions and answers sessions with Elections Canada subject-matter experts (n=130) | 62% | n/a |
| The self-paced training modules available in Elections Canada's Virtual Training Centre (n=164) | 54% | n/a |
| Electronic Financial Return (EFR) videos (n=215) | 53% | 70% |
| Political Financing videos ("cartoons") (n=151) | 50% | 55% |
| The Political Entities Service Centre (PESC) video (n=174) | 49% | n/a |
* The (n=) shown for each product are the GE44 survey bases
OAs could also indicate if another resource they used was helpful. Mentions mainly include direct contact with EC and the EC website in general, various auditors or accountants, the associated political party and/or previous OAs and campaign managers.
3. Difficult aspects of finding products/services on EC Political Financing website
The main difficulties with the Political Financing website continue to be related to navigation and presentation; training on dealing with the return and self-training modules also may need improvement.
All official agents were asked what, if any, aspects of finding needed products and services on Elections Canada's Political Financing website were difficult. Nine potential difficulties were provided (marked with an asterisk in the table below) and agents could write in other challenges. Three in ten (29%) experienced no issues. The most mentioned difficulties are that the site is hard to navigate/not user friendly (38%), that using the EFR software or PESC portal is too complicated (31%), that the products cannot be easily found (26%), and that the training for return completion and submission needs improvement (24%). Around two in ten or less provided other reasons as detailed in the table below.
Of the volunteered responses, the most mentioned are that the EFR software is not compatible with their MAC computers, that the process is too complicated or takes too long, or that the EFR is out of date or needs improvement.
| Q33 What, if any, aspects of finding the products or services you were looking for on Elections Canada's Political Financing website were difficult? | Total 44th GE | Total 43rd GE |
|---|---|---|
| Elections Canada website is hard to navigate/not user friendly* (43rd GE: Political Financing website is hard to navigate) | 38% | 35% |
| Using the EFR software or PESC portal is too complicated* | 31% | n/a |
| Products for Official Agents cannot be easily found* (43rd GE: Products for Official Agents are not clearly presented | 26% | 35% |
| Training on how to complete/submit return needs improvement* | 24% | 31% |
| Too much information on the Elections Canada website* (43rd GE: Too much information on the Political Financing website) | 22% | 22% |
| Self-paced training modules about the return need improvement* | 13% | n/a |
| The videos did not address topics required/needed* | 11% | n/a |
| PESC portal is not accessible* | 8% | n/a |
| Links to political financing resources the website did not work* (43rd GE: Links on the Political Financing website did not work) | 5% | 8% |
| EFR is not compatible with MAC computers | 3% | 1% |
| Process is complicated/takes too long | 2% | 2% |
| EFR is out of date/needs improvement | 2% | 2% |
| Other | 5% | 7% |
| There were no difficulties | 29% | 29% |
* These options were shown to respondents
Types of difficulties experienced are quite similar across the country and most subgroups. First time agents are more likely than those who have been agents before to have experienced most issues.
4. Agreement with statements about the Political Entities Support Network
Nine in ten or more agree to some extent with positive statements about their experience with the PESN staff; over seven in ten of OAs strongly agree the EC employee they dealt with via the PESN was courteous.
Official agents who used the Political Entities Support Network (n=278) were asked to indicate their level of agreement with six statements about the service they received. Strong proportions of nine in ten or more agree to some extent with all statements. Seven in ten (72%) strongly agree the employee with whom they dealt was courteous, and just under six in ten strongly agree they got what they needed (58%) or that the employee was knowledgeable (56%). Over half strongly agree they received a timely response (55%) or that they were satisfied with ease of access to the service (55%). Overall agreement with these statements is similar to the 43rd GE survey.
New this survey, almost all (97%) agree to some extent they were able to speak to someone in the language of their choice, including seven in ten (71%) who strongly agree to this.
| Q34-39 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the service you received from the EC 1-800 number for political entities? | Net agree (very + some-what) | Strongly agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly disagree | 43rd GE Net agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC employee was courteous | 98% | 72% | 26% | 1% | 0% | 97% |
| I was able to speak to someone in the language of my choice (French/English) | 97% | 71% | 26% | <1% | <1% | n/a |
| I received a response in a timely manner | 91% | 55% | 36% | 4% | 1% | 87% |
| I was satisfied with the ease of access to the service | 91% | 55% | 35% | 5% | 2% | 87% |
| In the end, I got what I needed | 90% | 58% | 31% | 4% | 3% | 88% |
| EC employee was knowledgeable | 90% | 56% | 33% | 5% | 3% | 90% |
Strong agreement with these statements is very consistent across the country and most subgroups.
5. Agreement with statements about corresponding with Elections Canada
Just under six in ten strongly agree the response they received by mail or email was courteous, and majorities agree to some extent with other positive statements about their contact with EC.
OAs who said they corresponded with EC by mail or email (n=359) were asked to indicate their level of agreement with four statements about the service they received. Close to nine in ten or more agree at least somewhat with each of the statements; strong agreement is highest (57%) for the statement that the response was courteous. Half strongly agree the response was informative (50%) or that they got what they needed ultimately (49%) and just under half strongly agree the response was timely (47%).
| Q40-43 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the service you received while corresponding by mail or email with Elections Canada: | Net agree (very + some-what) | Strongly agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly disagree | 43rd GE Net agree (n=415) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The response was courteous | 97% | 57% | 39% | 1% | <1% | 96% |
| In the end, I received the information I needed | 90% | 50% | 40% | 3% | 4% | 85% |
| The response was informative | 88% | 49% | 39% | 9% | 1% | 88% |
| The response was timely | 87% | 47% | 40% | 9% | 2% | 82% |
Strong agreement with these statements is statistically similar across the country and most subgroups of the OA population. A higher proportion (56%) of experienced OAs strongly agreed that in the end they got what was needed than first-time OAs (45%).
6. If any difficulties in accessibility were experienced
About one-quarter of OAs experienced accessibility difficulties when using EC products or services.
OAs were asked if they personally experienced any difficulties with accessibility when using or interacting with any of Elections Canada's products or services during or after this general election. Around one-quarter (23%) say they did, seven in ten (69%) did not, and just under one in ten (8%) are unable to say. However, it should be noted that, based on the responses to the next question, most of these difficulties do not appear to relate to accessibility issues faced by OAs who might need accommodation for a physical or cognitive disability or limitation.
| AC01 Did you personally experience any difficulties with accessibility when using or interacting with any of Elections Canada's products or services during or after this general election? | Total 44th GE |
|---|---|
| Yes | 23% |
| No | 69% |
| Not sure | 8% |
Across groups of OAs, only small proportions reported having accessibility difficulties, but these proportions were larger among the following:
- B.C. OAs (33%).
- First-time OAs (27%, vs. 18% with more experience).
7. Accessibility difficulties experienced
Accessibility issues largely relate to technical barriers, as in file upload problems or navigation not being user-friendly.
OAs who said they experienced an accessibility issue with EC products or services (n=127) were asked what challenges they experienced. It is clear not all of the reported accessibility difficulties relate to OAs who needed additional accommodation for a physical or cognitive limitation, but rather relate to having broader issues with technical difficulties, communications or instructions, or navigation problems. Subgroup sizes are too small to allow for deeper analysis.
| AC02 What accessibility difficulties did you experience? | Those experiencing accessibility difficulties (n=127) |
|---|---|
| Unsuccessful files/reports uploading | 18% |
| Bulky/hard to navigate/not user friendly | 16% |
| Hard to log in/poor connection/inaccessible | 11% |
| Software is not compatible with Mac computers | 10% |
| The whole process is extremely complex and time consuming | 9% |
| Poor customer service/unknowledgeable staff | 8% |
| Poor/no communication from staff at EC to update on changes/receipt of files | 6% |
| Rules/guidelines should be explained clearly | 6% |
| EFR is outdated/not intuitive to use | 5% |
| Inputting/updating data/information is complicated/does not appear on all reports | 4% |
| OA problems with computer skills | 4% |
| Inability to download EFR software on my computer | 2% |
| Confusion with inconsistent information from different agents | 2% |
| EC hours of operation | 2% |
| Other issues | 9% |
| No issues | 1% |
| Not sure | 5% |
8. Product and service gaps
OAs' top needs for products and services continue to be more flexible training availability, software updates (notably the EFR) and simplifying the process.
All OAs were asked if there were other products or services Elections Canada could have provided that would have made serving as an official agent easier. This was an open-ended question with no pre-coded options. About one-third provided at least one suggestion. Just under in ten mention a requirement for more flexible training that can be undertaken at any time, also the top response in the 43rd GE survey. Fewer OAs mention other individual suggestions, including updating the software (especially the EFR) and making it be compatible with a wider range of platforms, simplifying the process and eliminating duplication, and providing more examples about what expenses to report. One-third do not feel there are any additional products or services that would help them, and one-third are unsure.
| Q46 Are there any other products or services Elections Canada could have provided that would have made serving as an official agent easier for you? | Total 44th GE | Total 43rd GE |
|---|---|---|
| Training available to OA any time they join/training videos/step-by-step guide | 8% | 10% |
| Software to be updated/compatible with all OS (MAC, Linux etc.) | 7% | 6% |
| Simplify process/more straightforward/get rid of duplicate paperwork/audit | 4% | 5% |
| Update EFR/make it more user friendly/better links | 4% | 5% |
| Provide more info/examples to clarify process/what expenses to report | 4% | 7% |
| Relax requirements for banks and bank accounts/stay in tune with current banking practices | 3% | - |
| Dedicated knowledgeable staff support to guide/discuss/provide feedback | 2% | 4% |
| To confirm receipt once papers/reports are submitted/have an audit sent on time | 2% | 2% |
| Make report transmission easier/fillable PDFs or converter needed | 1% | 3% |
| Provide a check list for forms to be completed | 1% | 2% |
| Contact information to access local office/service when needed for support/inquiry | 1% | 2% |
| Other | 6% | 5% |
| Nothing else | 32% | 24% |
| Not sure | 35% | 40% |
Mentions remain quite consistent across the population. First-time OAs more often mentioned more flexible training (12%, vs. 3% who have more experience), as did those who said the submission of the return was difficult (12%).
G. Elections Canada audit
1. If contacted by EC for clarifications or additional information since return was filed
About six in ten OAs were contacted by EC after filing the campaign return for the 44th GE, identical to the proportion after the 43rd GE.
Just over six in ten (62%) OAs reported that they had been contacted by EC for clarifications or additional information since the filing of the return, identical to the proportion contacted after the 43rd GE.
| Q47 Have you been contacted by Elections Canada for clarifications or additional information since the electoral return was filed? | Total 44th GE | Total 43rd GE |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 62% | 62% |
| No | 34% | 36% |
| Not sure | 4% | 3% |
Majorities of OAs in all regions indicated having been contacted following the report submission; the proportion is lower in Manitoba/Saskatchewan (50%) and Ontario (55%) and highest in Quebec (74%). The proportion is notably higher among experienced OAs (71% vs. 55% of first timers) and those who acted for two or more candidates (82% vs, 61% with only one candidate).
2. How post-filing EC contact was made
Over nine in ten who were contacted by EC after the return was filed were reached by email.
Those who were contacted by EC following their submission of the campaign return (n=339) were asked how this contact was made (OAs could indicate both potential contact methods). Almost all (96%) say contact was made via email, and just under four in ten (37%) say they received a phone call.
| Q48 How did Elections Canada contact you? | 44th GE (n=339) |
43rd GE (n=375) |
|---|---|---|
| 96% | 89% | |
| Telephone | 37% | 40% |
| Not sure | <1% | 1% |
3. Agreement with statements about interactions with EC after the return was filed
Strong majorities of three-quarters or more agree with each of eight statements about their EC interactions after the return was filed. Agreement is highest that the EC employee was courteous, and lowest that they provided clear information.
OAs who were contacted by EC following the return submission (n=339) were asked to indicate their level of agreement with several statements about their interactions with EC. Three-quarters or more agree to some extent with each statement. Overall and strong agreement is highest that the employee was courteous (96% overall agreement, 58% strongly agree), and lowest that they were given clear information about any required next steps following the completion of the audit (76%), a new statement added in the 44th GEsurvey. Overall agreement for statements is generally similar to the survey after the 43rd GE.
| Q49-55x To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your interaction with Elections Canada after the return was filed: | Net agree (very + some-what) | Strongly agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly disagree | 43rd GE Net agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elections Canada employee was courteous | 96% | 58% | 38% | 1% | 1% | 94% |
| Elections Canada employee responded to my questions in a timely manner | 86% | 42% | 43% | 7% | 2% | 84% |
| Elections Canada employee was knowledgeable | 86% | 46% | 41% | 6% | 2% | 83% |
| Elections Canada employee provided sufficient time to complete the task | 85% | 46% | 39% | 8% | 4% | 83% |
| It was easy to submit the requested information | 82% | 41% | 41% | 19% | 4% | 75% |
| Elections Canada employee clearly described the steps needed to complete the task | 81% | 45% | 37% | 14% | 2% | 82% |
| Elections Canada employee followed up regularly after the initial contact until the task was complete | 79% | 39% | 0% | 11% | 3% | 67% |
| Elections Canada employee gave clear information about any required next steps following the completion of the audit | 76% | 40% | 37% | 14% | 5% | n/a |
Strong agreement with positive statements about EC interactions is generally similar across most subgroups. Quebec OAs are the most likely to strongly agree the employee was courteous (75%). Strong agreement with all statements is higher among those who used PESC to file the campaign return, and those indicating the return was easy to complete or submit.
H. Closing of the campaign
1. Ease or difficulty of completing steps for closing the campaign
The easiest aspects of closing the campaign continue to be closing the bank account and disposing of any surplus.
OAs were asked to indicate how easy or difficult they found each of four steps for closing the campaign. As was the case in the survey following the 43rd GE, the easiest steps were closing the campaign bank account and disposing of any surplus (net easy 72% each in 2023). These are followed by completing and submitting the statement of surplus (64%) and fulfilling reporting requirements (62%). One in seven (14%) did not indicate that any of these tasks was easy.
| Q56-59 For each of the following steps for closing the campaign, please indicate how easy or difficult it was to complete: | Net easy (very + some-what) | Very easy | Some-what easy | Some-what difficult | Very difficult | Not sure | 43rd GE Net easy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Closing the campaign bank accounts | 72% | 40% | 33% | 14% | 6% | 8% | 65% |
| Disposing of any surplus | 72% | 37% | 35% | 10% | 6% | 13% | 57% |
| Completing and submitting the statement of surplus | 64% | 22% | 42% | 17% | 8% | 11% | 48% |
| Fulfilling all reporting obligations before closing the campaign | 62% | 17% | 45% | 25% | 9% | 3% | 56% |
Saying each requirement was at least somewhat easy to accomplish is generally similar across the country. Saying it was at least somewhat easy to fulfil all reporting requirement is lower in B.C. (51%) than elsewhere (60% to70%). This is also higher among older OAs (67% age 55 and over, vs. 53% of younger OAs), experienced OAs (73% vs. 54% acting for the first time) and those who attended training (67%, vs. 59% who did not). Those who found it easy to complete or submit the return also found it easier to fulfil all requirements (82% who found it easy to complete vs. 39%; 80%who found it easy to submit vs. 37%).
2. Other comments
OAs would like to see a simplified process, improvements to the EFR software and PESC, streamlined audits, and more recognition that many OAs are volunteers by being flexible about timelines.
OAs provided a range of comments when asked if there was anything not covered in the survey they would like to share.
There were many requests for EC to make the process easier and less onerous. It was felt EC was heavy-handed when dealing with OAs and campaign audits, with some calls to be less punitive of errors to recognize that most OAs are volunteers and not professionals. Some felt they were being treated as criminals for honest mistakes. They would like EC to be less aggressive and more flexible on deadlines and in allowing extensions. It was noted that EC gives itself a long time to review returns, but that OAs are allowed only a few days to respond to requests.
Some suggested ways to streamline audits: increasing audit limits for contributions to reflect current economics, only requiring audits if the candidate achieves a certain % of vote and is over the audit limit. Some felt EC should be exclusively responsible for the auditing, since few private auditors appear to understand procedures and requirements. A small number of OAs made comments about audits being overly focused on tiny discrepancies, suggesting Elections Canada needs a de minimis rule, as in their opinion a lot of time and effort is spent tracking down insignificant amounts of money. There were also complaints that a $3,500 minimum audit was being required of a low budget campaign. There were a small number of complaints about leftover campaign signs in just satisfactory condition needing to be valued at market/replacement value, which was felt to violate basic accounting principles.
There were comments regarding the banking requirements, about having to open accounts for small campaigns and needing to close repeat candidates' accounts between elections (and having to incur costs for cheques and deposit slips each time).Some also mentioned areas where communications between EC and OAs could be improved: more advance notice for rule changes, having clear contact info and a handbook/startup guide link on home page, less wordy explanations on how to do things, and the need for a notice of receipt when documents are uploaded to PESC and a formal confirmation of closure when everything is done. It was noted that one OA complained a unilingual Anglophone was the one to review their submitted French documents.
As was the case in the survey after the 43rd GE, some OAs complained about the EFR being dated and counterintuitive, and that these functions need to be web-based if it cannot be made cross-platform (e.g. for Mac users).